AboutBrenton Hepburn Expertise I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
I can answer questions on the reliability of the NWT, the so called mind control problems, so called prophecies, and general practices and history of Jehovah’s Witnesses.....
>>>>WARNING<<<<<< ....Please be aware that there are at least ... 3 .... people here who ARE NOT practicing JWs and, (at other times there have been as many as 5.) These ones will, at times, appear to have an agenda against JWs., and will often give answers that are not correct in regard to JW teachings and practices. If you are after a answer from one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, please read some of the answers that the various experts have published before choosing someone. If you want to ask them a question that is fine, but if you want a balancing view after asking one of the NON JWs, ask a JW the same question
Experience I have been a publisher since 1964. When I first went on the internet I found a lot of negative information dealing with Jehovah’s Witnesses covering prophecy, mind control and what many said was a very bad translation of the Bible known as the NWT. It shook my faith. After may hours researching these topics I could see why some felt that way, but, I was also able to explain why there were these misleading views. I can now set matters straight for anyone that has negative information about Jehovah’s Witness to show them that such information is at best misleading and at worst dangerous lies.
Education/Credentials I have been a student of the Bible for many years, am trying to teach myself Biblical Greek.
Was a public tax accountant for many yrars untill SEP 2009 when I gave it up.
I have been trying diliginatly study the true nature of Jesus,
Colwells law on Greek Syntax aside it seems to me that if in John 1 Theos is used 12 times 6 times without the definate article it seems hard to render the passage "a god" unless there is a theological predisposition to start with. John 1:18 particularly because the definate is used first. Curious why the footnote "An indefinite article is: the word "a" in the phrase "a god", " which seems to state from the NWT that every time there is an indefinite there must be an a.
It seems to me that it assumes beforehand that we are dealing with a predertermined belief of builder and apprentice rather than a judeo christian analogy that determines (colwells law aside again) the outcome or rendering of the verse. For example to me it seems obvious that if John is of monotheistic Jewish understanding he surely would not be introducing a god suddenly into the equation, but the one that is already in the context of the passage, as seems to be consistent with the rules of rendering Greek I am familiar with.
I am wondering actually how you deal with John 20:28 where Thomas says “my Lord and my God” here God as you will note is marked in the Greek with the definate article. Jesus does not respond “no Thomas I am not the God, I am a God”, but instead, “you have believed” according to Ex 20:7 Jesus should have rebuked him if he were not as Thomas said. Given the context of this passage I cannot see how John 1:1 and Johns monotheistic background could render any different translation of John 1:1 (i.e. the two were the same, or perhaps what Logos was theos was too)I note that your first repsonse didn't mention this passage in Simon's original question.
Since Thomas was credited with believing he was God, when Jesus says "If you do not believe I am he" I am interested to know who you think he was referring to?
Michael.
You also mention in your article "About 15 years ago scholars started investigating Colwell's rule more closely discovered that it had been abused by earlier critics." Are you able to confirm that what you are infact referring to are quotations from the Watchtower from 1975? I had recollected and had read something from somewhere and crossreferenced it and copied several such references below.
Watchtower letter to David Henke, October 24, 1975, quoting Dr. Phillip Harner, of Heidelberg College, Tiffin, Ohio.
The Watchtower said: "Note what Mr. Harner writes as to John 1:1, `In John 1:1, I think that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.' Therefore, the Greek at John 1:1 is not overwhelmingly `definite' as Colwell and others maintained so that the text should be rendered in the definite `the God.' Rather, as Harner shows there is the qualitative force possible, hence, warranting `a god', meaning quality of Godlikeness or a mighty one."
Dr. Harner actually wrote: "As an aid in understanding the verse, it will be helpful to ask what John might have written as well as what he did write. In terms of the types of word-order and vocabulary available to him, it would appear that John could have written any of the following:
A. ho Logos en ho theos (The Word was the God);
B. Theos en ho Logos (God was the Word);
C. ho Logos Theos en (the Word God was);
D. ho Logos en Theos (the Word was a god);
E. ho Logos en Theios (the Word was divine);
...Clause D with the verb preceding an anarthrous (without the article `the') predicate, would probably mean that the logos was `a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos but as a distinct being from ho theos... John evidently wished to say something about the logos that was other than A and more than D and E... But in all these cases the English reader might not understand exactly what John was trying to express. Perhaps the clause could be translated, `the Word had the same nature as God.' This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos (the Word), no less than ho theos (the God), had the nature of theos (God)." (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, 1973, pp. 84, 85, 87; parenthesis added for clarity, emphasis mine).
In this example the Watchtower has Dr. Harner saying that Jesus is "a god" when Dr. Harner actually said Jesus is "more than" a god. They have him also saying that "theos" in John 1:1c should be viewed as "qualitative" so that, again, Jesus is only "a god" whereas Dr. Harner said that Jesus had the nature of God no less than God Himself. Yes, John 1:1c is qualitative as Dr. Harner says, but they have perverted the force, or degree, of that quality. John is saying that Jesus is as much deity, divinity, God, as God the Father is deity, divinity or God.
I had to delete the rest for 5000 character limit
my actual email is photography atvanautu.com.vu
Answer Hello Michael,
I tried to send you an e-mail but it bounced.
You can e-mail me at hepburn@picknowl.com.au
Than you for the long list of questions. I understand that long replies get cut so I will, for now only reply to your first paragraph.
I hope I am able to demonstrate to you that there is a distinct difference between John 1:1 and the other times that the word theos appears with out the definite article and why in the other 6 times the indefinite article “a� is not required.
The real issue of John 1:1 is the grammar used and how it is rendered. Colwells rule does have an effect on the translation. In essence Colwells rule says….. "A definite predicate nominative has the [definite] article when it follows the verb; it does not have the [definite] article when it precedes the verb."……
The construction of John 1:1 has a predicate nominative noun preceding the verb
god (predicate noun) was (verb) the Word
Just to show some examples from the Book of John that uses this syntax lets examine the following.
John 4:19 profhthv ei su (the Greek text)
literal translation profhthv (profhet - prdicate noun) ei (a verb - to be, to exist) su (you - the subject)
Now from the RSV "you are a prophet"
John 6:70 umwn eiv diabolov estin (the Greek text)
literal translation umwn (you - the subject) eiv (one) diabolov (devil -predicate noun) estin (to be - verb)
Now from the RSV "one of you is a devil"
So, where no theology is involved, translators will follow the conventions of grammar e.g. Colewlls rule, recognize the qualitative nature of the predicate noun and insert the indefinite article "a"
If you have the tools check out these other texts in the Book of John
8:44 Greek - he manslayer (predicate noun) was (verb).... RSV-He was a murderer
8:44 Greek - because liar (predicate noun) to be (verb) .... RSV - he is a liar
9:17 Greek - that prophet (predicate noun) to be (verb) ..... RSV - He is a prophet
10:1 Greek - he thief (predicate noun) to be (verb) .... RSV - is a thief
10:13 Greek - because hireling (predicate noun) to be (verb) .... RSV - he is a hireling
10:33 Greek - you man (predicate noun) being (verb) .... RSV -you, being a man
12:6 Greek - because thief (predicate noun) was (verb) .... RSV - he was a thief
The above has a direct bearing on the 6 times that the Greek word Theos appears in John chapter 1 without the definite article.
In John 1: 1 the word Theos without the article is referring to the subject of the passage, the Logos. This is what makes it a predicate. It is telling us a quality of the subject. In the examples above the words manslayer, liar, prophet., thief, hireling, man, and finally thief again are all predicates telling us a quality about the subject. That is why they have the indefinate article placed before them in the English rendering.
I want to demonstrate that by looking at 2 of the verses in John 1. verse 6 and verse 18
It is true that we have in these verses the word theos without the definite article thus making them all basically anarthrous nouns (lacking the article). The difference is, that John 1:1c is also a predicate noun, that is relating to the quality of the subject (the logos), telling us something about the nature of the subject where as the definiteness of theos in 1:6 and 1:18 is very clear and does not need the article. These verse look like this (from Interlinear Greek New testament. The English translation as per the interlinear in { } )
There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. (ASV)
From the English ASV the noun God stands on its own and does comply with Colwell’s rule. The man was from God. The word God is not referring back to a quality of the subject (the man) as it is at John 1:1c (where it refers to the logos)
1:18 yeon {GOD} oudeiv {NO ONE} ewraken {HAS SEEN} pwpote {AT ANY TIME;} o {THE} monogenhv {ONLY BEGOTTEN} uiov {SON,} o {WHO} wn {IS} eiv {IN} ton {THE} kolpon {BOSOM} tou {OF THE} patrov {FATHER,} ekeinov {HE} exhghsato {DECLARED [HIM].}
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (ASV)
Again, from the context of this verse, the word God is a definite noun (not a predicate noun as in John 1:1c) even though it does not have the definite article. Those 2 texts along with the other 4 texts do not have the same syntax as John 1:1 as a result should not be used as a comparison as the the use of the indefinate article.
I hope I have answered that part of the question for you. Please ask for more clarification if you need it
