Antedating comments htm
So, Barclay may have possibly been referring to the verse in its entirety, not merely the "a god" rendering. 3c below)." Although I disagree with BDAG in its attempt to explain away (that's what it is) the language of John using the account about Pythagoras (! Further, his statement that the traditional rendering "narrows the meaning from a quality or category (god/divine) to an individual (God)" seems a strawman argument: Those who argue that theos has a qualitative force in John 1:1c do not argue that Jesus is the individual, God, but rather that he possesses all the qualities or attributes of God. Be Duhn's substitution of "categorical" for Harner's "qualitative," so long was we understand that for John, the category that includes the true God is a category containing only one Being (see Harris, Jesus as God, p. Be Duhn attempted to defend the NWT to Catholic apologist John Pacheco. You will notice that a necessary presupposition of Be Duhn's argument is that John's beliefs about God were not consistent with those professed in Deuteronomy.
Or, more likely, he did not remember what he had said about the NWT some 20-odd years before. under 4 below; a similar development can be observed in the use of se,bomai and cognates)." It is suspicious when an author tells us that a particular view is fundamental in "Mosaic...traditions" but then fails to quote Moses or anyone clearly in his tradition in support of the assertion. is complicated by demand of punctuation marks in printed texts. The transposition by the Socinian scholar JSchlichting [died 1661] w-n o`=`to whom belongs' was revived by JWeiss, D. ), since John's milieu is Jewish and his religious canon is the Old Testament, I note that BDAG acknowledges that in John QEOS "certainly refers to Christ." Do you agree? John is not "concerned" with the radical monotheistic commitment of Deuteronomy, Be Duhn suggests.
Four times the word other is introduced and every time without justification. In contrast to Genesis 1:1, the creation comes into existence not directly from God, but from the Logos. His emphasis on the distinction between theos and ho theos is to safeguard against modalism, not Trinitarianism."The bottom line is that "The Word was a god" is exactly what the Greek says.
Ph 2:6 becomes Christ Jesus, who, although be was existing in Gods form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.] It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest (The Expositor, Oct 1953, Vol 65, bold and brackets added; brackets indicate ellipsis on all pro-NWT websites that I'm aware of using Google 8/14/12). Burnett, Thank you very much indeed for your letter of 16th April. "The Word was divine" is a possible meaning of this Greek phrasing.
All other things have been created through him and for him. But Becker goes on to say that the Logos deserves to be called "God" due to his divine nature (Gottlicher Art). Thus, Becker does not understand his translation to imply that the Logos was a created being.
[Col 2:1-17 is translated : He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, because by means of him all other things were created... VIhsou/ Ac Pl Ha 3, 10; Cristo.j VIhsou/j o` qeo,j 6, 24; cp. Few modern Biblical scholars would agree with Becker on this point.
When Barclay says that John didn't write that "Jesus was God," he merely means that Jesus was not God the Father. All in all, the BDAG entry here is seriously deficient, both in its argumentation and in its scholarship.
That Barclay sees an ontological unity between ho theos and ho logos is apparent in the following passage omitted from the Watchtower article:"The only modern translator who fairly and squarely faced this problem is Kenneth Wuest, who said: 'The Word was as to his essence, essential deity.' But it is here that the NEB has brilliantly solved the problem with the absolutely correct rendering: 'What God was the Word was'" (Barclay, p. Still, I think you will have to disagree with it on at least a couple of texts.
I'm not suggesting that no scholars may be found in support of the NWT or its translation of John 1:1, but these are in the minority and often are not as qualified in their field as the scores of scholars who advocate the traditional translation.
In the chart, below, we will examine how some scholars have been used in defense of the NWT and whether they actually support the Watchtower translation as claimed.