Why does the NWT translate John 10:33 as "a god"

[Phantasman]

Here's a complete article inside the NWT if you'd like it.

1808 “and the word was a god” The New Testament, in An
Improved Version, Upon the
Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s
New Translation: With a
Corrected Text, London.

1864 “and a god was the Word” The Emphatic Diaglott (J21,
interlinear reading), by
Benjamin Wilson, New York and
London.

1935 “and the Word was divine” The Bible—An American
Translation, by J. M. P.
Smith and E. J. Goodspeed,
Chicago.

1950 “and the Word was a god” New World Translation of the
Christian Greek Scriptures,
Brooklyn.

1975 “and a god (or, of a divine Das Evangelium nach
kind) was the Word” Johannes, by Siegfried
Schulz,Göttingen, Germany.

1978 “and godlike sort was Das Evangelium nach
the Logos” Johannes,by Johannes
Schneider,Berlin.

1979 “and a god was the Logos”* Das Evangelium nach
Johannes,by Jürgen Becker,
Würzburg, Germany.

These translations use such words as “a god,” “divine” or “godlike” because the Greek word θεός (the·os′) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·os′. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ὁ θεός, that is, the·os′ preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·os′. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god” or “divine” or “godlike” does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself.

In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as inMr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article “a” before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article “a” is inserted before the anarthrous θεός in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read “a god.” The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering.

In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in Joh 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite.” On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.”

Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns:

Scripture Text

New World Translation

King James Version

An American Translation

New International Version

Revised Standard Version

Today’s English Version

Mark

Mr 6:49 an apparition a spirit a ghost a ghost a ghost a ghost

Mr 11:32 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a real prophet a prophet

John

Joh 4:19 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet

Joh 6:70 a slanderer a devil an informer a devil a devil a devil

Joh 8:44 a manslayer a murderer a murderer a murderer a murderer a murderer

Joh 8:44 a liar a liar a liar a liar a liar a liar

Joh 9:17 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet

Joh 10:1 a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief

Joh 10:13 a hired man an hireling a hired man a hired hand a hireling a hired man

Joh 10:33 a man a man a mere man a mere man a man a man

Joh 12:6 a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief

Good post. I found that the people who question the NWT, are those that believe the idea of Trinity. In truth, the NWT went through more scrutiny and sources than the KJV even came close to. Many translators weren't even JWs, but knowledgeable scholars in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic languages. Yet people would put more faith in Wycliffe/Tyndale version, translated by a single person from the Latin Vulgate.

The NWT is not my only Bible, but rates in the high 4 of mirroring the intent of the scripture authors. And I am not a JW.

 

[yogosans14]

Good post. I found that the people who question the NWT, are those that believe the idea of Trinity. In truth, the NWT went through more scrutiny and sources than the KJV even came close to. Many translators weren't even JWs, but knowledgeable scholars in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic languages. Yet people would put more faith in Wycliffe/Tyndale version, translated by a single person from the Latin Vulgate.

The NWT is not my only Bible, but rates in the high 4 of mirroring the intent of the scripture authors. And I am not a JW.

Pfft, I used to be just like you. Praising the NWT and calling every religion false because they dont believe in the Trinity. What really opened my eyes is in John 20:28 where Thomas calls Jesus his Lord and his GOD!The holy spirit really woke me up!I even learned this in the NWT!Then I started looking into the Greek vs the NWT and i founded wow is this grossly bias!

Praise God for showing me the truth about this perversion

 

[tezboski99]

Pfft, I used to be just like you. Praising the NWT and calling every religion false because they dont believe in the Trinity. What really opened my eyes is in John 20:28 where Thomas calls Jesus his Lord and his GOD!The holy spirit really woke me up!I even learned this in the NWT!Then I started looking into the Greek vs the NWT and i founded wow is this grossly bias!

Praise God for showing me the truth about this perversion

Did you ever think it was odd that when Jesus appeared to Mary a few verses earlier in the same chapter that faithful Mary didn't call Jesus "GOD" or offer worship in any particular way? She didn't even bow down to him. And what did the newly resurrected Jesus say to her?

Jesus said to her, “Mary.”
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).
17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!”

After this Jesus appears to the disciples and Thomas. Has anyone ever offered up an explanation as to why Jesus (GOD) calls the Father his own "GOD and Father"?

Does GOD HAVE his own GOD?

 

[crimsonleaf]

Good post. I found that the people who question the NWT, are those that believe the idea of Trinity. In truth, the NWT went through more scrutiny and sources than the KJV even came close to. Many translators weren't even JWs, but knowledgeable scholars in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic languages. Yet people would put more faith in Wycliffe/Tyndale version, translated by a single person from the Latin Vulgate.

The NWT is not my only Bible, but rates in the high 4 of mirroring the intent of the scripture authors. And I am not a JW.

Do you think that all modern bible translators sit in a room with a KJV and copy it into plain English? Is the ESV or the NIV or the ASB translated by one person?

The amount of research which goes into a modern translation is staggering, and the translation "God" rather than "a god" is virtually universally accepted amongst Greek scholars and only differs in the cults.

 

[tezboski99]

Do you think that all modern bible translators sit in a room with a KJV and copy it into plain English? Is the ESV or the NIV or the ASB translated by one person?

The amount of research which goes into a modern translation is staggering, and the translation "God" rather than "a god" is virtually universally accepted amongst Greek scholars and only differs in the cults.

I'd agree that there's a LOT of research that goes into translation and that the rendering "the word was god" is the traditional rendering.

Yet, as posted above, there is solid ground for the rendering "a god" as well, and there are many scholars that fully agree with this rendering. Other scholars, while they may not agree, will at least acknowlege that "a god" is a solid linguistic translation on valid grounds.

So what should we all do? Should we count how many scholars each side can muster up and whoever has the most determines which is correct?

I myself belive that the illustration that GOD has provided in the bible clears up things dramatically. At Romans 8:29 and Hebrews 2:11 GOD has described His relationship with Jesus and humans as a family. In that family Jesus is a Son with brothers and sisters who all share the same Father with Jesus. This doesn't support Trinity at all. So, the logical conclustion is that the proper rendering should be "a god" since it makes no sense that GOD would be both your Father and brother at the same time.

Romans 8:17,29 NLT
"And since we are his children, we are his heirs. In fact, together with Christ we are heirs of God’s glory. For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters."

Hebrews 2:11 NLT
"So now Jesus and the ones he makes holy have the same Father. That is why Jesus is not ashamed to call them his brothers and sisters."

Basically, saved humans are children of GOD but brothers and sisters to Jesus.

 

[Phantasman]

Pfft, I used to be just like you. Praising the NWT and calling every religion false because they dont believe in the Trinity. What really opened my eyes is in John 20:28 where Thomas calls Jesus his Lord and his GOD!The holy spirit really woke me up!I even learned this in the NWT!Then I started looking into the Greek vs the NWT and i founded wow is this grossly bias!

Praise God for showing me the truth about this perversion

And I used to be like you.

The Bible promotes messages, and some see it and some don't. When you analyze exact wording, you can miss the message. It is why I use more than one Bible to study Bible, and more than Biblical scriptures to obtain truth.

If Jesus is A God, he IS our God, so Thomas was right. But to use only one verse to identify all verses is dangerous. Did Paul ever say Jesus was his God? Or that Jesus was God? How about anyone other than Thomas?
Didn't Paul always say "God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ"? When I find a division on Biblical messages I consult the other (non Canonical) scriptures for more information, rather than accepting something because someone tells me to.

 

[ChetSinger]

I'm no Greek or Hebrew scholar, so I've found the footnotes in the NET Bible to be helpful to me. The footnotes are usually longer than the text itself, and are sometimes little history or language lessons of their own.

Below is one of the footnotes for John 1:1. In sum, the translators state that the most nuanced translation might be "what God was the Word was". That nuance is, I believe, repeated in this phrase from the Nicene creed: "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,...being of one substance with the Father".

Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.

 

[Phantasman]

Do you think that all modern bible translators sit in a room with a KJV and copy it into plain English? Is the ESV or the NIV or the ASB translated by one person?

The amount of research which goes into a modern translation is staggering, and the translation "God" rather than "a god" is virtually universally accepted amongst Greek scholars and only differs in the cults.

Did I say that? I know that todays translations are done with more people having input. So do you think the Wycliffe and Tyndale versions had lots of scholars translating them, and that what I said was in error?

If you don't have doubts about translated versions like the NKJV, then read this:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7705513/

I have shown how people take the Bible literally, and just adding a word "the" and capitalizing one letter changes the message of the literalist.

 

[tezboski99]

I'm no Greek or Hebrew scholar, so I've found the footnotes in the NET Bible to be helpful to me. The footnotes are usually longer than the text itself, and are sometimes little history or language lessons of their own.

Below is one of the footnotes for John 1:1. In sum, the translators state that the most nuanced translation might be "what God was the Word was". That nuance is, I believe, repeated in this phrase from the Nicene creed: "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,...being of one substance with the Father".

It seems that you and I are in the same boat. I'm not a scholar of greek, hebrew, or any other language other than english. There are scholars that swing both ways. Should we all take a head count and let the scholars vote on the issue?

In the end we have to use our reliance on GOD to open our minds to which is rendering true and accurate. The rendering "the word was god" supports Trinity, the rendering "the word was a god" doesn't.

When GOD says of Himself that He isn't a "god of confusion, but of peace" that "doesn't speak from some dark corner" this doesn't seem to support the Trinity teaching along with the traditional rendering but rather, logically supports the rendering of "a god".

Isaiah 45:19
"I publicly proclaim bold promises.
I do not whisper obscurities in some dark corner.
I would not have told the people of Israel to seek me
if I could not be found.
I, the Lord, speak only what is true
and declare only what is right."

1 corinthians 14:33
" For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace..."

The most reasonable, logical, harmonious, and consistant rendering is "a god". It just so happens to not be the most popular rendering.

Oh, hey ChetSinger!! I was just reading and typing. I didn't notice it was you. Doing okay?

 

[Clearly]

Crimson leaf said in post # 24 : “The amount of research which goes into a modern translation is staggering, and the translation "God" rather than "a god" is virtually universally accepted amongst Greek scholars and only differs in the cults.”

Tezboski99 said in post #25 “I'd agree that there's a LOT of research that goes into translation and that the rendering "the word was god" is the traditional rendering.”

Crimson leaf and Tezboski99 :

I think that non-translators often imagine the process of interpretation and translation inaccurately and often tend to either inaccurately embellish this process (both positively and negatively, depending upon the point they are trying to justify...).

Since you both seem to agree that a “staggering” amount of research goes into a translation, can you describe how your imagined process of translation applies specifically to the verse in John 10:33?

Since it is grammatically correct to render John 10:33 into english as “God” or as “the God” or as “a God”, what sort of specific "staggering amount of research" do you imagine originally went into the grammatical criteria used to render the greek as “God” rather than as “a God” or a "the God", into english in this verse?

Thanks in advance for your time.

Clearly
drsenedr

 

[ChetSinger]

It seems that you and I are in the same boat. I'm not a scholar of greek, hebrew, or any other language other than english. There are scholars that swing both ways. Should we all take a head count and let the scholars vote on the issue?

In the end we have to use our reliance on GOD to open our minds to which is rendering true and accurate. The rendering "the word was god" supports Trinity, the rendering "the word was a god" doesn't.

When GOD says of Himself that He isn't a "god of confusion, but of peace" that "doesn't speak from some dark corner" this doesn't seem to support the Trinity teaching along with the traditional rendering but rather, logically supports the rendering of "a god".

Isaiah 45:19
"I publicly proclaim bold promises.
I do not whisper obscurities in some dark corner.
I would not have told the people of Israel to seek me
if I could not be found.
I, the Lord, speak only what is true
and declare only what is right."

1 corinthians 14:33
" For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace..."

The most reasonable, logical, harmonious, and consistant rendering is "a god". It just so happens to not be the most popular rendering.

Oh, hey ChetSinger!! I was just reading and typing. I didn't notice it was you. Doing okay?

Hi! Yep, hanging in there. No kids are at home right now so the place is eerily quiet. But that will change in a couple of weeks. I'm going to be taught how to operate the sound board at church. Tonight is our first practice, and I'm looking forward to it.

 

[tezboski99]

Hi! Yep, hanging in there. No kids are at home right now so the place is eerily quiet. But that will change in a couple of weeks. I'm going to be taught how to operate the sound board at church. Tonight is our first practice, and I'm looking forward to it.

Congrats!! I myself WISH I could have some quiet time. Kids are 4yrs and 2yrs. My quiet time consists of parking a block away from the daycare and sitting for 10-15 minutes before I pick them up!!

 

[yogosans14]

Did you ever think it was odd that when Jesus appeared to Mary a few verses earlier in the same chapter that faithful Mary didn't call Jesus "GOD" or offer worship in any particular way? She didn't even bow down to him. And what did the newly resurrected Jesus say to her?

Jesus said to her, “Mary.”
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).
17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!”

After this Jesus appears to the disciples and Thomas. Has anyone ever offered up an explanation as to why Jesus (GOD) calls the Father his own "GOD and Father"?

Does GOD HAVE his own GOD?

Wow, JWs have no clue what the Trinity doctrine IS. They say "oh so was Jesus his own father"? your confusing the Trinity with the Oneness doctrine.


The most difficult thing about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to perfectly and completely understand it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely greater than we are; therefore, we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. The Bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different Persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean the Trinity is not true or that it is not based on the teachings of the Bible.

The Trinity is one God existing in three Persons. Understand that this is not in any way suggesting three Gods. Keep in mind when studying this subject that the word “Trinity” is not found in Scripture. This is a term that is used to attempt to describe the triune God—three coexistent, co-eternal Persons who make up God. Of real importance is that the concept represented by the word “Trinity” does exist in Scripture. The following is what God’s Word says about the Trinity:

1) There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5).

2) The Trinity consists of three Persons (Genesis 1:1, 26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew plural noun "Elohim" is used. In Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for “us” is used. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun “us” are plural forms, definitely referring in the Hebrew language to more than two. While this is not an explicit argument for the Trinity, it does denote the aspect of plurality in God. The Hebrew word for "God," "Elohim," definitely allows for the Trinity.

In Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1, the Son is speaking while making reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Compare Isaiah 61:1 to Luke 4:14-19 to see that it is the Son speaking. Matthew 3:16-17 describes the event of Jesus' baptism. Seen in this passage is God the Holy Spirit descending on God the Son while God the Father proclaims His pleasure in the Son. Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are examples of three distinct Persons in the Trinity.

3) The members of the Trinity are distinguished one from another in various passages. In the Old Testament, “LORD” is distinguished from “Lord” (Genesis 19:24; Hosea 1:4). The LORD has a Son (Psalm 2:7, 12; Proverbs 30:2-4). The Spirit is distinguished from the “LORD” (Numbers 27:18) and from “God” (Psalm 51:10-12). God the Son is distinguished from God the Father (Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9). In the New Testament, Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17). This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Consider also all the other times in the Gospels where Jesus speaks to the Father. Was He speaking to Himself? No. He spoke to another Person in the Trinity—the Father.

4) Each member of the Trinity is God. The Father is God (John 6:27; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2). The Son is God (John 1:1, 14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20). The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16).

5) There is subordination within the Trinity. Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father. This is an internal relationship and does not deny the deity of any Person of the Trinity. This is simply an area which our finite minds cannot understand concerning the infinite God. Concerning the Son see Luke 22:42, John 5:36, John 20:21, and 1 John 4:14. Concerning the Holy Spirit see John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, and especially John 16:13-14.

6) The individual members of the Trinity have different tasks. The Father is the ultimate source or cause of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11); divine revelation (Revelation 1:1); salvation (John 3:16-17); and Jesus' human works (John 5:17; 14:10). The Father initiates all of these things.

The Son is the agent through whom the Father does the following works: the creation and maintenance of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17); divine revelation (John 1:1, 16:12-15; Matthew 11:27; Revelation 1:1); and salvation (2 Corinthians 5:19; Matthew 1:21; John 4:42). The Father does all these things through the Son, who functions as His agent.

The Holy Spirit is the means by whom the Father does the following works: creation and maintenance of the universe (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; Psalm 104:30); divine revelation (John 16:12-15; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21); salvation (John 3:6; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:2); and Jesus' works (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 10:38). Thus, the Father does all these things by the power of the Holy Spirit.

There have been many attempts to develop illustrations of the Trinity. However, none of the popular illustrations are completely accurate. The egg (or apple) fails in that the shell, white, and yolk are parts of the egg, not the egg in themselves, just as the skin, flesh, and seeds of the apple are parts of it, not the apple itself. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not parts of God; each of them is God. The water illustration is somewhat better, but it still fails to adequately describe the Trinity. Liquid, vapor, and ice are forms of water. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not forms of God, each of them is God. So, while these illustrations may give us a picture of the Trinity, the picture is not entirely accurate. An infinite God cannot be fully described by a finite illustration.

The doctrine of the Trinity has been a divisive issue throughout the entire history of the Christian church. While the core aspects of the Trinity are clearly presented in God’s Word, some of the side issues are not as explicitly clear. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but there is only one God. That is the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Beyond that, the issues are, to a certain extent, debatable and non-essential. Rather than attempting to fully define the Trinity with our finite human minds, we would be better served by focusing on the fact of God's greatness and His infinitely higher nature. “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” (Romans 11:33-34).

God bless and remember Jesus saves!No an organization that sprouted up in the 1800's!

 

[yogosans14]

And I used to be like you.

The Bible promotes messages, and some see it and some don't. When you analyze exact wording, you can miss the message. It is why I use more than one Bible to study Bible, and more than Biblical scriptures to obtain truth.

If Jesus is A God, he IS our God, so Thomas was right. But to use only one verse to identify all verses is dangerous. Did Paul ever say Jesus was his God? Or that Jesus was God? How about anyone other than Thomas?
Didn't Paul always say "God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ"? When I find a division on Biblical messages I consult the other (non Canonical) scriptures for more information, rather than accepting something because someone tells me to.

The Holy Spirit showed me the truth. I dont need you or a magazine telling me otherwise.

 

[tezboski99]

The most difficult thing about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to perfectly and completely understand it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely greater than we are; therefore, we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. The Bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different Persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean the Trinity is not true or that it is not based on the teachings of the Bible.

There have been many attempts to develop illustrations of the Trinity. However, none of the popular illustrations are completely accurate. The egg (or apple) fails in that the shell, white, and yolk are parts of the egg, not the egg in themselves, just as the skin, flesh, and seeds of the apple are parts of it, not the apple itself. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not parts of God; each of them is God. The water illustration is somewhat better, but it still fails to adequately describe the Trinity. Liquid, vapor, and ice are forms of water. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not forms of God, each of them is God. So, while these illustrations may give us a picture of the Trinity, the picture is not entirely accurate. An infinite God cannot be fully described by a finite illustration.

I myself believe in the illustration that GOD provided to describe the Trinity in the bible. He used the illustration of a family. A Father with offspring. Unfortunately, that description HE provided doesn't support the Trinity at all.

Romans 8:17, 29
And since we are his children, we are his heirs. In fact, together with Christ we are heirs of God’s glory. For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

Hebrews 2:11-12
So now Jesus and the ones he makes holy have the same Father. That is why Jesus is not ashamed to call them his brothers and sisters.

The reasoning is simple. IF GOD's own PERFECT illustration doesn't fit the Trinity teaching...either there is a mistake with GOD's choice of illustration OR the Trinity isn't from GOD. So, of course, I don't believe in the Trinity teaching. I already know there isn't anyone out there that can explain to me how GOD's flawless illustration fits the concept or idea of Trinity. SO, which is accurate? GOD's illustration or the Trinity teaching?

 

[ChristianLife08]

I know it does in John 1:1 but I dont understand why in John 10:33...

30 I and the Father are one.”*+
31 Once more the Jews lifted up stones to stone him.+ 32 Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to YOU many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are YOU stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy,+ even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.”(NWT)

I dont get it, why the need to change that passage?Claiming to be a mere angel was punishable by death?

Oh boy. This is a good question. A better question would be, in trying to bring such an accurate translation, why did the scholars for the NWT either ignore or remain ignorant of greek grammar?

This is a simple answer as to why my friend. in both John 1 and 10 the term for God is the same term, Theos. It's the general term in describing God the Father, God as Creator etc. Now, in the Greek there's a grammatical category called an "anarthrous". Basically, it's function in the Greek language acts as an INDEFINITE ARTICLE many times in the english placing an "a" or "an" in front of the word. HOWEVER, and this is key, in most cases it's function is in pointing out the QUALITY of something. As opposed to the definite article where many times in the English it translates with the word "the" in front of it, emphasizing the person or thing. (i.e. Heb. 12:1- let us run with patience THE race that is set before us.) So, in the correct context, with John using "God/Theos" in an anarthrous form, his intention is in wishing the DESCRIBE the CHARACTER of the Word, that is Jesus. Therefore, correctly translated to " and the Word WAS GOD". Again, pointing our the QUALITY of who the word was. for if you read the end of John gospel that's his whole intent. Writing the account so that we may know the Christ and who the Son of God is.

Now back to the NWT. This is improperly translated and has led countless astray from the true Christ and Savior. The reason this happened perhaps is because the scholars were so focused on a word for word, true literal translation they perhaps got so literal they forgot the grammatical context of it all.

 

[tezboski99]

Oh boy. This is a good question. A better question would be, in trying to bring such an accurate translation, why did the scholars for the NWT either ignore or remain ignorant of greek grammar?

This is a simple answer as to why my friend. in both John 1 and 10 the term for God is the same term, Theos. It's the general term in describing God the Father, God as Creator etc. Now, in the Greek there's a grammatical category called an "anarthrous". Basically, it's function in the Greek language acts as an INDEFINITE ARTICLE many times in the english placing an "a" or "an" in front of the word. HOWEVER, and this is key, in most cases it's function is in pointing out the QUALITY of something. As opposed to the definite article where many times in the English it translates with the word "the" in front of it, emphasizing the person or thing. (i.e. Heb. 12:1- let us run with patience THE race that is set before us.) So, in the correct context, with John using "God/Theos" in an anarthrous form, his intention is in wishing the DESCRIBE the CHARACTER of the Word, that is Jesus. Therefore, correctly translated to " and the Word WAS GOD". Again, pointing our the QUALITY of who the word was. for if you read the end of John gospel that's his whole intent. Writing the account so that we may know the Christ and who the Son of God is.

Now back to the NWT. This is improperly translated and has led countless astray from the true Christ and Savior. The reason this happened perhaps is because the scholars were so focused on a word for word, true literal translation they perhaps got so literal they forgot the grammatical context of it all.

When it comes to translation accuracy I already posted an entire article as to why John 1:1 and 10:13 are translated the way they are. It has experts that agree and some others that begrudgingly admit that it's a valid linguistic translation even though they don't like it.

But does ANYONE have an answer as to why the family illustration provided by GOD doesn't fit the Trinity teaching that's also from GOD?

 

[ChristianLife08]

When it comes to translation accuracy I already posted an entire article as to why John 1:1 and 10:13 are translated the way they are. It has experts that agree and some others that begrudgingly admit that it's a valid linguistic translation even though they don't like it.

But does ANYONE have an answer as to why the family illustration provided by GOD doesn't fit the Trinity teaching that's also from GOD?

ah, key word you said, LINGUISTICALLY. Which as i already confessed, the NWT is translated literally. So much so the scholars IGNORED the greek grammar, putting then many verses out of context. refer to my previous post, seeing you didn't address any of the points yourself my friend. I've read many commentaries and opinions on this topic, for I am an apologist at heart. and rest assured just as much as you find support for. there are the same that debunk the accuracy. One being the explanation i gave on the usage of the anarthrous.

And please stay on topic. the thread is about the NWT and it's mis-translation. Not about the Trinity.

 

[Clearly]

Tezboski99 :

First, I hope no one is confused by ChristianLife08's unusual claims regarding “anarthrous greek" . An "anarthrous" noun in Greek is simply a noun that lacks an article. If a child points out a window and says “Dog”, he is using an “anarthrous” noun. One cannot tell if he means to say “A dog”, or “THE dog”. Nor does this use of an anarthrous noun create a “character” for the dog. I believe people who cannot read Greek should not try to explain greek.


I have some thoughts as to why modern trinity models don’t fit historical texts but I’m at work and haven’t found time. I’ll have to wait til there is a lull in my schedule to be able to take a moment to respond. Perhaps later tonight.

Clearly
vivisil

 

[ChristianLife08]

Tezboski99 :

First, I hope no one is confused by ChristianLife08's unusual claims regarding “anarthrous greek" . An "anarthrous" noun in Greek is simply a noun that lacks an article. If a child points out a window and says “Dog”, he is using an “anarthrous” noun. One cannot tell if he means to say “A dog”, or “THE dog”. Nor does this use of an anarthrous noun create a “character” for the dog. I believe people who cannot read Greek should not try to explain greek.


I have some thoughts as to why modern trinity models don’t fit historical texts but I’m at work and haven’t found time. I’ll have to wait til there is a lull in my schedule to be able to take a moment to respond. Perhaps later tonight.

Clearly
vivisil

i think i explained it quite clear. especially with giving a definition of it. And knowing the use of an anarthrous is CRUCIAL when talking on this subject. otherwise, when translating we run into the problem as such with the NWT.

either way, i appreciate you wishing to clarify further.

Be Blessed.