<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: JW Materials Feedback and Discussion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.virushead.net/vhrandom/2008/07/26/jw-materials-feedback-and-discussion/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.virushead.net/vhrandom/2008/07/26/jw-materials-feedback-and-discussion</link>
	<description>Contagious Thoughts, Mutating as Needed</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:07:23 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: VirusHead</title>
		<link>http://www.virushead.net/vhrandom/2008/07/26/jw-materials-feedback-and-discussion/comment-page-1#comment-77022</link>
		<dc:creator>VirusHead</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:17:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.virushead.net/vhrandom/?p=1966#comment-77022</guid>
		<description>Alan - This is a fantastic comment. Thank you and please let me know when I can pick up a copy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alan &#8211; This is a fantastic comment. Thank you and please let me know when I can pick up a copy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan</title>
		<link>http://www.virushead.net/vhrandom/2008/07/26/jw-materials-feedback-and-discussion/comment-page-1#comment-77021</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:39:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.virushead.net/vhrandom/?p=1966#comment-77021</guid>
		<description>Many who take issue with Jehovah&#039;s Witnesses&#039; &quot;New World Translation&quot; of &#039;theos&#039; in John 1:1c (as, &quot;a god&quot;) often miss the point that this is &#039;a singular anarthrous predicate noun *preceding the verb*&#039; - that is, not just that use of the noun &#039;theos&#039; in the third clause lacks the Greek definite article.

This would also explain why some of the examples many feel inclined to provide (John 1, verses 2, 6, 12, 13, 18 and 51), that is, as NWT violations of this supposed guideline (that these also do not have the Greek definite article, and yet they translate theos there as &quot;God&quot;), do not apply; and this is simply because, those other instances do not fit the same Grammatical, syntatical criteria as that found within John 1:1c.

For some specific examples of those which do, that is, those which represent the same, basic Greek, grammatical construction of John 1:1c, please examine the following verses within your own prefered translation of the Bible and see whether the translators had inserted either an &quot;a&quot; or &quot;an&quot; there:

Mark 6:49 
Mark 11:32 
John 4:19 
John 6:70 
John 8:44a 
John 8:44b 
John 9:17 
John 10:1 
John 10:13 
John 10:33 
John 12:6

At each of those verses, identity of the one discussed was not at issue; no, but rather, the class of the individual is.  Therefore, as can be seen, at those verses, most all versions of the Bible can be found to have added either an &quot;a&quot; or &quot;an&quot; to the translated text.  Following this same syntactatical pattern, at John 1:1c, Jesus (&quot;the Word&quot;) can also be properly identified as &quot;a god,&quot; and not as &quot;God,&quot; the one he was just said to be &quot;with&quot; (1:1b).

Taking this one step further, regarding the suggestion that such a rendering would be in direct violation of the cultural, religious, strictly monotheistic view of the Jews of this period, apparently, because of theological bias, many, in fact, fail to consider just such facts. One need examine most any Bible commentary about Jesus&#039; use of Psalm 82:6 within John 10:34 to see the cultural context of such legitimate uses &#039;theos&#039; for others, that is, beside its application to Jesus.

With reference to such considerations, please see this insightful statement, made by a Trinitarian scholar:

&quot;The Hebrew for ‘gods’ (‘elohîm) could refer to various exalted beings besides Yahweh [or, Jehovah], without implying any challenge to monotheism,…&quot;

Taken from: Blomberg, Craig L. (b.?-d.?).  &quot;The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues &amp; Commentary.&quot;  (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, c2002), “The feast of Dedication” ([John] 10:22-42), p. 163.  BS2615.6.H55 B56 2002 / 2001051563.

Curiously, another Trinitarian had made the same observation; but this time, when discussing John 1:1, making direct allusion to John 10:34 -

&quot;…the Logos was God…. It [the Greek word Logos, more commonly translated “Word”], signifies, among the Jews and other ancient people, when applied to God, every thing by which God reveals Himself to men, and makes known to them His will.  In this passage [John 1:1] the principal proof [for “the Word” being identified as God] does not lie in the word [Greek, &#039;logos&#039;], nor even in the word [Greek, &#039;theos&#039;], which in a larger sense is often applied to kings and earthly rulers,…&quot;

Taken from: Knapp, Georg[e] Christian (b.1753-d.1853), D.D., Professor of Theology in the University of Halle.  &quot;Lectures on Christian Theology.&quot;  Translated by Woods, Leonard (b.?-d.?), Jun.D.D., President of Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine.  Second American Edition, Reprinted from the last London Edition.  (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Thomas Wardle, 1845), pp. 136, 137.  BT75 .K64 1845 / 35-22780.

Furthermore, there is this:

&quot;If Moses could be [called in Hebrew &#039;elohim,&#039; often translated as &#039;a god,&#039; at Exodus 4:16 and 7:1], then, for the gospel writers, so could Jesus [in Greek as &#039;theos&#039; = elohim], who was regarded by the New Testament [writers] as the very least a new Moses.&quot;

Taken from: Fletcher-Louis, Crispin (b.?-d.?).  “4Q374: A Discourse on the Sinai Tradition: The Deification of Moses and Early Christology.”  Article appearing within: Dead Sea Discoveries, A Journal of Current Research on the Scrolls and Related Literature.  (Leiden, Netherlands; New York, New York: E. J. Brill, vol. 1, no. 1; April 1994–), vol. 3, no. 3 (1996), p. 252.  BM487.A6 E6 / 96647062.

Quite interestingly, when discussing John 10:34 &amp; 35, although most Bible commentaries accurately discuss/explain the Bible&#039;s legitimate uses of the Hebrew and Greek terms for &quot;god&quot; for others throughout a number of places within the Bible (that is, as utilized in a lesser role than in its typical uses for the Almighty, Jehovah), many fail to follow through, that is, in making the logical, Scriptural connection between this and its lesser use for Jesus at John 1:1c.

Perhaps it would interest some to know that, when translating John 1:1c, during the first few centuries after Christianity had begun, two of the earliest known Christian translations of the Greek ‘New Testament’ into a foreign language had utilized their own languages&#039; indefinite article there as well (for, in the Greek language of Jesus’ day, there were no indefinite articles); and again, all in order to complete the proper sense of the phrase from the Koine Greek (of which, people were still using during this period), both of these translations rendered John 1:1c (when translated to English), “and the Word was a god.”

For this, please examine the contents of the following link:

http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2006/09/john-11c-word-was-god.html

Obviously, there need be more evidence to substantiate such a position; but, otherwise, that is just one of the many points I hope to bring out within my forthcoming work entitled, “What About John 1:1?”

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://wwww.goodcompanionbooks.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Many who take issue with Jehovah&#8217;s Witnesses&#8217; &#8220;New World Translation&#8221; of &#8216;theos&#8217; in John 1:1c (as, &#8220;a god&#8221;) often miss the point that this is &#8216;a singular anarthrous predicate noun *preceding the verb*&#8217; &#8211; that is, not just that use of the noun &#8216;theos&#8217; in the third clause lacks the Greek definite article.</p>
<p>This would also explain why some of the examples many feel inclined to provide (John 1, verses 2, 6, 12, 13, 18 and 51), that is, as NWT violations of this supposed guideline (that these also do not have the Greek definite article, and yet they translate theos there as &#8220;God&#8221;), do not apply; and this is simply because, those other instances do not fit the same Grammatical, syntatical criteria as that found within John 1:1c.</p>
<p>For some specific examples of those which do, that is, those which represent the same, basic Greek, grammatical construction of John 1:1c, please examine the following verses within your own prefered translation of the Bible and see whether the translators had inserted either an &#8220;a&#8221; or &#8220;an&#8221; there:</p>
<p>Mark 6:49<br />
Mark 11:32<br />
John 4:19<br />
John 6:70<br />
John 8:44a<br />
John 8:44b<br />
John 9:17<br />
John 10:1<br />
John 10:13<br />
John 10:33<br />
John 12:6</p>
<p>At each of those verses, identity of the one discussed was not at issue; no, but rather, the class of the individual is.  Therefore, as can be seen, at those verses, most all versions of the Bible can be found to have added either an &#8220;a&#8221; or &#8220;an&#8221; to the translated text.  Following this same syntactatical pattern, at John 1:1c, Jesus (&#8221;the Word&#8221;) can also be properly identified as &#8220;a god,&#8221; and not as &#8220;God,&#8221; the one he was just said to be &#8220;with&#8221; (1:1b).</p>
<p>Taking this one step further, regarding the suggestion that such a rendering would be in direct violation of the cultural, religious, strictly monotheistic view of the Jews of this period, apparently, because of theological bias, many, in fact, fail to consider just such facts. One need examine most any Bible commentary about Jesus&#8217; use of Psalm 82:6 within John 10:34 to see the cultural context of such legitimate uses &#8216;theos&#8217; for others, that is, beside its application to Jesus.</p>
<p>With reference to such considerations, please see this insightful statement, made by a Trinitarian scholar:</p>
<p>&#8220;The Hebrew for ‘gods’ (‘elohîm) could refer to various exalted beings besides Yahweh [or, Jehovah], without implying any challenge to monotheism,…&#8221;</p>
<p>Taken from: Blomberg, Craig L. (b.?-d.?).  &#8220;The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues &amp; Commentary.&#8221;  (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, c2002), “The feast of Dedication” ([John] 10:22-42), p. 163.  BS2615.6.H55 B56 2002 / 2001051563.</p>
<p>Curiously, another Trinitarian had made the same observation; but this time, when discussing John 1:1, making direct allusion to John 10:34 -</p>
<p>&#8220;…the Logos was God…. It [the Greek word Logos, more commonly translated “Word”], signifies, among the Jews and other ancient people, when applied to God, every thing by which God reveals Himself to men, and makes known to them His will.  In this passage [John 1:1] the principal proof [for “the Word” being identified as God] does not lie in the word [Greek, 'logos'], nor even in the word [Greek, 'theos'], which in a larger sense is often applied to kings and earthly rulers,…&#8221;</p>
<p>Taken from: Knapp, Georg[e] Christian (b.1753-d.1853), D.D., Professor of Theology in the University of Halle.  &#8220;Lectures on Christian Theology.&#8221;  Translated by Woods, Leonard (b.?-d.?), Jun.D.D., President of Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine.  Second American Edition, Reprinted from the last London Edition.  (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Thomas Wardle, 1845), pp. 136, 137.  BT75 .K64 1845 / 35-22780.</p>
<p>Furthermore, there is this:</p>
<p>&#8220;If Moses could be [called in Hebrew 'elohim,' often translated as 'a god,' at Exodus 4:16 and 7:1], then, for the gospel writers, so could Jesus [in Greek as 'theos' = elohim], who was regarded by the New Testament [writers] as the very least a new Moses.&#8221;</p>
<p>Taken from: Fletcher-Louis, Crispin (b.?-d.?).  “4Q374: A Discourse on the Sinai Tradition: The Deification of Moses and Early Christology.”  Article appearing within: Dead Sea Discoveries, A Journal of Current Research on the Scrolls and Related Literature.  (Leiden, Netherlands; New York, New York: E. J. Brill, vol. 1, no. 1; April 1994–), vol. 3, no. 3 (1996), p. 252.  BM487.A6 E6 / 96647062.</p>
<p>Quite interestingly, when discussing John 10:34 &amp; 35, although most Bible commentaries accurately discuss/explain the Bible&#8217;s legitimate uses of the Hebrew and Greek terms for &#8220;god&#8221; for others throughout a number of places within the Bible (that is, as utilized in a lesser role than in its typical uses for the Almighty, Jehovah), many fail to follow through, that is, in making the logical, Scriptural connection between this and its lesser use for Jesus at John 1:1c.</p>
<p>Perhaps it would interest some to know that, when translating John 1:1c, during the first few centuries after Christianity had begun, two of the earliest known Christian translations of the Greek ‘New Testament’ into a foreign language had utilized their own languages&#8217; indefinite article there as well (for, in the Greek language of Jesus’ day, there were no indefinite articles); and again, all in order to complete the proper sense of the phrase from the Koine Greek (of which, people were still using during this period), both of these translations rendered John 1:1c (when translated to English), “and the Word was a god.”</p>
<p>For this, please examine the contents of the following link:</p>
<p><a href="http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2006/09/john-11c-word-was-god.html" rel="nofollow">http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2006/09/john-11c-word-was-god.html</a></p>
<p>Obviously, there need be more evidence to substantiate such a position; but, otherwise, that is just one of the many points I hope to bring out within my forthcoming work entitled, “What About John 1:1?”</p>
<p>Agape, Alan.<br />
<a href="mailto:john1one@earthlink.net">john1one@earthlink.net</a><br />
<a href="http://wwww.goodcompanionbooks.com" rel="nofollow">http://wwww.goodcompanionbooks.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: witness is back gospel</title>
		<link>http://www.virushead.net/vhrandom/2008/07/26/jw-materials-feedback-and-discussion/comment-page-1#comment-77016</link>
		<dc:creator>witness is back gospel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:22:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.virushead.net/vhrandom/?p=1966#comment-77016</guid>
		<description>[...] ???Theory of Communicative Action.??? Robert Kegan is great too self proclaimed ???postmodern chttp://www.virushead.net/vhrandom/2008/07/26/jw-materials-feedback-and-discussion/The Watchman Expositor: Jehovah&amp;39s Witnesses, Jesus&amp;39 Resurrection ...Jehovah&amp;39s Witnesses, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] ???Theory of Communicative Action.??? Robert Kegan is great too self proclaimed ???postmodern chttp://www.virushead.net/vhrandom/2008/07/26/jw-materials-feedback-an d-discussion/The Watchman Expositor: Jehovah&#38;39s Witnesses, Jesus&#38;39 Resurrection &#8230;Jehovah&#38;39s Witnesses, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
