The Word was divine. .

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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 ...[text shortened]... “and a god was the Logos” Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany.

So you are a Polytheist.

Originally posted by sonship
So you are a Polytheist.

can you offer up an reasonable explanation as to why the verses are translated as they are other than, because the authors wanted to make a mark for themselves and rock some kind of boat, unspecified.

Originally posted by sonship
From Wikopedia

[quote] 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 neede ...[text shortened]... ke he wanted to make his mark and rock the boat some with modern theories of textural criticism.

yeah because being Professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at Mansfield College, Oxford in 1911 and Professor of Church History at the United Free Church College. From 1927-1939 and Washburn Professor of Church History, Union Theological Seminary, New York was not enough,

http://www.bible-researcher.com/moffatt.html

so your explanation of why the verse is translated the way it is, is because James Moffat wanted to, 'make his mark and rock the boat'

Do you have any evidence for this?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
can you offer up an reasonable explanation as to why the verses are translated as they are.

At this time I am not going to study that again.

I see you are a polytheist and gravitate towards a polytheistic interpretation of John 1:1. And I see that this is a matter offering similar rationals for dozens and dozens of other passages affirming that Christ is God incarnate.

Only two reputable Greek translations do I really need to have confidence the job is being done right -

John Nelson Darby's New Translation and the 1901 American Standard Bible (which your cult USED to use.)

Originally posted by sonship
At this time I am not going to study that again.

I see you are a [b]polytheist and gravitate towards a polytheistic interpretation of John 1:1. And I see that this is a matter offering similar rationals for dozens and dozens of other passages affirming that Christ is God incarnate.

Only two reputable Greek translations do I really need to have ...[text shortened]... anslation [/b] and the 1901 American Standard Bible (which the Jehovah's USED to use.)[/b]

so you cannot offer up an explanation as to why the translators translated the verse in the way they did, thank you, other than, they were polytheist, wanted to make a mark and rock some kind of boat, evidence nil.

anyone else?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so you cannot offer up an explanation as to why the translators translated the verse in the way they did, thank you, other than, they were polytheist, wanted to make a mark and rock some kind of boat, evidence nil.

anyone else?

No I am not going to get into Greek grammar at this time on the fly.
And your opinion on it doesn't impress me.

God is Divine. So the Word being God of course is also Divine.

Originally posted by sonship
No I am not going to get into Greek grammar at this time on the fly.
And your opinion on it doesn't impress me.

God is Divine. So the Word being God of course is also Divine.

when you have an explanation of why James Moffat translated the verse in the way he did other than, hes a polytheist, he wanted to make a mark and rock some kind of boat, let us know, so far you have produced nothing but the usual dogma and insults and i don't think you have either the integrity or the honesty to answer the question to be blunt.

Angels are considered divine, so is the Bible, they are not the person of God and for the record, no one is trying to impress you if you want to be impressed may i suggest Monet, Renoir and Van Gogh

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
when you have an explanation of why James Moffat translated the verse in the way he did other than, hes a polytheist, he wanted to make a mark and rock some kind of boat, let us know, so far you have produced nothing but the usual dogma and insults and i don't think you have either the integrity or the honesty to answer the question to be blunt.

A ...[text shortened]... ne is trying to impress you if you want to be impressed may i suggest Monet, Renoir and Van Gogh

You, over the years, have not answered quite a few questions. Both you and Galveston. I put questions to you that you evaded. I never got answers.

You could not answer. Maybe you thought I forgot.

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 please stick to the thread.

Because it colors every single thing you say in this thread.

It is you who can't leave it alone.

I wouldn't exactly fault you for it, but it is true nevertheless.

Your dogma guides everything you say. My dogma guides almost everything I say, but I like to think I've developed a bit more 'discernment' than some. But your dogma is different enough from most Christians' dogma that it stands out, and it is clear (or should be) to everyone that it is why you say the things you say here. I wish sometimes that you could just leave it at that, but no, you can't. You're always pushing your version of the 'truth', trying to prove your case, and amazingly enough, it falls on deaf ears. What do you expect? We're not JW, and we already have our own faith in our own dogma. You have as much chance of changing our minds as we have of changing yours.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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 ...[text shortened]... question do you see a difference between a divine entity like an angel and the personage of God.

Don't tell me, let me guess...

The Watchtower Corporation is now going to publish their own dictionary.

It would be the logical next step considering what they've already done to their credibility.

Originally posted by sonship
You, over the years, have not answered quite a few questions. Both you and Galveston. I put questions to you that you evaded. I never got answers.

You could not answer. Maybe you thought I forgot.

James Moffat, The word is divine, explain why he translated the text in the way that he did.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Don't tell me, let me guess...

The Watchtower Corporation is now going to publish their own dictionary.

It would be the logical next step considering what they've already done to their credibility.

This thread is about James Moffat and why he translated the verse as "the Word is divine", if you can offer an explanation please do so. If you have not the common decency to respect the threads direction can I suggest that you start your own thread on whatever topic interests you and leave those of us who are interested in discussing this topic to do so without tedious references to irrelevancy.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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 ...[text shortened]... question do you see a difference between a divine entity like an angel and the personage of God.

I do not know what was in Moffatt's mind when he translated John 1:1 as ... the Word was divine. However, my guess is that he did not believe that this was referring to another "god" that was with the only true God in the beginning. He apparently believed the Greek "Theos" here was a qualitative noun or descriptive noun or adjective and decided "divine" was the best word he could come up with to present his belief.

I don't believe that there is any indication that Moffatt believed that the Word was the first angel created by God, called Michael by the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not know what was in Moffatt's mind when he translated John 1:1 as ... the Word was divine. However, my guess is that he did not believe that this was referring to another "god" that was with the only true God in the beginning. He apparently believed the Greek "Theos" here was a qualitative noun or descriptive noun or adjective and decided "divine" wa ...[text shortened]... ved that the Word was the first angel created by God, called Michael by the Jehovah's Witnesses.

you were not asked what Moffat believed or did not believe, what you were actually asked was why he translated his text as 'the Word was divine".

What are the facts?

Essentially there are two usages of theos. An anarthrous theos and an articular theos. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. This is why Moffat, a professor of Greek translated the text as he did, he understood the difference.

What it comes down to is that the Word has the nature of God and is distinguished from the personage of God.

Now the implications of this are quite serious, for as anyone can see, its a verse that hes been unashamedly and unscrupulously used to support the idea that the Word is God when in fact what the verse is actually saying is that the word is NOT of the same personage as God but is divine.

Why should a Christian be interested in this? because Jesus himself said, 'your word is truth', and its therefore important that a translation reflect the truthfulness of the original text.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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 ...[text shortened]... question do you see a difference between a divine entity like an angel and the personage of God.

I don't consider Wikipedia any more a reliable interpretation of scripture than I do the watchtower.

Just saying.