Jehovah`s Witness/your list of "scholars"
I am not about to let this go by especially since you so arogantly claim victory, and your list of so called scholars was designe to mislead the public and make it appear your nwt has solid support for John 1;1.
Hadn't heard of most of the "scholars" on your list, but had heard of a couple of them. After doing research on the ones you listed I found out that many of them are not even recognized scholars at all, and as usual, you quote others out of context.
But heres what really got my attention: Where do you come off listing Johannes Greber as a "scholar" when everyone knows that he was heavily involved in the occult and his wife was a spirit medium. Greber even admitted that he got his rendering of John 1:1 from the spirit world...meaning demons gave him the translation of the verse.
You should apologize for listing Greber as a scholar or using him in support of this Scripture, when he admits that spirits revealed the translaton to him. You should explain yourself on that one.
No apology will be forthcoming I posted where the list came from and its not JW site:
I claim victory for the simple fact that if just one Greek scholar support JW rendering that Jesus is a god and not God that tells me its the correct terminology that John was conveying.
Lets just take Jason BeDuhn a teacher of Greek at Northern Arizona University. He says:
"The bottom line is that "The Word was a god" is exactly what the Greek says"
Now you can go dig up his Greek history or his knowledge of the Greek text but the results will be the same.
You are others like you are fighting a losing battle because if the correct rendering is "a god then you will not be saved and will perish its that simple.
I dont think I have to explain why you will perish I assume you know why,and to be fair if the correct rendering is GOD then all JWs will perish.
So Scott since you entered this thing lets examine this closely because with so much at stake our eternal future in the balance we do well to look at both sides pro and con would you not agree,first I have to ask my self why would any Greek scholar agree with our translation even though they are not a JW but a church person for the most part.
There is no indefinite article a or an in the original Greek text,so translators use the indefinite article according to their understanding of the meaning of the text.
This is a fact that all English translations of scriptures do contain the indefinite article hundreds of times we see this yet not at John 1:1.
Why is it then that some GK scholars agree and some do not,it has to be in the end to personal bias,cant be anything else,if as a noted GK scholar who was brought up as a church person and taught Jesus is GOD he will be slanted to prove John 1-1 is GOD and not a god,thats just common sense,but what about the GK scholar who says it could be rendered a god just as well GOD,why would any noted GK scholar agree is a question you will in the end have to answer for yourself as I'm slanted to a god as a GK scholar.
So its clear both can be used as we see ,so what about the context,the context should reveal which one agree:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God
: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God.”
Which translation of text agrees with the context
What then is the context
Later we see the context:
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
(John 1:14) . . .So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; . . .
so then the context is Jesus is God or godlike,yet if Jesus is GOD then men seen GOD because it clearly said:
"So the Word became flesh and resided among us"
or in other words GOD became flesh since the word is God,but in the complete context John makes it clear:
"No man hath seen God at any time"
So to accept the word as God in the rendering verse 14 has to be explained or ignored,it cant be said Jesus is GOD then say he was seen but was not God at the time because no one can see GOD.
These questions has to be answered ,it cant be both ways but one way.In your follow up you explain the context of John that he clearly expresses the word logos is GOD,I would like to see it.