The Word was divine. .

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?

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?

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...

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
angels are divine because they originate with God, they are not the same person as God, do you agree?

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;

Originally posted by divegeester
No, angels are not divine on that basis. For example, Adam originated with god and he was not divine.

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]

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]

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.