6 Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses

[feedm3]

I answered everything in your post up to here. I copied it and pasted it in another paper. The reason is, when I got to what you said below, I was shocked.

I can not believe your explanation for what the article says. I will give you a chance to look it over, but if your unwilling to admit this author is plainly saying Jesus can be worshiped in its normal sense, I dont see the point in going any further.

Yes, because that article is using the word "worship" in the same flexible manner that you find in the King James Version (from which the magazine commonly quoted). This isn't new information. Here's what Dr. BeDuhn wrote on the subject, with which I agree fully:

Blue text = (page 216 of the July 15, 1898 edition of the Watchtower magazine)

Red, bold, underline, and parenthetical statements added by me for emphasis:

"The fact that our Lord received worship is claimed by some to be an evidence that while on earth he was God the Father disguised in a body of flesh and not really a man. Was he really worshiped, or is the translation faulty?" (<-----He asking "was he really worhiped in the sense we believe worship to mean, not using a flexablie meanig, which is why he said "OR is the tranlation faulty". He never brings up another sense of th word)

"Answer: Yes, we believe our Lord Jesus while on earth was really worshiped, and properly so..."<----His answer: "YES" he was "really worshiped". Are you saying "really worshiped" means obeisance? How would this be answering the question he posed? He is speaking of the "worship claimed by SOME to be EVIDENCE HE WAS GOD"

"It was proper for our Lord to receive worship" < now he is going to tell us why it was proper for him to receive worship in the sense that people claim it makes him God.

"in view of his having been the only begotten of the Father, and his agent in the creation of all things, including man." <-----This is the reason why He says Jesus could be "worshiped in the sense people claim makes him God" because he is the ONLY begotten of the Father.

I cant believe I even had to explain this. You know what he saying here. Are you really that unwilling to admit that this is saying Jesus can be worshiped?

The author here was not trying argue the other sense of the word, he never mentioned it. His argument is that Jesus could be worshiped like God, because he is the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father.

you know that is the oppisite of what you have been arguing. But then you say you agree with him? If you agree with him, then you agree the word is worship in it's normal sense, but you dont believe that makes him God, just that he was quailified to receive the same kind of worship as God, because he was his representative.

That is what the JW author is saying, and you know it.

Please answer this truthfully, and then I will paste the remainder of this post.

 

[cfultz3]

FreeM3 is doing a fine job by himself

 

[TJ12]

Hello feedm3,

I answered everything in your post up to here. I copied it and pasted it in another paper. The reason is, when I got to what you said below, I was shocked.

I can not believe your explanation for what the article says. I will give you a chance to look it over, but if your unwilling to admit this author is plainly saying Jesus can be worshiped in its normal sense, I dont see the point in going any further.

feedm3, I don't know from which website you're going for all this great information, but they sure leave you in the dark. You get so carried away with only partial facts, time after time, making all types of accusations both against Jehovah's Witnesses in general and me personally, and you don't seem to learn to be more careful when you find out here that there's more factors of which you are just unaware.

You didn't quote the whole question-and-answer from the article; you only quoted just a few lines with your commentary. Here's the unedited version:

Question. The fact that our Lord received worship is claimed by some to be an evidence that while on earth he was God the Father disguised in a body of flesh and not really a man. Was he really worshiped, or is the translation faulty?

Answer. Yes, we believe our Lord Jesus while on earth was really worshiped, and properly so. While he was not the God, Jehovah, he was a God. The word "God" signifies a "mighty one," and our Lord was indeed a mighty one. So it is stated in the first two verses of the gospel of John. It was proper for our Lord to receive worship in view of his having been the only begotten of the Father, and his agent in the creation of all things, including man.

Besides, he had come to earth under the divine arrangement and accepted the condition of Messiahship, presenting himself to God as fallen man's sin-offering; besides, at his baptism he was anointed of the holy spirit as the Messiah, and authorized to carry out the great divine plan and to receive homage from both angels and men. This alone would have rendered worship proper even aside from his pre-human greatness as "the only begotten of the Father."

Thus it states clearly that the worship is not the worship rendered God, but for his high status and position under God. It explicitly says that even aside from his being the only-begotten Son, just in his role as the Messiah is enough for him to "have received worship proper." The article is using the word "worship" with the broader definition than is common today (over 100 years later). That the broader definition that Dr. BeDuhn spoke of is being used here is apparent from the synonym used, "homage". It's that secondary (and thus still proper) aspect of worship that's being emphasized.

Still utterly shocked? The following should clear up any remaining doubt and show you that our views have not changed. Here's how it's explained much more comprehensively in the fifth volume of the Studies in the Scriptures series, published in 1899:

"Thou Shalt Worship the Lord Thy God And Him Only Shalt Thou Serve."
--Matt. 4:10-- ​

It is claimed by some that the fact that our Lord Jesus received worship without rebuke signifies that he is Jehovah. Our Lord's words above quoted are supposed to imply that for any being but Jehovah to receive worship would be wrong. We answer, Not so! To so interpret these words is to think into them a meaning which they do not contain, and to make them contradictory to the teachings of other scriptures. Jehovah's decree respecting Christ, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," had already been recorded through the prophets; and also his decree, "Let all the angels of God worship him." (Psa. 2:7; 97:7; Heb. 1:5,6) Our Lord Jesus knew this. He also knew that the angelic messengers of Jehovah had in the past been worshiped as representatives of Jehovah; and that he himself was the chief messenger, the Only Begotten Son, the "Messenger of the Covenant," whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world: he knew consequently that whoever honored him honored the Father also.

Indeed, his own words were, "He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father which sent him." John 5:23; Mal. 3:1

The Greek word translated worship in the New Testament is proskuneo, which signifies "to kiss the hand," as a dog licks the hand of his master. The significance is reverence.

The Hebrew word rendered worship in the Old Testament is shaw-kaw and signifies to bow down. The significance is reverence. The word occurs 170 times and only about one-half of this number refer to the worship of God. But this fact is hidden from the English reader by reason of its having been 74 times translated bow down, bowed himself, did reverence, did obeisance, etc., when referring to homage to great earthly beings. We will give examples:

Abraham "bowed himself [shaw-kaw] toward the ground, and said, My Lords [Adonai]...let a little water be fetched and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree." These words and acts were while he thought them merely "three men." Gen. 18:2-4

Lot "bowed down [shaw-kaw]" to two of the same three. Gen. 19:1

Abraham "bowed himself [shaw-kaw]" to the people of Canaan. Gen.23:7,12

Isaac blessed Jacob, saying, "Let nations bow down [shaw-kaw] unto thee;...and let thy mother's sons bow down [shaw-kaw] unto thee." Gen. 27:29

"David stooped and bowed himself [shaw-kaw] to the earth" to king Saul. 1 Sam. 24:8

Abigail "bowed herself [shaw-kaw] to the ground" to David; and again to David's representatives. 1 Sam. 25:23,41

The woman of Tekoah "fell on her face...and did obeisance [shaw-kaw]" to king David. And Joab and Absalom did likewise, translated "bowed himself [shaw-kaw]." 2 Sam. 14:4,22,33

"When Mephibosheth...was come unto David, he fell on his face and did reverence [shaw-kaw]." 2 Sam. 9:6

From these evidences it will be apparent to all that the prohibition of the First Commandment--"Thou shalt not bow down thyself [shaw-kaw] to them nor serve them," was not understood, nor meant to be understood, as a prohibition of reverence, homage, etc., to the honorable, or to those in honored positions among men. Nor did the Jews err in doing reverence [shaw-kaw] to angels who came with messages in Jehovah's name and acknowledging him. And such reverence was approved--never reproved. The Commandment warns against image worship or any worship of any rival gods. This Jehovah cannot tolerate. Hence there was no impropriety for any Jew who recognized Jesus as the "Sent of God" to do him reverence, obeisance; and much more proper is it for all those who recognize our Lord Jesus according to his claims--as the Son of God.

Indeed, we may be sure that those Pharisees who took up stones to kill our Lord because he declared himself the Son of God would have been wild beyond bounds, and not only have stoned our Lord Jesus, but also his worshipers, claiming idolatry, had they entertained as a people any such extreme thought of worship, obeisance (proskuneo), as is entertained by those whose extreme views respecting this word we are combating and have proved erroneous.

Exceptions to this liberty would be in cases where the man to whom reverence, obeisance or worship is rendered is the recognized representative of a false god--as a pseudo-Christ or false Christ--Antichrist. Homage to the popes would, we believe, come under this head of false or wrong worship; because in his office he claims falsely to be "Vicegerent Christ." It was on this ground that our Lord Jesus refused to acknowledge Satan and his great power in the world. It was an actively evil power, designedly opposed to the laws of Jehovah. Hence the proposition that by not opposing evil, by respecting or reverencing evil customs already established under Satan's regime, Satan would cooperate with our Lord in the establishment of his kingdom, was at once declined and the answer signified--I am in full accord with Jehovah God and therefore in full accord with the prophetic declaration: "Thou shalt reverence Jehovah thy God and him shalt thou serve"--and since you are his wilful opponent I can render no reverence to you or your methods, nor could I either serve your cause or cooperate with you. Our causes are distinctly separate. I will have nothing to do with you. Compare Matt. 4:10; Deut. 10:20,21.

Had our Lord Jesus set himself as a rival to Jehovah instead of as his Son and servant, any homage to him would have signified disrespect to the Father and would have been sinful--idolatrous. On the contrary, however, while accepting homage reverence as the Son of God he declared most positively and publicly, "The Father is greater than I," and taught his disciples to make their petitions to the Father, saying, "Whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he will give it you." John 16:23

Now if you're done with your unsupported accusations, perhaps we can continue discussing the Bible instead of Watchtower publications?

 

[feedm3]

Exactly! It is only your interpretation that Jesus was worshiped as God based upon your prior belief. Do you agree then that you should no longer use this interpretation of 'proskyneo' as definite proof that Jesus is God?

I never used it as definite proof, but support as to why I believe it to be so, along with other passages.

You can show me 1 or 2 passages on every point to try and show me their is an exception to the normal interpretation.

This is true, but does not prove your case, just as it does not for me. It only shows that there are exceptions, but does not give me a reason to take that exception, and the others, and apply to every time the words are found in association with Christ, do you at least agree that there still is not a reason for me to this?

Your hoping that if you get me to say, "yes words can sometimes means "god, reverence, i have been" etc that will somehow destroy my argument. It does not, and I will continue "harping" that combing through the Bible trying to find an exception to force on passages is dishonest if being done only because of preconceived ideas.

Please point me to just one of the 'many other passages affirming his deity' in an absolute and unambiguous sense.

Please point me to one that disqualifies him as being deity, clearly and with no inconsistency with other passages.

If I show the many passages that affirm His deity, you reject them because you have one where it was used in another sense. Your not open to anything as long as you can find ONE passage like "make thee a god in eyes of Pharaoh".

What you really asking me to do is find ONE passage that shows his deity in which you cannot find another passage with another sense of the word, because that is you only way of disproving what is plainly stated.

You still have not given a valid reason why the "one" passage should be used in reference to Christ only, in the other sense you found.

Why it that?

You keep harping on this, but the fact is, these words are far more flexible than what you claim in your Jesus arguments. So if there is even one exception, don't you think you should at least try to have some explanation for why it's used differently in that one instance? Instead, you keep bringing up the numeric number of so-called exceptions as if this is some kind of proof in your favor. Please tell me exactly what number of 'exceptions' I must find in order for it to be accepted as valid to you. 5? 6? 10?

If you must make a number then I will choose 5.

Can you show me 5 passages that show worship not associated with God, Christ? - you know I can

5 passages which God is used not referring to God Christ?

I am?

I know you said this to make a point not really looking for a number, but that is my point. Why is worship translated worship with regards to God, and EVEN SATAN, but when it's comes to Christ, it's not?

What is the reason besides preconceived Idea that Christ is not God - that is why I am saying bias, because you have no legit reason for doing so, at least you have not shown it yet.

If you have 50 passages using worship as worship, and 2 passages using in another sense, which should you assume to be correct? Unless something Demands it to be the other sense, then the normal sense of the word should be applied.

Example, David being worshiped demands that it be used in the other sense, or it makes the Bible contradict itself when passages clearly state God is to be worshiped.

What demands this in the passages regarding Christ?

The ONLY reason you have for doing this is because of a preconceived idea he is not god. That is not a method of interpretation, it is bias toward Christ and the text, unless you have another reason, that is what I am asking. Otherwise the normal sense of the word should be applied.

[QUOTE]The 'proskyneo' issue is just a great example of this because you were sure that this was definite proof that Jesus is God, except we find that it's commonly accepted in the Bible, especially for kings, to receive 'proskyneo', which literally means to bow down before someone. Even if there was just the one counterexample that I brought up initially, 1 Chronicles 29:20, where all Israel 'worshipped' God and King David, that's certainly enough to severely undermine your conclusions with regard to King Jesus.[/quote]Same answer above, the context demands it. Show what demands it concerning Christ.

Concerning the red font above in your statement. I dont know if you keep saying things like this to feel as if you have proven something, but it is only a strawman argument.

We have never argued the case that "proskyneo" cannot and does not have another meaning, and that is was definite proof that Jesus is God. You completely made all that up to i guess convince yourslef your really proving something here.

Again, the arugemnt is, show what in the context demands the other sense is to be used liek with David.

You keep focusing on the straw-man, and never showing WHY we are to use this sense of the word. This is why were still going round and round and repeating things.

Actually, I've brought out the common threads all throughout our discussion. It is divinely-appointed representatives of Jehovah God that receive the title 'god' in a relative sense. I've shown you where Jesus has been sent by God to act as his representative. You've given no counter to this.

Counter? Jesus did come to represent God, and reveal him truly. You act as if that means he is not deity. He said he came to speak the things which God gave him, and to do his will. Yet while he was doing these things, he also took claim as also being diety, which is why the Jews wanted to stone him. He also took the name I AM, which is why the Jews wanted to stone him. He also is called "everlasting" same word for "eternal" Father, and he was worshiped and I have no reason to assume worship does not mean worship, that is a counter, because you cannot refute this.

In the case of 'proskyneo' or 'worship/obeisance', I specifically chose the verse with David receiving it, in his role as the divinely-appointed king, along with God because I certainly believe that Jesus receives it as well also in his role as the divinely-appointed king. Ignore the stark similarities if you wish, but I've certainly given you reasons from the Bible to understand these words in this way.

You chose that verse because it is only 1 of 2 verses that use the word in a different sense. Your stuck on telling me you did this to prove it had another sense. i have begged you to please show me where I said the words worship, and God, could never be used in another sense, you cant, because it was never the argument. The only ignoring going on, is you ignoring the question WHAT DEMANDS THAT WORSHIP IS TO BE INTERPRETED IN THE OTHER SENSE ONLY FOUND 2 TIMES COMPARED TO THE ONE FOUND OVER 50?

Neither you nor I equate Jesus with the Father. But as I've touched on before, Jesus came to the earth as the equal of our first human father Adam. Jesus was a perfect, sinless human being, and thus he is called "the last Adam". Because his sacrifice covered over the sin of our first father and we receive back the opportunity for everlasting life through Jesus, he has become the 'everlasting father' of the human family in that sense.

Wow. YOur saying Jesus is our Father in teh sense of Adam was our physical father? So that is why he is called everlasting father? That is quite a stretch even for you.

So now Jesus is equal to Moses and Adam. So Im guessing you believe Adam was a god to, just not a might god?

The "last Adam" meaning the Last son of God on earth. Adam was a type, nothing more. He is not equal to Christ in any way, it is almost blasphemy to say such.

The typology is one by contrast. Adam was the son of God, seeing he had no parents, yet he sinned.
Jesus was the son of God, yet without sin.

Adam did not exist before he was created, Jesus did. Adam died and is dead, Jesus is not. This is just a forced stretch to try and explain everlasting Father, and really it does not even make sense in how it is supposed to explain the Phrase.

Everlasting: Eternal, perpetual, Same word in Isa 57:15 rendered eternity. in fact this whole passage really destroys your doctrine:

This context screams deity:
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The "mighty God" - How in the world do you twist this to mean another level of gods, higher than Moses, (who was not even said to be a literal god)?

If fact what here demands God is supposed to be used in another lesser found sense? The context says mighty God, everlasting Father.

Deu 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Here Jehovah applies this name(adjective) to himself. Does this mean you also interprete that Jehovah is a mighty god like Christ?

I know you dont, in fact you would not do it anywhere else unless the context demands (which is good) or unless it is in reference to Christ (which is not good, it is bias unless you have a valid reason as you would with Moses)

in this one passage Jesus is called "God" and "everlasting". My the twists turns and reaches you must do in order to explain everyone of the passages that try and tell you Jesus is deity.

With regards to John 8:58 and the time frame, you said:

What you are arguing for is an interlinear translation, one that gives a simple gloss definition of each Greek word with little or no consideration of the context. Yes, the Greek verb is present tense, but you're ignoring the context. Here's what the very comprehensive Smyth's Greek Grammar has to say on this very subject:

"The present, when accompanied by a definite or indefinite expression of past time, is used to express an action begun in the past and continued in the present. The 'progressive perfect' is often used in translation. Thus,...I have been long (and am still) wondering."

Yea should we repeat the 500 page debate between Robert Bowman and Jason BeDuhn concerning this? (BTW most agree Bowman won)This is held only by a "minority of scholars" and there is much counters to the claim, that I am not going to start pasting back and forth. Just go read the debate if that's what you want. This does not prove your position. John 17:14 has the same tense structure as John 8, yet your translation does not translated "i have been" but "I am". Why?

In John 8:58, the present Greek verb 'eimi' is indeed accompanied by an expression of past time, "before Abraham was born."

SO is John 17:14, why not be consisent then if this a rule?

In regards to Revelation 3:14, you said:

Were you aware that in every place John uses this word, it's with the meaning 'beginning', as in first in terms of time? Look them up for yourself: John 1:1, 2; 6:64; 8:25, 44; 15:27; 16:4; 1 John 1:1; 2:7, 13, 14, 24; 3:8, 11; 2 John 1:5, 6; Revelation 21:6; 22:13.

Were you aware that when this word is used in terms of rank, it's always accompanied by other terms relating to power or authority, terms which are absent from Revelation 3:14? Look them up for yourself: Luke 12:11; 20:20; Romans 8:38; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Ephesians 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Colossians 1:16; 2:10, 15; Titus 3:1.

Were you aware that the standard Greek lexicon for New Testament Greek, usually referred to as the BDAG, says of Revelation 3:14 that "the [meaning] beginning=first created is linguistically probable"?

Were you aware that the standard Greek New Testament, the UBS4, references Proverbs 8:22 for this designation of Jesus? There it says, "Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning [Greek: 'arche'] of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago."

Just some points to think about.

So then you just defeated yourself with your own enlargement. If sense every time John uses this word it is always to mean "beginning" and that mean he could not used it in another sense, then worship MUST means worship in it's normal sense.

Were you aware that every time John uses porskyneos other than referring to Christ, it always means worship in it's normal sense - Look it up, see if you can find John using this word in any other sense.

So then if thats how he always used the word, then again what in the passages referring to Christ demands another meaning?

So are you going to be consistent, or again run and comb through scriptures trying to find a passage by John not referring to Christ, and not meaning worship in it's normal sense?

feedm3, I don't know from which website you're going for all this great information, but they sure leave you in the dark. You get so carried away with only partial facts, time after time, making all types of accusations both against Jehovah's Witnesses in general and me personally, and you don't seem to learn to be more careful when you find out here that there's more factors of which you are just unaware.

You didn't quote the whole question-and-answer from the article; you only quoted just a few lines with your commentary. Here's the unedited version:

Thus it states clearly that the worship is not the worship rendered God, but for his high status and position under God. It explicitly says that even aside from his being the only-begotten Son, just in his role as the Messiah is enough for him to "have received worship proper." The article is using the word "worship" with the broader definition than is common today (over 100 years later). That the broader definition that Dr. BeDuhn spoke of is being used here is apparent from the synonym used, "homage". It's that secondary (and thus still proper) aspect of worship that's being emphasized.

Still utterly shocked? The following should clear up any remaining doubt and show you that our views have not changed. Here's how it's explained much more comprehensively in the fifth volume of the Studies in the Scriptures series, published in 1899:


Now if you're done with your unsupported accusations, perhaps we can continue discussing the Bible instead of Watchtower publications?

This clears up nothing. may I ask, not accusing you of anything but the portion in red from what I posted: page 216 of the July 15, 1898 edition of the Watchtower magazine????

If yes can you provide me a link so I can read that in it's context as you say.

If no, then why are you posting it? What does it have to do with the page 216 of the July 15, 1898 edition of the watchtower magazine?

This commentary by another JW who cant believe this man said this in the spirit guided watchtower does not prove anything, nor does it change the easy to understand meaning of what was said in the article.

You mean you guys need commentaries because you know what this says, and cant just admit is was wrong (not that I am saying it's right or you are right by no means).

Well this ONLY proves that you will reach to the farthest places that I am not willing to follow you to, to hold to your doctrine.

Yes I am still "unutterably shocked" as you said. All you did was post another JW with the deny till you die attitude. That article is so plainly written, that is why instead of refuting my breakdown of it, you just posted another JW in denial.

If you people cant even admit when another member is wrong, you sure will not admit when you are.

anyway this shows:
1. JW's filp flop in doctrine
2. JW's do not understand proskyneo
3. Either the watchtower is not from God, or God made a mistake
4. JW's will deny even when the evidence is right in front of their eyes.

I Hope you will come around and stop this deceptive poison of a doctrine. Not attacking you, but the doctrine.

 

[TJ12]

Hello feedm3,

In regards to 'proskyneo' given to Jesus, you said:

I never used it as definite proof, but support as to why I believe it to be so, along with other passages.

Here's what I had asked you:
"So let's get this on the record, feedm3. If God's people worship both God and their king, that's undeniable proof that Jesus is God himself? Yes or no?"

To which you then replied:
"The Only king God's people worship is Christ. If God's people can worship Christ, then yes he is proof he is God. Thou shalt worship only the Lord thy God, only him shalt thou serve - Matt 4:4-f."

Your hoping that if you get me to say, "yes words can sometimes means "god, reverence, i have been" etc that will somehow destroy my argument.

You keep confusing the issue. You think I'm out to 'destroy' your argument. I'm merely showing the inherent ambiguity in your various arguments that you say are definitive (like the one I just quoted). They are not. But they do require one to already believe that Jesus is God in order to accept your interpretations of them, which is why you shouldn't be using them as proof that Jesus is God.

Please point me to one that disqualifies him as being deity, clearly and with no inconsistency with other passages.

Here's a simple one where Jesus objects to a title that he feels only belongs to God:
"Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.'" (Luke 18:19)

What you really asking me to do is find ONE passage that shows his deity in which you cannot find another passage with another sense of the word, because that is you only way of disproving what is plainly stated.

Well I have asked you to show me a passage where Jesus is unambiguously called the Almighty. You haven't thus far.


In response to my question about how many 'exceptions' you require to accept another definition as valid, you said:

I know you said this to make a point not really looking for a number, but that is my point. Why is worship translated worship with regards to God, and EVEN SATAN, but when it's comes to Christ, it's not?

What is the reason besides preconceived Idea that Christ is not God - that is why I am saying bias, because you have no legit reason for doing so, at least you have not shown it yet.

feedm3, stop and actually listen to what I've been saying. I think you're just responding without considering it, because I'm saying the same thing over and over. You are correct that the NWT renders 'proskyneo' as 'obeisance' when its used towards Jesus and other servants of God, and as 'worship' when used towards God and Satan. In this it's very consistent. Satan is a rival god, so its absolute sense is brought out. Yes, this all depends on theology to decide which aspect should be brought out, so there is a bias involved, regardless of the translator.

Here's the important difference. I am not here arguing that because the NWT says Jesus received 'obeisance' that this is proof Jesus is not God. That would be circular because that presupposed belief is required to translate the word in that sense to begin with. You are here arguing that because your Bible says Jesus received 'worship' that this is proof Jesus is God. Your argument is circular. You are trying to pass off as proof the verses that depend on interpretation, verses that you'd go probably go absolutely berserk over if I offered my interpretation as proof that Jesus is not God. Let's try to hold to the same standard of evidence.

Example, David being worshiped demands that it be used in the other sense, or it makes the Bible contradict itself when passages clearly state God is to be worshiped.

Think about your argument there. Why does "David being worshiped demand that it be used in the other sense"? Is it because you 'just know' that David isn't God? This is all determined based upon who the referent is, and I'm not sure that you're understanding that your major reason for believing Jesus receives 'worship' in its absolute sense is because you 'just know' he's God. Interpret it that way if you wish, but then don't keep using it as proof that Jesus being God.

This is what I've been objecting to from the start, the fact that you're using proof like this that relies upon circular logic. I've never stated that the text necessarily "demands" my interpretation.

The 'proskyneo' issue is just a great example of this because you were sure that this was definite proof that Jesus is God,

Concerning the red font above in your statement. I dont know if you keep saying things like this to feel as if you have proven something, but it is only a strawman argument.

We have never argued the case that "proskyneo" cannot and does not have another meaning, and that is was definite proof that Jesus is God. You completely made all that up to i guess convince yourslef your really proving something here.

I keep saying things like that because that's what you tell me. Here's my very direct question again, along with your very direct answer:
"So let's get this on the record, feedm3. If God's people worship both God and their king, that's undeniable proof that Jesus is God himself? Yes or no?"

You replied:
"The Only king God's people worship is Christ. If God's people can worship Christ, then yes he is proof he is God. Thou shalt worship only the Lord thy God, only him shalt thou serve - Matt 4:4-f."

Frankly, I don't care about this anymore. Deny it if you wish.

You keep focusing on the straw-man, and never showing WHY we are to use this sense of the word.

All I have to do is show that your proof text requires interpretation on your part, based upon your theology. Once that is proven, then it's lost to you as a proof text.

Counter? Jesus did come to represent God, and reveal him truly. You act as if that means he is not deity.

No, I act as if that makes him a divinely-appointed representative, just like all the others of which the same things are said. It shows that there's an entirely justifiable alternative interpretation to the one you say the text demands.

In regards to the 'proskyneo' verses (again), and 1 Chronicles 29:20 specifically, you wrote:

You chose that verse because it is only 1 of 2 verses that use the word in a different sense.

Are you reading my messages? I'll quote a previous one:
"David gave 'proskyneo' to King Saul at 1 Samuel 24:8. Abigail gave 'proskyneo' to David at 1 Samuel 25:23. Abigail gave 'proskyneo' to David's messengers at 1 Samuel 25:41. An Israelite gave 'proskyneo' to David at 2 Samuel 1:2. The 'sons of the prophets' gave 'proskyneo' to Elisha at 2 Kings 2:15. Joseph's brothers gave 'proskyneo' to him at Genesis 42:6. Abraham gave 'proskyneo' to the Canaanite sons of Heth at Genesis 23:7. And I could go on."


In reply to my answer on how Jesus is our 'everlasting father', you wrote:

Wow. YOur saying Jesus is our Father in teh sense of Adam was our physical father? So that is why he is called everlasting father? That is quite a stretch even for you.

Well it's biblical. Paul says: "Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression by Adam, who bears a resemblance to him that was to come...For if by the trespass of the one man death ruled as king through that one, much more will those who receive the abundance of the undeserved kindness and of the free gift of righteousness rule as kings in life through the one person, Jesus Christ." (Romans 5:14, 17)

We inherited death from Adam; we inherit everlasting life from Jesus. Which one is better called 'everlasting father'?

You keep putting emphasis on this title; are you actually arguing that this means Jesus is God the Father? How do you view him as the 'everlasting father' specifically?

Here Jehovah applies this name(adjective) to himself. Does this mean you also interprete that Jehovah is a mighty god like Christ?

Well Jehovah is a mighty God. This is simple stuff. One who is almighty is necessarily mighty. One who is mighty is not necessarily almighty. Again, show me where Jesus is unambiguously called Almighty.

John 17:14 has the same tense structure as John 8, yet your translation does not translated "i have been" but "I am". Why?

I notice you don't take the time to explain it like I've done at John 8:58 and 14:9. Here's the text: "I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world."

Now I can only assume that you're saying the first part, "I have given them your word" is what you're saying is the expression of past time. This is not the same because this is merely a perfect verb in an independent clause. Thus there's no element of time directly imposed upon the verb "I am" later on in the sentence. At John 8:58 and 14:9, it is adverbial phrases that are directly dependent upon the verbs that modify them to "I have been." You can take out the "I have given them your word" expression from your verse, and it stands alone, which is why it's independent. Not so with the expressions in the other passages.

Instead of actually answering my points on Revelation 3:14, you responded with this:

Were you aware that every time John uses porskyneos other than referring to Christ, it always means worship in it's normal sense - Look it up, see if you can find John using this word in any other sense.

"Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—behold, I will make them come and bow down [proskyneo] before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you." (Revelation 3:9; ESV)

Seriously feedm3, do you do any research on these things before making these claims and accusations? Somehow I think in your next post your going to say how you of course knew about this and you never said you didn't. (Sigh.)

Nothing to say at all about Revelation 3:14? Thus far, I've been on defense, showing the weaknesses in your arguments. You keep getting frustrated and asking what 'demands' that you should see Christ as I do. Well, here I'm trying to get into my proof somewhat, and you seem unprepared and unwilling to acknowledge it. If you don't want to talk about it, please just say so.

In response to the long (and complete) articles I posted showing unambiguously that 'worship' wasn't used in the way you claimed, you replied:

This clears up nothing.

Of course not.

may I ask, not accusing you of anything but the portion in red from what I posted: page 216 of the July 15, 1898 edition of the Watchtower magazine????

Yes it is.

If yes can you provide me a link so I can read that in it's context as you say.

Sure...if you'll provide me the link to where you got your partial quotes.

This commentary by another JW who cant believe this man said this in the spirit guided watchtower does not prove anything, nor does it change the easy to understand meaning of what was said in the article.

The two articles were written by the same person.

You mean you guys need commentaries because you know what this says, and cant just admit is was wrong

You misunderstood the article from the Watchtower. It was speaking of worship in the sense of homage...which is why it said 'homage'.

Well this ONLY proves that you will reach to the farthest places that I am not willing to follow you to, to hold to your doctrine.

All the way to the Bible; I sincerely hope you'll reconsider following.

Yes I am still "unutterably shocked" as you said. All you did was post another JW with the deny till you die attitude. That article is so plainly written, that is why instead of refuting my breakdown of it, you just posted another JW in denial.

Well I posted a work by the same author, which makes this somewhat comical. You misunderstood and evidently didn't read the entire article to begin with, which is a good reason to misunderstand it.

We're going to have to downsize this discussion here, it's getting bloated again. I do appreciate that you try to respond to most of what I say, but then these posts get to be unmanageable and (most likely) unread by others.

 

[feedm3]

Hello feedm3,

In regards to 'proskyneo' given to Jesus, you said:

Here's what I had asked you:
"So let's get this on the record, feedm3. If God's people worship both God and their king, that's undeniable proof that Jesus is God himself? Yes or no?"

To which you then replied:
"The Only king God's people worship is Christ. If God's people can worship Christ, then yes he is proof he is God. Thou shalt worship only the Lord thy God, only him shalt thou serve - Matt 4:4-f."


You keep confusing the issue. You think I'm out to 'destroy' your argument. I'm merely showing the inherent ambiguity in your various arguments that you say are definitive (like the one I just quoted). They are not. But they do require one to already believe that Jesus is God in order to accept your interpretations of them, which is why you shouldn't be using them as proof that Jesus is God.


Here's a simple one where Jesus objects to a title that he feels only belongs to God:
"Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.'" (Luke 18:19)


Well I have asked you to show me a passage where Jesus is unambiguously called the Almighty. You haven't thus far.


In response to my question about how many 'exceptions' you require to accept another definition as valid, you said:

feedm3, stop and actually listen to what I've been saying. I think you're just responding without considering it, because I'm saying the same thing over and over. You are correct that the NWT renders 'proskyneo' as 'obeisance' when its used towards Jesus and other servants of God, and as 'worship' when used towards God and Satan. In this it's very consistent. Satan is a rival god, so its absolute sense is brought out. Yes, this all depends on theology to decide which aspect should be brought out, so there is a bias involved, regardless of the translator.

Here's the important difference. I am not here arguing that because the NWT says Jesus received 'obeisance' that this is proof Jesus is not God. That would be circular because that presupposed belief is required to translate the word in that sense to begin with. You are here arguing that because your Bible says Jesus received 'worship' that this is proof Jesus is God. Your argument is circular. You are trying to pass off as proof the verses that depend on interpretation, verses that you'd go probably go absolutely berserk over if I offered my interpretation as proof that Jesus is not God. Let's try to hold to the same standard of evidence.


Think about your argument there. Why does "David being worshiped demand that it be used in the other sense"? Is it because you 'just know' that David isn't God? This is all determined based upon who the referent is, and I'm not sure that you're understanding that your major reason for believing Jesus receives 'worship' in its absolute sense is because you 'just know' he's God. Interpret it that way if you wish, but then don't keep using it as proof that Jesus being God.

This is what I've been objecting to from the start, the fact that you're using proof like this that relies upon circular logic. I've never stated that the text necessarily "demands" my interpretation.


I keep saying things like that because that's what you tell me. Here's my very direct question again, along with your very direct answer:
"So let's get this on the record, feedm3. If God's people worship both God and their king, that's undeniable proof that Jesus is God himself? Yes or no?"

You replied:
"The Only king God's people worship is Christ. If God's people can worship Christ, then yes he is proof he is God. Thou shalt worship only the Lord thy God, only him shalt thou serve - Matt 4:4-f."

Frankly, I don't care about this anymore. Deny it if you wish.


All I have to do is show that your proof text requires interpretation on your part, based upon your theology. Once that is proven, then it's lost to you as a proof text.


No, I act as if that makes him a divinely-appointed representative, just like all the others of which the same things are said. It shows that there's an entirely justifiable alternative interpretation to the one you say the text demands.

In regards to the 'proskyneo' verses (again), and 1 Chronicles 29:20 specifically, you wrote:

Are you reading my messages? I'll quote a previous one:
"David gave 'proskyneo' to King Saul at 1 Samuel 24:8. Abigail gave 'proskyneo' to David at 1 Samuel 25:23. Abigail gave 'proskyneo' to David's messengers at 1 Samuel 25:41. An Israelite gave 'proskyneo' to David at 2 Samuel 1:2. The 'sons of the prophets' gave 'proskyneo' to Elisha at 2 Kings 2:15. Joseph's brothers gave 'proskyneo' to him at Genesis 42:6. Abraham gave 'proskyneo' to the Canaanite sons of Heth at Genesis 23:7. And I could go on."


In reply to my answer on how Jesus is our 'everlasting father', you wrote:

Well it's biblical. Paul says: "Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression by Adam, who bears a resemblance to him that was to come...For if by the trespass of the one man death ruled as king through that one, much more will those who receive the abundance of the undeserved kindness and of the free gift of righteousness rule as kings in life through the one person, Jesus Christ." (Romans 5:14, 17)

We inherited death from Adam; we inherit everlasting life from Jesus. Which one is better called 'everlasting father'?

You keep putting emphasis on this title; are you actually arguing that this means Jesus is God the Father? How do you view him as the 'everlasting father' specifically?


Well Jehovah is a mighty God. This is simple stuff. One who is almighty is necessarily mighty. One who is mighty is not necessarily almighty. Again, show me where Jesus is unambiguously called Almighty.


I notice you don't take the time to explain it like I've done at John 8:58 and 14:9. Here's the text: "I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world."

Now I can only assume that you're saying the first part, "I have given them your word" is what you're saying is the expression of past time. This is not the same because this is merely a perfect verb in an independent clause. Thus there's no element of time directly imposed upon the verb "I am" later on in the sentence. At John 8:58 and 14:9, it is adverbial phrases that are directly dependent upon the verbs that modify them to "I have been." You can take out the "I have given them your word" expression from your verse, and it stands alone, which is why it's independent. Not so with the expressions in the other passages.

Instead of actually answering my points on Revelation 3:14, you responded with this:

"Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie&#8212;behold, I will make them come and bow down [proskyneo] before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you." (Revelation 3:9; ESV)

Seriously feedm3, do you do any research on these things before making these claims and accusations? Somehow I think in your next post your going to say how you of course knew about this and you never said you didn't. (Sigh.)

Nothing to say at all about Revelation 3:14? Thus far, I've been on defense, showing the weaknesses in your arguments. You keep getting frustrated and asking what 'demands' that you should see Christ as I do. Well, here I'm trying to get into my proof somewhat, and you seem unprepared and unwilling to acknowledge it. If you don't want to talk about it, please just say so.

In response to the long (and complete) articles I posted showing unambiguously that 'worship' wasn't used in the way you claimed, you replied:

Of course not.


Yes it is.


Sure...if you'll provide me the link to where you got your partial quotes.


The two articles were written by the same person.


You misunderstood the article from the Watchtower. It was speaking of worship in the sense of homage...which is why it said 'homage'.


All the way to the Bible; I sincerely hope you'll reconsider following.


Well I posted a work by the same author, which makes this somewhat comical. You misunderstood and evidently didn't read the entire article to begin with, which is a good reason to misunderstand it.

We're going to have to downsize this discussion here, it's getting bloated again. I do appreciate that you try to respond to most of what I say, but then these posts get to be unmanageable and (most likely) unread by others.

okay obvisouly your not going to admit the author was saying Jesus can be worshiped in the normal sense of the word. Now your saying God is a mighty god, like Jesus, but he is not the almighty because you cant find that passage that explicitly says so. AND? so case closed huh. Okay sure, that really proves your point, whatever you have to tell yourself there.

Anyway, I dont expect you to be open to anything seeing you pasted another work by the author and that is supposed change what he wrote in that article? How is that?

If anything it would only show His view has changed from article to article. As for a link, I dont have one, highlight the book reference that I posted and Google it, there are many websites with this. I could careless for your link, why would I want to read his flip flopping positions?

You didn't even make a point in this post, you just keep repeating things that defeat your argument. You wont cant explain why He is called the "everlasting Father", Jn 17:14 is a valid sentence structure to compare, you just cant explain it.

Now Christ is called "mighty God", in which you say is another class higher than Moses, below Jehovah (with no scriptural example), and when Jehovah claims the title, now it's only an adjective -what? why? BIAS is the only reason for this. I dont have time to chase around this ridiculous inconsistent logic.

I asked questions, you attempted to answer, started out good, now your putting your fingers in your ears and talking. If that article is not saying Jesus can be worshiped "really worshiped" then why does it not say anything about the other sense? I read the context, you said "here is the unedited version" which was an attempt to act as if it were the same article only un edited. That was a lie, then you say it was another work by the same author. Which is it? The edited version of the one I posted or another work?

Really I dont care anymore, you show how far you will go, nothing will change your mind, until the watchtower flip flops again, maybe then.

what if there was a passage that called Christ the Almighty, you still would not accept it. You would say "yea is almighty of the mighty gods, but only Jehovah is The Almighty". lol - There is no point

 

[hopesprings]

Isn't the title "Mighty God" only ever used in the bible in talking about God (the One and Only God)? (Gen. 49:24; Dt. 7:21; Ps. 50:1; Ps. 132:2; Ps. 132:5; Isa. 10:21; Jer. 32:18; Hab. 1:12) - except in the one place it is given to Jesus as one of his rightful names? Hmmm.....If God is the "Mighty God" yet Jesus is the "Mighty God"....hmmm.....

I'm also wondering why the NWT always gives "God" a lower case 'g' when it references Jesus - except in Isa. 9:6? Just wondering....

 

[TJ12]

Hello hopesprings,

Thank you for your participation.

Isn't the title "Mighty God" only ever used in the bible in talking about God (the One and Only God)? (Gen. 49:24; Dt. 7:21; Ps. 50:1; Ps. 132:2; Ps. 132:5; Isa. 10:21; Jer. 32:18; Hab. 1:12) - except in the one place it is given to Jesus as one of his rightful names? Hmmm.....If God is the "Mighty God" yet Jesus is the "Mighty God"....hmmm.....

And sometimes Jehovah is referred to merely as "God" ('elohim'), yet that doesn't equate him to the judges of Israel, correct? Why not, specifically? Take a look at the passage:

"I said, 'You are gods ('elohim'), sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.' Arise, O God ('elohim'), judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!" (Psalm 82:6-8; ESV)

Both Jehovah and the judges are referred to by 'elohim' alone. But it is the superlative title 'the Most High' that shows the superiority of Jehovah. "Mighty" is not a superlative. Titles like "Most High God" and "God Almighty" are. No one else receives these except the Father alone. Commenting upon Isaiah 9:6 and "Mighty God," The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "Even these exalted titles did not lead the Jews to recognize that the Saviour to come was to be none other than God Himself."

 

[TJ12]

Hello feefm3,

okay obvisouly your not going to admit the author was saying Jesus can be worshiped in the normal sense of the word.

Well he did say that. What you keep overlooking is that he was using the word 'worship' in the "normal" KJV sense, which was the normal sense at the time. You are reading your more modern, more narrow, understanding of the word into the partial quotes from the article that you came across on your anti-Witness website(s). The author was specifically combating your type of definition, saying that Jesus is worthy of 'worship' (or 'homage') because of being, not God, but the only-begotten Son and the Messiah. I realize that you had these couple of sentences spoon-fed to you and so without context you came to a very definite conclusion about their meaning that you're not prepared to back away from. But you are simply mistaken that that article is using the word 'worship' in the same exclusive sense that you do.

Of course, I'd much rather argue what the Bible says rather than 100+ year-old Watchtowers. (Why is it that it's always those that are against Jehovah's Witnesses that want to discuss the meaning of old Watchtower articles? I never bring them up in the middle of a discussion of the Bible. But I digress...)

Now your saying God is a mighty god, like Jesus, but he is not the almighty because you cant find that passage that explicitly says so.

Well I've been saying this all along. Only the Father Jehovah is God in the most high sense. That's why, as I just mentioned to hopesprings above, the superlatives like "God Almighty" ('el shaddai') are reserved only for Jehovah. Jesus doesn't receive such superlatives.

Anyway, I dont expect you to be open to anything seeing you pasted another work by the author and that is supposed change what he wrote in that article? How is that?

Well I'm at least glad to see that you're recognizing now that both articles have the same author, rather than continuing to say their were two authors saying two different things. But the second article I posted, from the Studies in the Scriptures book, says the same thing. It starts off saying that 'worship' (in the KJV sense) is acceptable to give to others besides Jehovah: "Our Lord's words above quoted are supposed to imply that for any being but Jehovah to receive worship would be wrong. We answer, Not so!" It's saying the very same thing, feedm3.

You didn't even make a point in this post, you just keep repeating things that defeat your argument. You wont cant explain why He is called the "everlasting Father", Jn 17:14 is a valid sentence structure to compare, you just cant explain it.

Well I certainly answered your challenge to name one instance where John uses proskyneo in a lesser sense of the term, quoting Revelation 3:9. You ignored this and repeated that I'm defeating my own argument. Ok...

I explained exactly how I see Jesus as "everlasting Father", in that we inherit death from our father Adam, but everlasting life through our 'father' Jesus, the one 'who resembles Adam.' I then asked you to give your explanation of the title and if you're actually saying that this is proof that Jesus is the Father, which of course goes against the common definition of the Trinity. You didn't answer, and instead are saying I didn't answer you. Ok...

I then took it upon myself to break down John 17:14, something you could or would not do yourself, to show exactly how it's different from John 8:58 and 14:9, in that the there is no expression of time directly affecting the be-verb in that verse. You ignored this and said, again, that I didn't answer it. Ok...

It seems that when you don't know what to say in answer to what I've written, your default response is that I 'didn't explain it.'

I read the context, you said "here is the unedited version" which was an attempt to act as if it were the same article only un edited. That was a lie, then you say it was another work by the same author. Which is it? The edited version of the one I posted or another work?

feedm3, please read what I'm saying and seriously, please stop the accusations when you get frustrated. Go to the post above where I quote the two sources. The first is the unedited version of the 1898 Watchtower article you gave just a few sentences from, along with your commentary. The second one is a quote is from an 1899 book from the Studies in the Scriptures series. Both sources are by the same author.

what if there was a passage that called Christ the Almighty, you still would not accept it.

But you cannot find one, can you? So it'll have to remain a hypothetical, because these superlative titles are reserved for "the only true God," the Father.


Now would you like to discuss Revelation 3:14?

 

[feedm3]

Sure as soon as you admit the article is saying Jesus can be worshiped in the normal sense of the word. If you are not willing to admit what is plain and clear, why would you with anything else? So admit that and we can discuss Rev 3:14 and a few othe passages, like Isa 9:6 and all those other "Mighty" passages.
What do you say? willing to admit what you already know to be true?

 

[TJ12]

Hi feedm3,

Sure as soon as you admit the article is saying Jesus can be worshiped in the normal sense of the word.

Define "normal sense of the word." In the KJV, it was within the "normal sense of the word" to say that David was worshipped. You keep trying to gloss over the fact that the meaning has changed in modern times. Those older articles used the older, KJV "normal sense of the word."

feedm3, read the article again. It's not using the word as something exclusive of God. It explicitly says this. It's using the now-antiquated, broader sense of "worship" as a term that encompasses the full meaning of 'proskyneo', which was not exclusive of God.

 

[feedm3]

You know what I mean. No "glossing over". I read it 3 times, no way your not understanding what he's saying. I dont know why you would pretend not to...I was thinking, even if he did say that, it's not like that proves my point, or proves anything you have said wrong. Is it that you refuse to believe the watchtower can make an error? If that is the case you really need to Google "watchtower" errors. I just dont see how denying what he's saying makes any difference. I definitely to not believe you believe what your saying concerning this. Anyway, I am dropping it now.

I will post more questions later, if want to answer them of course you may, but they are for anyone who reads, not directed at you.

 

[TJ12]

Hey again feedm3,

You know what I mean. No "glossing over". I read it 3 times, no way your not understanding what he's saying.

Well, he's sure saying that Jesus "was not the God, Jehovah." This is like arguing with someone who insists that the cartoon The Flintstones is blatantly pro-gay marriage propaganda and I'm just lying if I don't admit it, because the theme song says: "When you're with the Flintstones...We'll have a gay old time; We'll have a gay old time." Words change meaning over time.

And that's just from the 1960s, you're trying to argue a modern meaning for something written over a century ago.

 

[feedm3]

Century ago, yesterday, what's it matter? I dont see the word "gay" that yes, - has changed over time in there.

What about worship? Did that change over time?

Actually as the article proves YES worship did change over time, but only in the Jehovah Witness circle.

That was my whole point, and you seen it coming, hoping to prevent it, by pretending that is not what he is saying.

The problem is, he wrote using such plain words, it's difficult to pass off what your trying so hard to do.

 

[TJ12]

Hi feedm3,

It seems as though you haven't dropped it.

What about worship? Did that change over time?

Yes, and Jehovah's Witnesses aren't the only to recognize it, which is why I quoted the following from Dr. BeDuhn in a previous message, to which you did not respond:

"The verb proskuneo is used fifty-eight times in the New Testament. When the King James translation was made, the word picked to best convey the meaning of the Greek word was 'worship.' At that time, the English word 'worship' had a range of meaning close to what I have suggested for the Greek word proskuneo. It could be used for the attitude of reverence given to God, but also for the act of prostration. The word was also used as a form of address to people of high status, in the form 'your worship.' So the King James translation committee made a pretty good choice.

"But modern English is not King James English, and the range of meaning for the word 'worship' has narrowed considerably. Today, we use it only for religious veneration of God, so it no longer covers all of the uses of the Greek verb proskuneo, or of the English word in the days of King James. For this reason, it is necessary that modern translations find appropriate terms to accurately convey precisely what is implied by the use of proskuneo in the various passages where it appears. If they fail to do this, and cling to the old English word 'worship' without acknowledging its shift in meaning since the days of King James, they mislead their readers into thinking that every greeting, kiss, or prostration in the Bible is an act of worship directed to a god."

The problem is, he wrote using such plain words, it's difficult to pass off what your trying so hard to do.

And the KJV plainly says David was worshipped, yet somehow you manage to see the flexibility in the word there...I wonder what's different here?

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

Hello GraceBeUntoYou,

Thanks for the response. Here's another question for you to consider: How do you think an ancient translator, who could speak Koine Greek, would translate John 1:1 into a language with both a definite and indefinite article like English?


Well we can both agree that their are ways to express indefiniteness in Greek, but that the language itself doesn't contain a true indefinite article like the English "a/an". I've already submitted that John used a perfectly acceptable method of expressing indefiniteness, and this is proved by your own preferred translation's rendering of verses like John 4:19 and 10:1, where nouns in the exact same grammatical construct are supplied with the indefinite article in English.


I'm not necessarily opposed to this, except I know that you're really trying to establish an identity here because you don't count the angels as 'gods' in the sense of 'sharing or possessing all the qualities which make God, God.' Let's take a look at another passage in John to see what's really going on here. John 6:70 appears in various translations as the following:

"Then Jesus replied, 'Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!'" (NIV)
"Jesus answered them, 'Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.'" (ESV)
"Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" (KJV)
"Then Jesus answered, 'I chose all twelve of you, but one of you is a devil.'" (NCV)

Pretty unanimous, no? The word 'devil' there is in the same grammatical construct as 'god' of John 1:1c and all are indefinite. But wait, here comes the New English Translation with this:

"Jesus replied, 'Didn’t I choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is the devil?'"

Where'd our "a devil" go? What secrets of grammar and translation is the NET clued in on that escaped all of our other translations above? Here's the reasoning of the NET: "Although most translations render this last phrase as 'one of you is a devil,' such a translation presupposes that there is more than one devil." Thus, it is no element of grammar, but rather the theology of the translators, the belief that there can only be one proper devil, that causes them to dismiss the otherwise straightforward indefinite rendering. Sound at all familiar?

Just a refresher on C.H. Dodd's explanation: "If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [theos en ho logos]; would be "The Word was a god". As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted...The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole." Again, the literal translation of 'god' at John 1:1c, just as the literal translation of 'devil' at John 6:70, should be as an indefinite. Both have been overturned by those whose theology disagrees that there can be more than one properly termed 'god' or 'devil'.


There's one important difference between the two nouns in these places that you're overlooking. The word 'god' is (in normal situations) a count noun, the word 'flesh' is not. In English, we typically don't use indefinite articles with non-count nouns, which include nouns of substance. So unless of you're thinking of a unit of bottled water (which can be counted), you wouldn't see water and say 'there's a water over there,' you'd say, 'there's water over there.' But by the same token, count nouns sound funny without the article: 'I see bus over there;' 'I see a bus over there.' The nouns I've pointed to at John 4:19 ('prophet'); 6:70 ('devil'); and 10:1 ('thief') are all count nouns just like 'god', and all almost universally receive the indefinite article.

Now I realize you're trying to define the word "God" as a thing, a substance, a non-count noun. But this is precisely what makes your definition and reading of the verse so awkward to those trying to read it in that way. "God" is not a natural noun of substance, and again it's my belief that you are only trying to squeeze such an unnatural meaning into it so that you can preserve the traditional translation with a more 'grammatically accurate' meaning...that doesn't fit too well. If you were serious about rendering 'theos' in John 1:1c as a qualitative-type of noun, you'd go for something like "divine", "godly", etc. But then again, those words seem to lose some of that exclusiveness you're looking for in order to preserve that identity indirectly.

I doubt I'll see you arguing that John 4:19 should be rendered, "Sir, I perceive that you are Prophet," with the lengthy explanation that "Prophet" is a really a category, meaning that the woman is saying Jesus 'shares, or possesses all the qualities which make Prophet, Prophet'. It's silly. You'd just translate it as "you are a prophet." Theology isn't an issue here. And so it's shown that theology is the motivation behind translating John 1:1 in such a special way.

Sorry in the delay, I just read this post as of Saturday morning, and have been unable to respond in detail due to work.

(1) As I’ve said before in my conversations with NWL, while it is theoretically possible that pre-verbal anarthrous nouns could be understood indefinitely (i.e., John 10.1), it is also theoretically possible that they could be understood definitely (i.e., John 1.1a, 8.54c), or qualitatively (i.e., John 9.28a, 19.31). I don’t think anyone here is interested in possible ways a text can be translated or understood, rather, we want to know what the Apostle actually intended.

I, like the NET, do not agree that John 6.70 is indefinite, and the reason for doing so is certainly not because of theological presuppositions. There certainly are grammatical reasons for considering DIABOLOS as definite, because monadic nouns are one of a number of definitizing factors recognized by Greek grammarians (e.g., Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 248-49; Young, p. 67; Green, §218; Smyth, §1141). I would assume you would not translate Luke 21.25 as: "there will be signs in a sun and a moon." If not, I would ask what grammatical evidence you can cite, proving that John 6.70 "cannot" be read as, "one of you is the devil.” If we consider the other occurrences of DIABOLOS without the article in the Greek NT (1 Peter 5.8; Revelation 12.9, 20.2), it seems rather clear that it is definite in each case, as it is in the 12 verses in which it occurs with the article. Thus, it would appear that DIABOLOS is definite in all other NT usage, and the burden is on you to prove why it should not be so regarded here.

 

[feedm3]

Why so hard on KJV? I also use ASV ESV NKJV, NASV, NASB, according to you these are all wrong, and the JW to the rescue with the NWT, which sticks in where it wants what it wants to agree with their doctine. You have shown a perfect example of this.

 

[TJ12]

Hello GraceBeUntoYou,

Thank you for your response. I'm sure you just overlooked it, but I am interested in knowing if you have any strong feelings on how you might think an ancient Greek-speaking translator, given a language like English with both a definite and indefinite article, would translate a passage like John 1:1.

I, like the NET, do not agree that John 6.70 is indefinite, and the reason for doing so is certainly not because of theological presuppositions. There certainly are grammatical reasons for considering DIABOLOS as definite, because monadic nouns are one of a number of definitizing factors recognized by Greek grammarians...Thus, it would appear that DIABOLOS is definite in all other NT usage, and the burden is on you to prove why it should not be so regarded here.

Well I'd point out that 'diabolos' is a descriptive title, meaning slanderer. Obviously, other people can be slanderers rather than just Satan...like Judas Iscariot...who is called 'diabolos' at John 6:70 (compare the related verb used at Luke 16:1). The word is even used in a plural sense at Titus 2:3, which should be enough to show that it cannot be monadic.

Likewise, the term 'god' ('theos') is not monadic, even in the book of John itself. In chapter 10, Jesus quotes the passage from Psalm 82, which speaks of divinely-appointed 'theoi' (plural), or 'gods.'

 

[TJ12]

Hey feedm3,

Why so hard on KJV?

Actually, I'm not criticizing the KJV. I'm fine with the broadly-defined "worship" that covers all senses that 'proskyneo' did/does. I have no problem whatsoever with a text that says, 'Jesus was worshipped', so long as it's being recognized that others, like David, receive worship also.

The thing is, if you read through the very old writings of the men of faith that rejected the Trinity long before Jehovah's Witnesses were around, none of them deny that Jesus is properly worshipped. They just recognize that his worship is in a relative sense to God's. You seem to be astonished that I'm not taken aback by this language, but it's normal to me, especially in older writings that rely on the language of the King James Bible.

Have you ever seen the documentary "KJB"? It's a very well-done docu-drama that shows how the KJV came into existence. In it, the Puritan delegation comes before King James himself just after he takes the throne to argue some of their grievances. One of them concerns the usage of the word "worship" in the Church of England's liturgy; they felt it was being used too freely and should be reserved for God. King James goes into a tirade rebuking them, demonstrating with examples how "worship" is used towards common things all throughout the land. Needless to say, the Puritans backed off on that one. And thus, we have a very broadly-defined "worship" in the KJV, as well as in the Bible publications based off of it.

 

[feedm3]

Have you ever seen the documentary "KJB"? It's a very well-done docu-drama that shows how the KJV came into existence

never seen it. Im looking for it now. Sounds interesting.