1. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    31 Jan '14 16:503 edits
    James Moffatt and Coptic John 1:1, 18

    Dr. James Moffatt (1870-1944) was a notable scholar of Biblical Greek and translator of the 1934 Bible version which bears his name. I've had him on the shelf for some time and recently looked at his translation of John 1:1 and John 1:18.

    What interested me is that Moffatt's English translation of the Greek text(s) was quite close to what an accurate English translation of the Sahidic Coptic text would say, the Coptic text itself being based upon ancient Greek texts.

    In other words, it appears that Moffatt took a similar message from those Greek texts that the Coptic translators did when they rendered their Greek texts into their own Egyptian Coptic language.

    At John 1:1 Moffat renders:

    The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.

    The Sahidic Coptic text, with my 2006 Contemporary Translation:

    Hn teHoueite neFSoop nCi pSaJe auw pSaJe neFSoop nnaHrm pnoute auw neunoute pe pSaJe
    In the beginning the Word existed. The Word existed in the presence of God, and the Word was a divine being.

    http://copticjohn.blogspot.co.uk/2008/04/james-moffatt-and-coptic-john-11-18.html

    According to trinitarians the word was not divine but the Word is the person of God, which translation is correct, 'the word was God' or 'the word was divine' and why?
  2. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86381
    31 Jan '14 17:26
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    James Moffatt and Coptic John 1:1, 18

    Dr. James Moffatt (1870-1944) was a notable scholar of Biblical Greek and translator of the 1934 Bible version which bears his name. I've had him on the shelf for some time and recently looked at his translation of John 1:1 and John 1:18.

    What interested me is that Moffatt's English translation of the Greek ...[text shortened]... erson of God, which translation is correct, 'the word was God' or 'the word was divine' and why?
    I agree with both translations; 'god' and 'divine'. Mainly because I don't draw a significant distinction.

    However I'm sure there is another shoe falling from headquarters...
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    31 Jan '14 17:561 edit
    Originally posted by divegeester
    I agree with both translations; 'god' and 'divine'. Mainly because I don't draw a significant distinction.

    However I'm sure there is another shoe falling from headquarters...
    The distinction is quite significant, one is claiming that the word is the same person as God, the other claims that the word has similar qualities.

    anyone else that is able to tell the difference?
  4. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86381
    31 Jan '14 18:501 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    The distinction is quite significant, one is claiming that the word is the same person as God, the other claims that the word has similar qualities.

    anyone else that is able to tell the difference?
    Is that really what it means, or that your JW spin? Seriously.

    If a person is a "divine" being are they not god?

    The trouble is you believe that Jesus is "a" god along with Jehovah and therefore can be called divine; where the trinitarians believe that Jesus is also "god" but one of three people in one god (I don't get it either) and therefore is also "divine".

    You believe Jesus is a god but not "the" god

    The trins believe Jesus is "the" god but only a third of him.

    Neither of you make sense to me.
  5. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    31 Jan '14 18:585 edits
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Is that really what it means, or that your JW spin? Seriously.

    If a person is a "divine" being are they not god?

    The trouble is you believe that Jesus is "a" god along with Jehovah and therefore can be called divine; where the trinitarians believe that Jesus is also "god" but one of three people in one god (I don't get it either) and therefore is ...[text shortened]... he trins believe Jesus is "the" god but only a third of him.

    Neither of you make sense to me.
    why do you feel the need to constantly every single post you make to bring Jehovahs witnesses into the equation? where did i mention them, nowhere, so please stick to the thread.

    Now to the point at hand, the claim is that the Word is the same person as God, or the word is like God in that it is divine, has the same nature or essence, they are not one and the same thing. The Bible for example can be considered divine because it originated with God, this is something entirely different to the claim to be the same personage as God so no, if an entity is divine it does not necessitate that it is the same person as God.

    divine : godly, godlike,

    In religious terms, divinity is the state of things that come from a supernatural power or deity, such as a god, or spirit beings, and are therefore regarded as sacred and holy. Such things are regarded as "divine" due to their transcendental origins, and/or because their attributes or qualities are superior or supreme relative to things of the Earth.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity
  6. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86381
    31 Jan '14 19:08
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    why do you feel the need to constantly every single post you make to bring Jehovahs witnesses into the equation? where did i mention them, nowhere, so either stick to the thread or get out and start another Jehovahs witness thread like you usually do, this is for people that want to discuss the Bible and it will not be made subject to your prejudices ...[text shortened]... re superior or supreme relative to things of the Earth.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity
    I sincerely apologise robbie, I didn't realise you were about to seriously explore the validity of a notion contrary to JW established doctrine. My bad.
  7. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    31 Jan '14 19:16
    Originally posted by divegeester
    I sincerely apologise robbie, I didn't realise you were about to seriously explore the validity of a notion contrary to JW established doctrine. My bad.
    No need to apologise, now why are you finding it difficult to differentiate between being the person of God and being divine or godlike?
  8. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86381
    31 Jan '14 19:46
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    No need to apologise, now why are you finding it difficult to differentiate between being the person of God and being divine or godlike?
    I don't see the similarity between "divine" and "godlike". It's the suffix "like". One is either divine or one is not.
  9. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    31 Jan '14 20:03
    Originally posted by divegeester
    I don't see the similarity between "divine" and "godlike". It's the suffix "like". One is either divine or one is not.
    angels are divine because they originate with God, they are not the same person as God, do you agree?
  10. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86381
    31 Jan '14 20:36
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    angels are divine because they originate with God, they are not the same person as God, do you agree?
    No, angels are not divine on that basis. For example, Adam originated with god and he was not divine.
  11. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8623
    31 Jan '14 21:34

    New International Version
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    New Living Translation
    In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    English Standard Version
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    New American Standard Bible
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    King James Bible
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    Holman Christian Standard Bible
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    International Standard Version
    In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    NET Bible
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.

    Aramaic Bible in Plain English
    In the origin The Word had been existing and That Word had been existing with God and That Word was himself God.

    GOD'S WORD® Translation
    In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    Jubilee Bible 2000
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God.

    King James 2000 Bible
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    American King James Version
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    American Standard Version
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    Douay-Rheims Bible
    IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    Darby Bible Translation
    In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    English Revised Version
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    Webster's Bible Translation
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    Weymouth New Testament
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    World English Bible
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    Young's Literal Translation
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    31 Jan '14 21:37
    Originally posted by divegeester
    No, angels are not divine on that basis. For example, Adam originated with god and he was not divine.
    In religious terms, divinity is the state of things that come from a supernatural power or deity, such as a god, or spirit beings, and are therefore regarded as sacred and holy. Such things are regarded as "divine" due to their transcendental origins, and/or because their attributes or qualities are superior or supreme relative to things of the Earth

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity

    Angels are considered divine because they originate with God and because they are considered superior relative to things on the earth, Adam was of of the earth and is not divine, Angels are not of the earth, originate with God and are considered superior to men, angels are therefore divine, Adam was not.

    Now back to the question do you see a difference between a divine entity like an angel and the personage of God.
  13. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    31 Jan '14 21:422 edits
    Originally posted by sonship

    [b]New International Version

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    New Living Translation
    In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    English Standard Version
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Go ...[text shortened]... b]
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

    [/b]
    please take your corrupt and erroneous translations with not a single explanatory note out of my thread, they amount to an argumentum ad populum, its true because many believe it to be true or in this instance its true because i can produce a list of erroneous and biased translations. Its a logical fallacy, we are discussing Dr. James Moffats translation, 'the word was divine', if you can offer any reason why he translated the text as he did, then feel free offer an explanation, simply citing other translations is irrelevant and dishonest.
  14. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    31 Jan '14 21:531 edit
    Originally posted by sonship

    [b]New International Version

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    New Living Translation
    In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    English Standard Version
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Go ...[text shortened]... b]
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

    [/b]
    1808 “and the word was a god” The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With Corrected Text, London.

    1864 “and a god was the Word” The Emphatic Diaglott (J21,
    interlinear reading), byBenjamin Wilson, New York and London.

    1935 “and the Word was divine” The Bible—An American
    Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

    1950 “and the Word was a god” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.

    1975 “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word” Siegfried Schulz,Göttingen, Germany.

    1978 “and godlike sort was the Logos” Das Evangelium nach
    Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin.

    1979 “and a god was the Logos” Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany.
  15. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8623
    31 Jan '14 21:53
    From Wikopedia

    Moffatt's departed from traditional translations in several areas. First, he held to the documentary hypothesis and printed his Bible in different typefaces according to which author he believed had written each particular section. Second, he dated most books hundreds of years later than most theologians of the time;[citation needed] this stemmed from his doubt about the historical accuracy of many of the biblical books (especially those in the Old Testament). Last, he rearranged the biblical texts (usually by switching chapter orders) based on his judgments about the content, authorship, and historicity of the texts. For example, Book of John chapter 14 comes after John 15 and 16 in the Moffatt Bible. These methods raised objections from many scholars,[2] but proved very popular and started a trend toward more paraphrased translations.


    [my bolding]

    Sounds like he wanted to make his mark and rock the boat some with modern theories of textural criticism.
Back to Top