If Jesus is a created being and He did not preexist His incarnation then why....

TibiasDad

Well-known member
Are you under the (false) impression that all "Greek scholars" are Trinitarians?

(Or maybe you were unaware that the majority of "well-known Greek scholars" who are Trinitarians have studied but hold no degrees in the Biblical Languages.)

I am under no such false delusions, but apparently you are, thinking that having an official or specific "degree" in a language means a necessarily better understanding. What does it mean when two equally "degreed" scholars disagree completely? What if two non-degreed people disagree using the same reasonings that the "degreed" scholars employ? Are the non-degreed people any less knowledgeable than the "degreed" because of a lack of diploma? The diploma verifies the successful completion of a prescribed course of study in a sufficiently proficient manner. The lack of a diploma does not mean that the same knowledge has not been attained by their own initiative!


Doug
 
I am under no such false delusions, but apparently you are, thinking that having an official or specific "degree" in a language means a necessarily better understanding.
If you were not under "such false delusions", please explain the statement:
I note the lack of identification of who "the scholar" is, and the source of the quotation. It could not have been a authentic Trinitarian.

What does it mean when two equally "degreed" scholars disagree completely?
Equally degreed scholars tend to disagree theologically. However, with regards to grammar(, if they are honest), they tend to agree--at least to some degree.
What if two non-degreed people disagree using the same reasonings that the "degreed" scholars employ?
Non-degreed people tend to "copy" those they call "scholars" that agree with their theology (rather than actually "knowing" if what is being said by those "scholars" is true or not).
Are the non-degreed people any less knowledgeable than the "degreed" because of a lack of diploma?
It depends. (But this is a question that should be asked of those who argue that the NWT is not accurate because of who they think translated it, or based on the "qualifications" of the men they think translated it. For, if those who doubt the accuracy of the NWT knew what they were talking about, they would know that the NWT is translated more accurately than what has been stated.)
The diploma verifies the successful completion of a prescribed course of study in a sufficiently proficient manner. The lack of a diploma does not mean that the same knowledge has not been attained by their own initiative!


Doug
It depends on what "attainment by their own initiative" entails.
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
If you were not under "such false delusions", please explain the statement:
"I note the lack of identification of who "the scholar" is, and the source of the quotation. It could not have been a authentic Trinitarian."

You did not tell us who said the quotation you quoted, nor did you tell us from where the quotation was derived! One with such advanced degrees should understand such basic protocols.


Equally degreed scholars tend to disagree theologically. However, with regards to grammar(, if they are honest), they tend to agree--at least to some degree.

1) Theological differences are often based on grammatical arguments.
It depends. (But this is a question that should be asked of those who argue that the NWT is not accurate because of who they think translated it, or based on the "qualifications" of the men they think translated it. For, if those who doubt the accuracy of the NWT knew what they were talking about, they would know that the NWT is translated more accurately than what has been stated.)

1) Those who argue such are more than sufficiently proficient and educated to opine the accuracy of the NWT. When the Watchtower misquoted trinitarian and Greek scholar, J.R. Mantey, and says he supports their translation, forcing Mantey to publish a public denunciation of not only the misquotation of his Greek manual's discussion of John 1:1c, "and the Word was deity", but of the translation as a whole, (entitling his retort to the Watchtower "A Grossly Misleading Translation")*, the "expertise", or lack thereof, is evident. *(The Watchtower Jesus, D. Allen Jenkins, Kindle ed., pg 598)

2) The identies of the five original "translators" were, under the guise of humility, concealed from every attempt to discover them, but eventually they were identified as:

Franz, Frederick
Probably the only person to actually translate. Franz was a liberal arts student at the University of Cincinnati:

21 semester hours of classical Greek, some Latin.
Partially completed a two-hour survey course in Biblical Greek in junior year.
Self-taught in Spanish, biblical Hebrew and Aramaic
1954 Scottish Trial - Franz unable to translate basic Hebrew verse

Gangas, George
No training in biblical languages. Gangas was a Turkish national who knew Modern Greek. Translated Watchtower publications into Modern Greek.

Henschel, Milton
No training in biblical languages.

Klein, Karl
No training in biblical languages.

Knorr, Nathan
No training in biblical languages

Schroeder, Albert
No training in biblical languages. Schroeder majored in mechanical engineering for three years before dropping out.

Moreover, Fred Franz, an eventual President of the Jehovah's Witnesses, was brought to testify in a Scottish lawsuit against the Watchtower. The following is from the transcript of that trial:

Fred Franz was the leader of the New World Translation (NWT) committee and subsequent president of the Watchtower Society, and the only member of the secret committee to have any training in Hebrew or Greek, limited as it was.

Mr. Franz, under oath in a trial in Scotland in the Scottish Court of Sessions in November, 1954 (Douglas Walsh v. The Right Honorable James Latham Clyde, M.P., P.C., etc., Scotland, 1954, (1958 ed.).p.7.), was asked:

(Q): I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew ....
(A). Yes.

The next day, he was put to the test. Could he really follow the Bible in Hebrew? Franz was asked to translate a simple Bible text at Genesis 2:4:6

(Q): I think we come to the name Jehovah in the forth verse, don't we, of the second chapter of Genesis ... [page 34]
(A). Yes.

(Q): You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?
(Remember, Franz had admitted to this the previous day)
(A): I do not speak Hebrew.

(The examiner was surprised to hear this)
(Q): You do not!
(A). No.

Q): Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?
(A): Which?
(Q): That fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis?
(A): You mean here?

(Q). Yes?
(A): No, I won't attempt to do that.



So the five members of the translation commit had minimal to zero ability in any of the three language native to the scriptures. Hardly qualified for producing the most accurate translation in history.


Doug
 

civic

Well-known member
This question makes no sense. Jesus "pre-existed" as the "only-born god" (John 1:18). Thus(, per God's will), as the agent of creation, the ages came into existencs through God's son (eg Hebrews 1:2).
The problem is the passages are stating the past original creation where we read in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. So only God is responsible for creation and only God was in existence before creation.

1 Corinthians 8:6 is a stumbling block for all unitarians including JW's. They use it against Trinitarians yet is backfires on them for this reason.

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

What are the " all things" ?

John 1:3
Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.

Romans 11:36
For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever! Amen.

Colossians 1:16
For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him.

And of course in Hebrews we see the following about the Son regarding the creation !

Hebrews 1:8-10
But regarding the Son He says,

“Your throne, God, is forever and ever,
And the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of [i]His kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of joy above Your companions.”
10 And,

You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,

Not only does the N.T. say all things were made through Him but He is also called God who laid the foundation of the earth which is confirmed in all the passages in this post. And I don't even need to bring all those passages into the argument since all things in John 1:3 that were made by Him, John identified Him as God in John 1:1 which is the same beginning in Genesis 1:1. The wording is identical in the Septuagint.

hope this helps !!!
 
Last edited:

TibiasDad

Well-known member
1 Corinthians 8:6 is a stumbling block for all unitarians including JW's. They use it against Trinitarians yet is backfires on them for this reason.

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

1) Beware of twisted and circular logic and arguments of how "all things" means all things but two!

2) ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα and δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα-- "out of" the Father, and "through", or by means of, or "by instrumentality of" (Strong) Jesus Christ shows that Christ is the hands on Creator, the one actually creating "all things", that when Yahweh says he created alone with his own hands, it shows that the Word is the Creator Yahweh.


Doug
 
"I note the lack of identification of who "the scholar" is, and the source of the quotation. It could not have been a authentic Trinitarian."

You did not tell us who said the quotation you quoted, nor did you tell us from where the quotation was derived! One with such advanced degrees should understand such basic protocols.
Since I've posted this quote numerous times, there was no need to provide the source of the quotation. Nevertheless, the scholar that made the statement is Jason BeDuhn.

Moreover, you still haven't explained why yo made the statement "It could not have been an authentic Trinitarian"(. Such a statement demonstrates that you believe only Trinitarians are scholars--otherwise, there was no need to mention it).

Lastly, one can assess the truthfulness of a statement based solely on what is said(. Knowing who said something doesn't make what they said more or less true).
1) Theological differences are often based on grammatical arguments.
More often they are not.
1) Those who argue such are more than sufficiently proficient and educated to opine the accuracy of the NWT. When the Watchtower misquoted trinitarian and Greek scholar, J.R. Mantey, and says he supports their translation, forcing Mantey to publish a public denunciation of not only the misquotation of his Greek manual's discussion of John 1:1c, "and the Word was deity", but of the translation as a whole, (entitling his retort to the Watchtower "A Grossly Misleading Translation")*, the "expertise", or lack thereof, is evident. *(The Watchtower Jesus, D. Allen Jenkins, Kindle ed., pg 598)
It seems that neither the author of said article Nor Mantey understands the translation of the NWT(--even though the NWTTC has explained it), for:

1) the translation of QEOS (in the phrase "QEOS HN hO LOGOS") as 'a god' is a "qualitative" rendering, and
2) the translation of John 1:1c's QEOS HN hO LOGOS as "the Word was a god" would be a mistranslation only if the text could not be translated as such.

It must be stated, however, that while both the Orthodox Bibles and the NWT are attempting to express the same idea, both the traditional rendering (of John 1:1's QEOS HN hO LOGOS as) "the Word was God" and the NWTTC's "the Word was a god" are both misleading.

(Both could've gone with 'the Word was divine' but chose not to for various reasons--the leading being that "Greek has a word for 'divine', and if John wanted to say that, he could've used QEIOS".)
2) The identies of the five original "translators" were, under the guise of humility, concealed from every attempt to discover them, but eventually they were identified as:

Franz, Frederick
Probably the only person to actually translate. Franz was a liberal arts student at the University of Cincinnati:

21 semester hours of classical Greek, some Latin.
Partially completed a two-hour survey course in Biblical Greek in junior year.
Self-taught in Spanish, biblical Hebrew and Aramaic
1954 Scottish Trial - Franz unable to translate basic Hebrew verse

Gangas, George
No training in biblical languages. Gangas was a Turkish national who knew Modern Greek. Translated Watchtower publications into Modern Greek.

Henschel, Milton
No training in biblical languages.

Klein, Karl
No training in biblical languages.

Knorr, Nathan
No training in biblical languages

Schroeder, Albert
No training in biblical languages. Schroeder majored in mechanical engineering for three years before dropping out.

Moreover, Fred Franz, an eventual President of the Jehovah's Witnesses, was brought to testify in a Scottish lawsuit against the Watchtower. The following is from the transcript of that trial:

Fred Franz was the leader of the New World Translation (NWT) committee and subsequent president of the Watchtower Society, and the only member of the secret committee to have any training in Hebrew or Greek, limited as it was.

Mr. Franz, under oath in a trial in Scotland in the Scottish Court of Sessions in November, 1954 (Douglas Walsh v. The Right Honorable James Latham Clyde, M.P., P.C., etc., Scotland, 1954, (1958 ed.).p.7.), was asked:

(Q): I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew ....
(A). Yes.

The next day, he was put to the test. Could he really follow the Bible in Hebrew? Franz was asked to translate a simple Bible text at Genesis 2:4:6

(Q): I think we come to the name Jehovah in the forth verse, don't we, of the second chapter of Genesis ... [page 34]
(A). Yes.

(Q): You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?
(Remember, Franz had admitted to this the previous day)
(A): I do not speak Hebrew.

(The examiner was surprised to hear this)
(Q): You do not!
(A). No.

Q): Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?
(A): Which?
(Q): That fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis?
(A): You mean here?

(Q). Yes?
(A): No, I won't attempt to do that.



So the five members of the translation commit had minimal to zero ability in any of the three language native to the scriptures. Hardly qualified for producing the most accurate translation in history.


Doug
Firstly, none of these men were actually identified as the translators of the NWT. (This is hearsay.)

Secondly(, if you actually follow the line of questioning), Franz was asked "are you able to read the Bible in Hebrew", and then asked "can you translate that into Hebrew...the fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis" (which he says he won't attempt--not that he can't--do).

Reading the Bible in Hebrew and translating into Hebrew are two different things. As an interpreter, for instance, I've known many that can read and translate Spanish accurately, but if you ask them to translate something from English to Spanish, they'd mess it up.)
 
The problem is the passages are stating the past original creation where we read in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Such is not true as--for example--Hebrews 1:2 says "through him God created the ages"
So only God is responsible for creation and only God was in existence before creation.
Even the heavenly messengers existed before the creation of Genesis 1:1 (as shown in Job 38:7).
1 Corinthians 8:6 is a stumbling block for all unitarians including JW's. They use it against Trinitarians yet is backfires on them for this reason.

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

What are the " all things" ?
Everything other than God and Jesus. (Hence, the reason "all things" actually refers to "everything else".)
John 1:3
Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.

Romans 11:36
For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever! Amen.

Colossians 1:16
For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him.
I don't see where you demonstrated a "stumbling block" for JWs.
And of course in Hebrews we see the following about the Son regarding the creation !

Hebrews 1:8-10
But regarding the Son He says,

“Your throne, God, is forever and ever,
And the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of [i]His kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of joy above Your companions.”
Interestingly, Hebrews 1:8 can be translated in other ways (so cannot be considered a text in which the son is being called "God").

But even if it were, Hebrews 1:9 says: "Therefore God, your God, has anointed you...", which would mean the God at Hebrews 1:9 is "God's God".
10 And,

You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,

Not only does the N.T. say all things were made through Him but He is also called God who laid the foundation of the earth which is confirmed in all the passages in this post.
Actually, you'd have a point if Hebrews 1:10-12 followed Psalm 102:25-27 in the Hebrew text (which has the one praying addressing YHWH).

However, Hebrews 1:10-12 follows the LXX (which has YHWH addressing the one praying to Him).
And I don't even need to bring all those passages into the argument since all things in John 1:3 that were made by Him,
You might have to.
John identified Him as God in John 1:1 which is the same beginning in Genesis 1:1. The wording is identical in the Septuagint.

hope this helps !!!
John 1:1 doesn't identify the Word as "God".
 
1) Beware of twisted and circular logic and arguments of how "all things" means all things but two!
1 Corinthians 15:27 demonstrates how 'PANTA' is used in Scripture.
2) ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα and δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα-- "out of" the Father, and "through", or by means of, or "by instrumentality of" (Strong) Jesus Christ shows that Christ is the hands on Creator, the one actually creating "all things", that when Yahweh says he created alone with his own hands, it shows that the Word is the Creator Yahweh.


Doug
Even if one believes Jesus is the "hands on creator", the Bible doesn't express this--which is why the active voice is never used in reference to Christ's role in creation(; ie, Scripture never says "the Word created" or "Jesus created" as it does when referring to God).
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
Since I've posted this quote numerous times, there was no need to provide the source of the quotation. Nevertheless, the scholar that made the statement is Jason BeDuhn.
And here is a review of the author and the book he wrote:

The long and short of this 86 page review says "this study demonstrates his (Dr. BeDuhn's) fundamental bias in favour of Jehovah’s Witness doctrines and the New World translation, and his equivalent but opposite bias against translations and doctrines that do not support the Jehovah’s Witness view. In fact, his book is less a review of Bible translations and more a sustained attack on the concept of the deity of Christ as described in the original Greek texts." (www.livingwater-spain.com/beduhn.pdf, PG 81)

So much for your "expert opinion"!

Doug
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
Even if one believes Jesus is the "hands on creator", the Bible doesn't express this--which is why the active voice is never used in reference to Christ's role in creation(; ie, Scripture never says "the Word created" or "Jesus created" as it does when referring to God).

1) If you can demonstrate that one can be the instrumentality by or through which something is accomplished in a a singular and personal way (which is what Isa 44:24, 48:12-13 say) without being actively doing the deeds, you may have an argument.

2) If the Word is God, then it is referring to God.

Doug
 

Anthony

Active member
It has him as creator
He is the link between transcendent God and creation. He is the only Medium between higher and lower dimension. He is the visible form of invisible God.

When John (from Jewish background) says that no one has ever seen God - he meant God who is utter transcendent.

Jesus during His ministry told the Jews:

John 5:37 “And the Father who sent Me, He bore witness of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.

Jesus was telling the truth because He Himself was existing in the form (visible) of God before taking on the likeness of men:

Phil 2:5-6
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

He is equal in Deity with transcendent God but lower in power as He confined Himself to created realm for the very work of creation and redemption.

He is the substance of our faith and in Him The Word of transcendent God is Personified. His Name is called The WORD of God.

The revelation of transcendent God is in Him.

Sometimes, there is only apparent contradictions in scriptures as The voice comes out of heaven declaring He is the beloved Son in whom The Father is well pleased.

Scriptures must be rightly divided and must be understood by spiritual minds and in prophetic sense.

The One Who was heard, seen and touched from the beginning is The Word of life - 1John 1:1
 
1) If you can demonstrate that one can be the instrumentality by or through which something is accomplished in a a singular and personal way (which is what Isa 44:24, 48:12-13 say) without being actively doing the deeds, you may have an argument.
Actually, you'd have an argument if any scripture stated "the Word created" or "the son created" or "Jesus created" (rather than "through him God created...").
2) If the Word is God, then it is referring to God.

Doug
Problem is...the Word is not "God".

If the Word were "God" he'd be with himself(--unless you believe there are two "Gods"), for the Bible clearly says, "the Word was with God...the same was in the beginning with God" (John 1:1b, 2).
 
And here is a review of the author and the book he wrote:

The long and short of this 86 page review says "this study demonstrates his (Dr. BeDuhn's) fundamental bias in favour of Jehovah’s Witness doctrines and the New World translation, and his equivalent but opposite bias against translations and doctrines that do not support the Jehovah’s Witness view. In fact, his book is less a review of Bible translations and more a sustained attack on the concept of the deity of Christ as described in the original Greek texts." (www.livingwater-spain.com/beduhn.pdf, PG 81)

So much for your "expert opinion"!

Doug
You've demonstrated my point:
Non-degreed people tend to "copy" those they call "scholars" that agree with their theology (rather than actually "knowing" if what is being said by those "scholars" is true or not).
What's even more interesting is that Jason BeDuhn has the same (Bachelor's and/or Master's) degrees as many of the Trinitarian "scholars" that have been quoted.

More interesting than that, you didn't demonstrate that BeDuhn's statement:
On Colossians 1:15-20, you have focused precisely on the key to this passage. By calling Jesus the "firstborn of creation" in v.15, Paul has explicitly identified Christ as part of creation. Amazingly, most Christians overlook this fact. The JW's draw attention to it by inserting [other] into the subsequent verses. A bit heavy handed, but in terms of the content and meaning of the passage, perfectly correct. Paul does not mean to assert that Christ created himself, and he of course did not create God; rather he is the agent of creating everything else.
was untrue.
 
Last edited:

brightfame52

Well-known member
He is the link between transcendent God and creation. He is the only Medium between higher and lower dimension. He is the visible form of invisible God.

When John (from Jewish background) says that no one has ever seen God - he meant God who is utter transcendent.

Jesus during His ministry told the Jews:

John 5:37 “And the Father who sent Me, He bore witness of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.

Jesus was telling the truth because He Himself was existing in the form (visible) of God before taking on the likeness of men:

Phil 2:5-6
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

He is equal in Deity with transcendent God but lower in power as He confined Himself to created realm for the very work of creation and redemption.

He is the substance of our faith and in Him The Word of transcendent God is Personified. His Name is called The WORD of God.

The revelation of transcendent God is in Him.

Sometimes, there is only apparent contradictions in scriptures as The voice comes out of heaven declaring He is the beloved Son in whom The Father is well pleased.

Scriptures must be rightly divided and must be understood by spiritual minds and in prophetic sense.

The One Who was heard, seen and touched from the beginning is The Word of life - 1John 1:1
I need to meditate on this. You said some good things and appears that you believe that Jesus the Word of God is God and Mediator.
 
Top