• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Ugh...they came to my door this morning.

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You may want to reconsider that. There is no indefinite article (a) in Greek. There is only the definite article (the). In the absence of the definite article (the) it is usually correct to assume the indefinite article (a).

However, in the case of John 1:1 another rule of grammar is in play. Even though our English translations all say "and the word was God" that is not how the Greek reads. The Greek reads "and God was the word."

The predicate of that clause (God) is first, or in the emphatic position, and is, therefore, necessarily without the article. (See The Gospel According to St. John, Dr. Brooke Foss Westcott, John Murray, Publisher, London, 1908.) So, as the clause in question accepts the subject of the earlier clauses, it may well be translated "and the word was most emphatically God!"

The interesting part is that the JW Greek text is Westcott's text, and in other places they quote him as the leading authority on Greek. :D

So, the conclusion is that the JWs are right in that there is no article before "God" but they are wrong in assuming the indefinite article is to be supplied. They fail to consider the fact that "God" is in the emphatic position.
EVERY reputable Greek expert would translate this as Jesus being very God. The point of the Apostle John was that while Jesus is also very God, he is not the same person as God the father.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
More fake theology. Those without the indwelling of the Spirit can understand spiritual milk. The people of Matthew 23:13 were entering the kingdom of heaven without being compelled by irresistible grace. Thus they had limited spiritual ability. And so do lost JW's. But we must overcome their fake theology. Talking about the Spirit of Christ might unlock their bogus theology.
We need to ask the JW questions, but only the Holy Spirit can reveal truth to them, as they cannot receive it apart from Him!
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I hope every baptist Christian here views a visit by JWs or other cult members as a WITNESSING OPPORTUNITY, & doesn't just dismiss them, which stiffens their belief in their cult.

Remember, those cultists believe they're already saved. But I remind'em that all judgment for salvation has been turned over to Jesus by "Jehovah", that they MUST come to JESUS first if they wanna come to Jehovah.

BTW, I only let'em know I'm a Baptist if they ask.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
But I remind'em that all judgment for salvation has been turned over to Jesus by "Jehovah", that they MUST come to JESUS first if they wanna come to Jehovah.
Uh, Jesus IS Jehovah.

Compare Isaiah 40:3 with Matthew 3:3.

Compare Numbers 21:5-6 with 1 Corinthians 10:9.

Compare John 1:3 with Genesis 2:4.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Actually, think better name to apply to Him here would be "Yahweh"
If you are going to respond to what I post you will have to pay attention. Roby did not use the transliteration "Yahweh." He used the translation "Jehovah."
But I remind'em that all judgment for salvation has been turned over to Jesus by "Jehovah", that they MUST come to JESUS first if they wanna come to Jehovah.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If you are going to respond to what I post you will have to pay attention. Roby did not use the transliteration "Yahweh." He used the translation "Jehovah."
I know, but think that the JW cannot even find that as being the name of God in the bible itself!
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
I know, but think that the JW cannot even find that as being the name of God in the bible itself!
Puh-leese! Think before you post. Get some facts before you post.

The word "Jehovah" occurs over 3,000 times in the NWT!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Puh-leese! Think before you post. Get some facts before you post.

The word "Jehovah" occurs over 3,000 times in the NWT!
Yes, I know , but just stating that it does not occur in the Original texts, as that would be actually Yahweh.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Yes, I know , but just stating that it does not occur in the Original texts, as that would be actually Yahweh.
No, it would NOT be "Yahweh" in the "original texts" (whatever that is). If you are talking about the Hebrew text it would be יהוה.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No, it would NOT be "Yahweh" in the "original texts" (whatever that is). If you are talking about the Hebrew text it would be יהוה.
True, just was saying that in English we would take the name of God to be Yahweh///
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
True, just was saying that in English we would take the name of God to be Yahweh///
<Sigh> Jehovah. Used 4 times in the KJV of 1611/1769. "Yahweh" = 0.
Used 15 times in the RV of 1881. "Yahweh" = 0.
Used 6889 times in the ASV of 1901. "Yahweh" = 0.
Used 6895 times in the MKJV. "Yahweh" = 0.
Used 6866 times in the LITV. "Yahweh" = 0.

Please. Do me a favor. Don't quote me or respond to me in any way from now on and I will do the same to you. I just can't take it any more.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
<Sigh> Jehovah. Used 4 times in the KJV of 1611/1769. "Yahweh" = 0.
Used 15 times in the RV of 1881. "Yahweh" = 0.
Used 6889 times in the ASV of 1901. "Yahweh" = 0.
Used 6895 times in the MKJV. "Yahweh" = 0.
Used 6866 times in the LITV. "Yahweh" = 0.

Please. Do me a favor. Don't quote me or respond to me in any way from now on and I will do the same to you. I just can't take it any more.
There is no real good reason to translate it as being jehovah, as it should be either LORD or Yahweh!
And we will be in heaven forever, so we should agree to get along and play nice my Brother!
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes, Jesus is God, as is His Father and the Holy Spirit. But the JWs don't believe that. (BTW, I recognize Jehovah, Yahweh, YHWH as all being God's name, while "God" is His title in English. I likewise recognize "Jesus" and "Yeshua" as the name of the Son of God, our Savior, when they're used in that context.)
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes, Jesus is God, as is His Father and the Holy Spirit. But the JWs don't believe that. (BTW, I recognize Jehovah, Yahweh, YHWH as all being God's name, while "God" is His title in English. I likewise recognize "Jesus" and "Yeshua" as the name of the Son of God, our Savior, when they're used in that context.)

I talk with a JW everyday for five minutes at work. He admits that Jesus is the Archangel Michael and he says that there is no Holy Spirit whatsoever. So when he says Jesus, he is talking strictly about the Archangel Michael. I let him talk, although he knows where I stand, because I value his friendship and I don't want to win a brutal discussion and lose a friend because my plan is long term. I count on Scripture to do the work, not me.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I reckon it's my personality, but I'm VERY-firm in denouncing false doctrine such as that of the JWs. In talking at length to one, I make sure he/she knows where their "bible" came from, and the sordid history of the beginning of their denomination. (I try not to call it a "cult" in fronta them.)

To me, it comes down to whether they wanna believe a REAL Bible, or one composed by men.
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
<Sigh> Jehovah. Used 4 times in the KJV of 1611/1769. "Yahweh" = 0.
Used 15 times in the RV of 1881. "Yahweh" = 0.
Used 6889 times in the ASV of 1901. "Yahweh" = 0.
Used 6895 times in the MKJV. "Yahweh" = 0.
Used 6866 times in the LITV. "Yahweh" = 0.

Please. Do me a favor. Don't quote me or respond to me in any way from now on and I will do the same to you. I just can't take it any more.
You can't mean that.
 
Top