Trinity - Bible Teaching or Doctrine of Man

Unlike most of the scholars used by Jehovah’s Witnesses, DeBuhn has not been quoted out of context. He does, indeed, believe the NWT and KIT to be generally accurate, and uses the latter when teaching Greek at Northern Arizona University.
BeDuhn received his Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School. This degree requires an intermediate level of competence in Greek. BeDuhn’s PhD from the University of Indiana is in Comparative Religious Studies, not in Biblical languages. He is not recognized in the scholarly community as an expert in Biblical Greek.

Finally, BeDuhn prefers the translation “and the Word was divine.” Dr. BeDuhn has stated in a private email that this rendering “leaves open” a Trinitarian solution (BeDuhn to Steven S. 12/26/2001). In this same email, he states that he does not know who Murray J. Harris is. It would seem that any cogent defense of Dr. BeDuhn’s views would require interaction with Harris’ thorough survey and analysis in his book, Jesus as God (see particularly Harris’ comments regarding “the Word was divine,” p. 63ff).

BeDuhn sees “divine” as merely meaning a non-physical being, which may be the true God or lesser spirit beings, such as angels. We may ask, however, if John’s intended meaning was “divine” simply in the sense of a non-physical being, why he did not use the Greek word theios (“divine”), which would have expressed this sense in unambiguous terms?

Murray Harris

“From the point of view of grammar alone, “theos en ho logos” could be rendered ‘the Word was a god’…But the theological context, viz., John’s monotheism, makes this rendering of 1:1c impossible” (Harris, Jesus as God, p. 60).

CH Dodd

Here are Dodd’s comments in full:
“If the translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation would be, â??The Word was a god.â?? As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted, and to pagan Greeks who heard early Christian language, Theos en o Logos, might have seemed a perfectly sensible statement. 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” (The Bible Translator, Vol. 28, No. 1, Jan. 1977).

Dodd doesn’t say “a god” is an “acceptable” translation. He says it can’t be faulted as a “literal” translation, but there’s a big difference. Notice how Dodd qualifies the quote I provided: “If translation…” His point is that translation is not merely a wooden substitution of one English word for one Greek word. If it were, “a god” could not be “faulted.” However, “only grammatical considerations” do not a proper translation make!

Dodd cites several examples where theos has the meaning of the “essence” of God (p. 104). He then concludes that the NEB translation “What God was the Word also was” is “an attempt” to get at the idea that John was expressing - namely, that in every sense that the Father is God, the Logos is also God (p. 104).

If the WT and Witness apologists use Dodd to defend the NWT translation in the face of accusations that it is ungrammatical, I cannot find fault with such a citation. However, that’s not what this Jehovah’s Witness was saying. He was advocating the NWT as a translation supported by scholars like Dodd. His selective quotation gives the impression that Dodd believes such a translation might be proper or acceptable, when this is not the case at all.

If anybody wants an authoritative, documented, yet reasonably accessible piece on the grammatical structure of John 1:1 see here:

http://vintage.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html

This website belongs to the guy whose radio show I mentioned I was on many years ago dealing with the “faithites” (word of faith movement) earlier in this thread. He has numerous sources and is himself fluent in Koine Greek. I saw this for the first time today. Pretty good.

The quote from Kittel’s monumental "Theological Wordbook of the New Testament (which I also once owned =[ ) is especially telling. I doubt if any of the numerous liberals involved in that work believed anything approaching what anybody here would consider “The Gospel”. They were however honest scholars and out of pure human pride would not diminish their own prestige with sloppy scholarship.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If anybody wants an authoritative, documented, yet reasonably accessible piece on the grammatical structure of John 1:1 see here:

http://vintage.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html

This website belongs to the guy whose radio show I mentioned I was on many years ago dealing with the “faithites” (word of faith movement) earlier in this thread. He has numerous sources and is himself fluent in Koine Greek. I saw this for the first time today. Pretty good.

The quote from Kittel’s monumental "Theological Wordbook of the New Testament (which I also once owned =[ ) is especially telling. I doubt if any of the numerous liberals involved in that work believed anything approaching what anybody here would consider “The Gospel”. They were however honest scholars and out of pure human pride would not diminish their own prestige with sloppy scholarship.[/quote]

So I am not the only one who has managed to lose books over time . . .

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If anybody wants an authoritative, documented, yet reasonably accessible piece on the grammatical structure of John 1:1 see here:

http://vintage.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html

This website belongs to the guy whose radio show I mentioned I was on many years ago dealing with the “faithites” (word of faith movement) earlier in this thread. He has numerous sources and is himself fluent in Koine Greek. I saw this for the first time today. Pretty good.

The quote from Kittel’s monumental "Theological Wordbook of the New Testament (which I also once owned =[ ) is especially telling. I doubt if any of the numerous liberals involved in that work believed anything approaching what anybody here would consider “The Gospel”. They were however honest scholars and out of pure human pride would not diminish their own prestige with sloppy scholarship.[/quote]

That piece, along with Irish’s breakdown and explanation, was a joy to read and should settle things. Something of this nature has been long overdue in this discussion. Thanks to both of you for your posts.

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If anybody wants an authoritative, documented, yet reasonably accessible piece on the grammatical structure of John 1:1 see here:

http://vintage.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html

This website belongs to the guy whose radio show I mentioned I was on many years ago dealing with the “faithites” (word of faith movement) earlier in this thread. He has numerous sources and is himself fluent in Koine Greek. I saw this for the first time today. Pretty good.

The quote from Kittel’s monumental "Theological Wordbook of the New Testament (which I also once owned =[ ) is especially telling. I doubt if any of the numerous liberals involved in that work believed anything approaching what anybody here would consider “The Gospel”. They were however honest scholars and out of pure human pride would not diminish their own prestige with sloppy scholarship.[/quote]

So I am not the only one who has managed to lose books over time . . .[/quote]

No I would say you are the only one. Trib’s burned with his house. Just giving you a hard time.

As a side note, Dr. Murray J. Harris served as a translator on the New International Version (NIV) Committee on Bible translation which translate John 1:1 as “…and the Word was God”

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
A quote from Wiki:

“Some scholars staunchly oppose the translation …a god, while other scholars believe it is possible or even preferable.”

Scholars on “our side” include:

Dr. Jason BeDuhn
In regard to the Kingdom Interlinear’s (from Jehovah’s Witnesses) appendix that gives the reason why the NWT favoured a translation of John 1:1 as saying the Word was not “God” but “a god” said: “In fact the KIT [Appendix 2A, p.1139] explanation is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject…”

Murray J. Harris
He has written: "Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,…”

C. H. Dodd
He says: “If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”

Now do you see that I’m not just speaking my own mind?

Interesting what Beduhn in Truth in Translation says:

"Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament chapter 11 states: “Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, AB, Good News Bible and LB all approached the text at John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word…and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs… Ironically, some of these same scholars are quick to charge the NW translation with “doctrinal bias” for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following the sense of the Greek. It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek.”

That came from Wiki not me…and the search for scholars was just scratching the surface.

PS - I threw the carpet down - this was far more exciting LOL[/quote]

Great that is from Wiki. Who are these people? Irish’s scholars state where they are and their background on the Subject.

Are they greek linguists, or just JWs pulled off the street? We need more than just wiki. We all know that can be changed.[/quote]

You really want me to do everything for you and give you background info on these guys? Do a bit of research, they are not “bums” from the street or Jehovah’s Witnesses. Besides, even if one were a JW, that means that every scholar you’ve quoted would have to have no previous belief of the trinity before they studied.

Dr. Jason BeDuhn is an historian of religion and culture, currently Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University. He wrote the book “Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament”.

Murray J. Harris is Professor emeritus of New Testament exegesis and theology

C. H. Dodd was a Welsh New Testament scholar and influential Protestant theologian.[/quote]

Looks like only one is close to true, but a little suspect. Got anymore out of context quotes to back up your position?

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<< So I am not the only one who has managed to lose books over time . . .[/quote]
You have no idea =[ Practically my entire library (over 2000 volumes) was lost in a fire at my mother’s house where I had it stored in boxes. Only a few items I kept with me were saved. The glorious providence of God at work. He has his reasons.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<< >>>
So I am not the only one who has managed to lose books over time . . .[/quote]

No I would say you are the only one. Trib’s burned with his house. Just giving you a hard time.[/quote]
Oops, didn’t see this. Indeed, except it was my mom’s house like I say

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<< So I am not the only one who has managed to lose books over time . . .[/quote]
You have no idea =[ Practically my entire library (over 2000 volumes) was lost in a fire at my mother’s house where I had it stored in boxes. Only a few items I kept with me were saved. The glorious providence of God at work. He has his reasons.[/quote]

May we presume the fire happened after you finalized your faith? If so then it is the glorious providence of God at work.

[quote]cueball wrote:
<<< and should settle things. Something of this nature has been long overdue in this discussion. Thanks to both of you for your posts.[/quote]
You’re welcome, but I’ll by an ab lounge if anything,s settled.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<< So I am not the only one who has managed to lose books over time . . .[/quote]
You have no idea =[ Practically my entire library (over 2000 volumes) was lost in a fire at my mother’s house where I had it stored in boxes. Only a few items I kept with me were saved. The glorious providence of God at work. He has his reasons.[/quote]

May we presume the fire happened after you finalized your faith? If so then it is the glorious providence of God at work.[/quote]
Oh yes. I had by that point long settled the major viewpoints I have now.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
<<< and should settle things. Something of this nature has been long overdue in this discussion. Thanks to both of you for your posts.[/quote]
You’re welcome, but I’ll by an ab lounge if anything,s settled.[/quote]

Haha! I’ll buy you an ab lounge if it’s settled!

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
You believe that indirectly Jesus called himself God and as I explained earlier, this is how it would have looked word for word:

Jews: You don’t even look 50, how come you’ve seen Abraham?
Jesus: Even before Abraham was born, I am God!

Make sense?

No, because the original Greek simply says:

Jesus: Even before Abraham was born, I existed.

THAT is what angered the Jews (aside from Jesus “claiming” to be so powerful that he could save people from dying)…they thought he was claiming to be some powerful being close to God. But he never said that he was God. That is the key, he never said that.

This is the whole reason why the Jews were angry all the time with Jesus:

John 19:7
“We have a Law, and by our Law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.”[/quote]

No, Jesus did not say I AM GOD in this passage and I have never claimed that He did, but as with John 1:1, you’re problem with this passage is deeper than the I AM statements of God. Because even the plain translation is a declarative of Godhood. Let me explain:

John 8:58

Actual Greek Text:

prin abraam genesthai ego eimi

Literal translation:

Before Abraham came to be, I am being

The Actual Words:

PRIN: Before

ABRAAM: Abraham

GENESTHAI: from GINOMAI meaning to come into existence, to begin to be

EGO: I

EIMI: To be, to exist, to happen, to be present, in this case it is in the present perfect tense continually being (an unceasing action) and is read as “am/is continually being”

So the verse “before Abraham came to be, I am” is actually translated

“before Abraham began to exist, I am continually existing.”

Even if you put it into the past perfect tense (I was already continually - note, not supported by the textm but done for argument’s sake)), it still would not change the importance of the statement.

“before Abraham began to exist, I was already continually existing.”

Regardless of past perfect or present perfect, the action of existing is continual and never ending. Taking in context with John 1:1, Jesus is declaring his eternality, and only GOD is eternal.

The very moment that the Jews heard Jesus state, “I am continually existing”, they took up stones to stone him to death for blasphemy recognizing that He had just claimed an attribute belonging only unto God.

Again, your problems with John run way deeper than you realize.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
<<< and should settle things. Something of this nature has been long overdue in this discussion. Thanks to both of you for your posts.[/quote]
You’re welcome, but I’ll by an ab lounge if anything,s settled.[/quote]

I’ll second that - but pass on the ab lounge - lol

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<< So I am not the only one who has managed to lose books over time . . .[/quote]
You have no idea =[ Practically my entire library (over 2000 volumes) was lost in a fire at my mother’s house where I had it stored in boxes. Only a few items I kept with me were saved. The glorious providence of God at work. He has his reasons.[/quote]

I am so sorry to hear that - my own lost books are entirely my fault (lent to friends, left in various places), so I have no one to blame, but to lose my whole library . . .that’s a tragedy.

BTW - if you need a statement from Jesus using the Holy “I AM”, I’ve got the perfect one all warmed up and ready to go. Just let me know.

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
And you totally ignored the point of the post - the fullness of God cannot be contained in an angel.

[/quote]

And you know this because? They are both spirit creatures.

Think about this. What happened to Jesus when he was baptized?[/quote]

Are you really serious about this? Your logic and reason cannot be this twisted in reality, can they? Let’s look at the twisted-ness of your view of angels alone:

Facts, the highest of the angels was Lucifer - he fell and took 2/3rds of the heavenly host with him.

Conclusion - angels have the ability to break God’s law - they are imperfect!!

But, you still believe that an imperfect race of beings, who are created by God, the highest of whom is the personification of evil itself, the tempter, the great dragon himself, have the capacity to contain and convey within themselves the entirety of the power, perfection, holiness and infallibility of God himself - whom the whole universe could not contain! - to the cross and act as a substitute for all of the sins of mankind? That twisted up tale with absolutely NO biblical proof is what you honestly choose to believe?

That makes more sense to you from a biblical perspective than that God Himself took on the form of humanity and took Himself to the cross and was Himself the perfect sacrifice for our sins, so that he who knew no sin, could become sin for us?

Seriously?

Wow . . . i mean . . .WOW!

When you cannot even comprehend the difference between literal and figurative language, when your view of God is so small that one of His creations could contain His fullness . . . WOW!

when you agree that my five points are true, but your reasoning is so twisted you cannot understand what they mean based on what plain reading and reason would lead you to see . . . double WOW!!

. . . I am stunned![/quote]
Irish…I don’t want to sound like a jerk but you think you know a lot more than you actually do. Your post above is the perfect example of this. You don’t understand what it means to be perfect vs imperfect and the purpose of Jesus having to be a human . Adam and Eve were created perfect as well as all of Jehovah’s spirit beings. Before Adam and Eve sinned they did not have any physical or mental defects. God created all of his intelligent creatures as free moral agents with the privilege and responsibility of making a personal decision as to what course they will take. Perfect beings can choose to take the right course or the wrong course. Saying a perfect being could not make a wrong moral decision is like saying that an imperfect being such as we humans could not make a right moral decision. We all know that this is not the case because imperfect humans regularly choose to make right moral decisions when it comes to obedience to God even if it means suffering persecution to do so. So choosing to break God’s command is not what made Adam and Eve imperfect. Breaking God’s law made them sin but not imperfect; there’s a difference. They did not become imperfect until God sentenced them to death at Genesis 3:17-19. The moment they started to die was the moment they became imperfect and in this imperfect dying state, as they had children, this imperfection was passed to them. On the other hand, Satan and his demons weren’t sentenced to the same type of death sentence as Adam and Eve. When they chose the wrong moral course none of them gradually started to die. So they remained in the same state they were in before they chose to go against God. When they die they are destroyed by God by being thrown into the symbolic Lake of Fire and Sulpher which symbolizes eternal death.

You’re making the common mistake of thinking that perfection means thinking that everything called “perfect” is perfect to an absolute sense, that is, to an infinite degree, without limitation. This type of perfection to an absolute sense if for God Almighty only. Because of this Jesus could say of his Father at Mark 10:18 that “Nobody is good, except one, God.” All of God’s ways are perfect and just and it is impossible for God to lie. God can do whatever he chooses without limitation. On the other hand humans were created perfect in a relative sense meaning it is not absolute. When God finished making man he said it was good. But Adam and Eve in their perfect state still had limitation meaning if they ate dirt, wood, rocks they would suffer bad effects; if they tried to breathe under water they would drown. They were “good” in God’s eyes because they fulfilled the purpose he created them for which was to live on earth, never get sick and die and to obey him. God being satisfied with his creation shows that in his eyes they were the exact way he wanted them.

Due to Adam’s sin that was passed to all of his descendants we are now held captive to sin and death. In order to be released or redeemed from sin and death’s captivity a ransom had to be paid. The price was a sacrifice that had to correspond to Adam’s perfect human life meaning Jesus had to be the exact equal to Adam which is why he had to be born a perfect human free from blemish. Only then could Jesus’ sacrifice pay the price to release Adam’s offspring from the debt, disability, and enslavement into which their first father Adam had sold them.
This fits with Jehovah’s perfect sense of justice which is “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” or a “soul for a soul.” Meaning the price paid has to equal what was lost. If the heavens can’t contain God and his glory then there is no way a flesh and blood human body could contain God and all his glory. And even if it could this would in no way meet God’s perfect sense of “eye for an eye” justice because God Almighty, the Sovereign Lord of the Universe would never equal Adam. God’s life would be infinitely greater than Adams and would not correspond to Adam’s so no God would not come down in human form to redeem mankind.

The trinity doctrine devalues the price God paid and the love he showed mankind. The ransom provision magnified God’s love and mercy in that he met his own requirements at tremendous cost to himself, giving the life of his own Son to provide the redemption price. This is highlighted at John 3:16 which states “God love the world so much that he gave his only begotten son.” Romans 5:6-8 states: “For, indeed, Christ, while we were yet weak, died for ungodly men at the appointed time. 7 For hardly will anyone die for a righteous man; indeed, for the good man, perhaps, someone even dares to die. 8 But God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Notice that both of those passages DO NOT state God gave himself or that God died for us. The passages states it was Jesus and it links Jesus’ death for us humans with God’s love. Giving oneself is a great sacrifice but giving a child that you love is even greater. How so? A loving parent, if given the chance, will always sacrifice himself instead of his children. And that is because it would cause more pain to see ones loving child suffer and die than oneself suffer and die. I can attest to this because I would easily give my daughters the last parachute instead of myself if we were in a plane going down. So the trinity doctrine is saying that it was not God’s son he sacrificed but it was actually himself so the love he emphasizes and links to him giving his son for the redemption of humans is actually a lie and he is exaggerating the value of his sacrifice and making it higher than it actually is. What I mean is that the trinity doctrine basically says that God gave a part of himself instead of his actual son and then lied when he said that he gave his son, to make it seem like he made the ultimate sacrifice. If that were the case he would be a liar. This of course is an impossibility. God’s love is shown and emphasized by the fact that he gave his only begotten son not himself.

Irish, unfortunately the results of discussing anything when there are different views on this type of forum causes a huge rift between the two people that just gets bigger and bigger. Again, you need to open your heart and mind and take a sincere look at your beliefs because when you say “plain reading and reasoning” you’re saying this about a doctrine that Trinitarians admit is mysterious, confusing and too high for humans to fully comprehend. Be honest man, the words “plain reading and reasoning” should never be used to describe a teaching such as the Trinity.