Jehovah s witness dating service www datingworld
23)."The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say. It is true that Becker renders John 1:1c in German as "ein Gott," and he appears to have done so on the basis of the anarthrous theos.
What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is not the same as God, to put it more crudely, that is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves. But if one reads his accompanying commentary, it is clear that he does not regard the Logos as "a god" in the way the Watchtower does.
This rendering obscures the parallel with Gen 1:1, which John was echoing. Jd 5 P(72)." Again, I note that BDAG acknowledges that Christ is certainly called QEOS in Titus and Hebrews 1:8-9. "But above all Ignatius calls Christ qeo,j in many pass.: qeo.j VIhsou/j Cristo,j ITr 7:1; Cristo.j qeo,j ISm 10:1. He says that he is "not a theologian," by which he means, I suppose, that he is not biased in favor of one theological viewpoint, but rather approaches the text purely from a grammatical standpoint.
Notice that the original NWT translates the Greek as an adverb, not a noun. o` qeo.j h`mw/n IEph ins; 15:3; 18:2; IRo ins (twice); 3:3; IPol 8:3; to. However, it is questionable whether one approaching the text from a professed "non-theological" standpoint is any less free from bias than one professing a theological commitment; nor that a theological commitment necessarily precludes an objective analysis. Be Duhn as a "non-theologian" may limit his familiarity with much relevant scholarship (see, for example, Dr.
I'm not suggesting that no scholars may be found in support of the NWT or its translation of John 1:1, but these are in the minority and often are not as qualified in their field as the scores of scholars who advocate the traditional translation.
In the chart, below, we will examine how some scholars have been used in defense of the NWT and whether they actually support the Watchtower translation as claimed.
Four times the word other is introduced and every time without justification. In contrast to Genesis 1:1, the creation comes into existence not directly from God, but from the Logos. His emphasis on the distinction between theos and ho theos is to safeguard against modalism, not Trinitarianism."The bottom line is that "The Word was a god" is exactly what the Greek says.
But it is not clear that Barclay lied in the first place. He is not recognized in the scholarly community as an expert in Biblical Greek.Sound arguments from authority will consist of an accurate quotation from the scholar in question, which entails insuring that the context of the authority's statements are consistent with the argument being presented, and that contrary statements in the same passage are not removed with creative use of ellipses ("...").Further, the scholar must be a recognized authority in a field that pertains directly to the assertion being made.The Watchtower and Jehovah's Witness apologists have often cited scholars in support of the New World Translation in general, and particularly its rendering of John 1:1c ("and the Word was a god").Scholarly citation is a form of an "argument from authority." Such an argument cannot establish the truth or falsity of a given assertion; it can merely lend credence or cast doubt.