JW's and the word was a god?
"In (the) beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."
For support of this , WTS turned to the so-called "expertise" of a known spirit-medium. His name was Johannes Greber. He was a defrocked Catholic Priest who received his so-called "translation" of the bible through spiritistic means, usually in trances. The Watchtower Society exposed him in the February 15th, l956 Watchtower, warning that his sources were demonic. We couldn't agree with them more!
However, in 1961, just five years later, they were singing his praises and quoting him as an authority for their New World Translation, since he was a supporter of their doctrine on the person of Jesus Christ, and all three sources, Greber, the demons, and the Watchtower Society all agreed that Jesus was merely "a god".
While knowingly agreeing with and quoting a spirit medium, they nevertheless spoke out against spiritistic practices.
"Since spiritism is condemned by God, it becomes obvious that a person appealing to spiritism for knowledge or help is not appealing to God. He is looking to a source opposed to God..."
Not a single, reputable Christian or non-Christian scholar would agree with their distortion of John 1:1, in which they called our Savior "a god". The Watchtower has for their support only other Christ-denying cults, the pagans, and the occult for their view of Christ. They do not have the support of the correctly translated Scriptures for their pagan doctrine on Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses need to select a reputable translation of the Bible and read Colossians 2: 8,9
"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form".
If Jehovah's Witnesses will prayerfully consider this Scripture and begin an examination of a valid Bible by valid scholars, they will come to realize that they have indeed fallen into the trap warned about in this Scripture. They have fallen captive to "empty deception" according to a "tradition of men".
What says you?
The question here is the declaration OF Johannes Greber as an occultist, but also as the editor of the New World Translation bible.
Why use an occultist even a former one?
I'm sure there are many people they could have turned to,
The point is an occultist tells you that Jesus is not god
Where as every other bible tells you he is
what says you?
Jim this has nothing to do with Luther, i am not quoting or using Luther
We are talking about the editor of your bible
An occultist who denies Jesus as God, then writes a bible that tells you Jesus is not god, to convince 7 million JW's that he is not god
Is this the word of god or the word of an occultist?
who went out of his way to convince decent chrsitians that Jesus is not God?
John G: they tread doors and spread the word of an occultist, to convince other peoples to beleive an occultist teaching
that is what i have proven, thanks
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Oh, dear. I don't think you are going to endear yourself to Jehovah's Witnesses. They really don't like to be reminded of past mistakes. They would far sooner we all forgot about them and stopped reminding people of stuff like this. Anyway, the current readership are unlikely to know anything at all about Greber, and very little about Nathan H Knorr and how the New World Translation came about. They probably don't know that only one of the five men responsible for the translation (Frederick W Franz) had any adequate schooling or background to function as a critical Bible translator. Yet in a Scottish Court of Sessions trial in November 1954, this man was unable to translate the Hebrew of Genesis 2:4 when invited to do so by an Attorney (Pursuer's Proof pp7, 102, 103).
They absolutely do not want to hear about the critisisms levied against their rendition of John 1:1 by aclaimed and accredited Bible scholars. Watchtower Society writers have quoted Alexander Thomson as a scholar who was impressed with the NWT. However, Robert M Bowman Jr. of Christian Research Institute, California says of Thomson that..."he appears not to have had any formal credentials; not to have taught the languages in an academic setting, and not to have written anything of a scholarly nature dealing with the languages. According to Cetnar [a former JW Elder and Presiding Minister of a local JW congregation] Thomson denied the deity of Christ and was a 'Universal Restitutionist', that is, he believed all men would eventually be saved" (Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses p 65-66).
The Watch Tower Society used a partial quote from a renowned Bible scholar, Bruce Metzger, to suggest that he approved and supported the Society's translation of the Scriptures. Here, for your edification, is the FULL quote:
"On the whole one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators...SOME OF THE TRANSLATIONS WHICH ARE SIMPLY INDEFENSIBLE... THE INTRODUCTION OF THE WORD 'JEHOVAH' INTO THE NEW TESTAMENT... JOHN 1:1 ...IS NOT JUSTIFIED DESPITE A LENGTHY NOTE... THE TRANSLATORS HAVE NOT HESITATED TO INSERT FOUR TIMES THE WORD 'OTHER' (TOTALLY WITHOUT WARRANT FROM THE GREEK) ...IN COL. 1:16" (The Bible Translator Vol 15, pp 151-152, 1964). The bits in capital letters are the bits not quoted by the Watch Tower Society.
You get the drift? Forgive me for not dwelling on Johannes Greber although everything you've said can be verified. The bottom line is that the organisation has deliberately changed the Bible in order to fit in with its theology - the triune nature of the Godhead is, according to them, pagan. They cannot, will not accept the deity of Christ, nor will they give him the worship He is due. And the Holy Spirit is a mere energy force (to be spelt out in lower case). They don't get it. And they never will, until the Holy Spirit works in their lives to open their eyes, unstop their ears and soften their hearts.
P.S. Excellent answer from Pat G, No. 14. Everything she has said can be verified.
- 6 years ago
The fact f the matter is JW's don't believe or trust in the Holy Bible. Evidenced in their perverted convoluted idea of a Bible.What they don't realize is either the un-perverted Bible is The Holy word of Jehovah or it is not! Any change to it is fact that they don't actually trust it to be so. the Bible is without error so, in any attempts to "correct" it according to their "understanding" is futile. Apparently JW's seem to know better than Jehovah in that they "know" how to change and re-interpret the Bible. To them it doesn't matter what the bible says.Rev 22:18 "For I testify together to everyone who hears the Words of the prophecy of this Book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add on him the plagues that have been written in this Book.
Rev 22:19 And if anyone takes away from the Words of the Book of this prophecy, God will take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which have been written in this Book." The clear teachings of the Scriptures are apparent yet not acceptable for them. The circumvent Jesus and put in his place The WTO. and a works based system established in fear.
- achtung_heissLv 71 decade ago
Interestingly, we do have a translation performed by early Christians, perhaps the children or grandchildren of those who walked with the apostles, into a language which does have indefinite articles ("a", "an") as English does. How do these Coptic manuscripts word John 1:1?
"...and the Word was a God."
Jehovah's Witnesses have never relied upon Greber's work, and in fact had refuted the Trinity for years before Greber was born!
Greber and his wife were self-described "spiritualists" who dabbled in the occult. Sadly, many scholars of ancient languages over the centuries have lead unwholesome lives with a wide array of god-dishonoring practices. But few scholars even in the 1930's supposed that ancient Hebrew and Greek language scholarship was anything but a secular exercise which was performed independently of any otherworldly assistance. Even sinners could be expected to come to intellectually honest conclusions.
It was not until the renewed publication of Greber's bible in 1980 that his translation itself authoritatively attributed its own scholarship to spirits. Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses could no longer allow even a seeming tolerance for Greber's bible.
Of course, it is not as though Jehovah's Witnesses had any particular interest in Greber's work. In nearly sixty years, Jehovah's Witness publications quoted Greber five times. His writings were never central to any belief or teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses, and in fact Jehovah's Witnesses had recognized their bible truths decades before Greber produced his translation of the bible (in 1937).
Incidentally, the bible itself teaches that (for some reason) a demon may choose to advocate a bible truth. In other words, Greber's apparent demon influence does not mean that everything Greber wrote was incorrect. Note this account with the apostle Paul and a demon-possessed woman...
(Acts 16:16-17) A certain servant girl with a spirit, a demon of divination, met us. She used to furnish her masters with much gain by practicing the art of prediction. This girl kept following Paul and us and crying out with the words: “These men are slaves of the Most High God, who are publishing to you the way of salvation.”
- keiichiLv 61 decade ago
The NWT has valid grammatical and scriptural reasons to translate John 1:1 with the expression "a god."
The tragedy is that those who have been indoctrinated with the notion that Jesus is God cannot possibly hope to understand or appreciate the love of God. The truth is that the Trinity is a demonic and blasphemous teaching that originated in Babylon.
As for the Johannes Gerber issue, it is not true that Mr. Gerber was the first translator to render John 1:1 with the expression "a god." He was not.Source(s): References quoted are from 1st century, 20th Century and 21st century anointed Christians that make up the bride of Christ.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
You make the statement:
"Not a single, reputable Christian or non-Christian scholar would agree with their distortion of John 1:1, in which they called our Savior "a god"."
And yet, it may interest you (and others looking on) to know that I have located over 80 Biblical Scholars who do agree that "theos" within the third clause of John 1:1 should be rendered "a god."
Also, I've even located quite a number of Trinitarian scholars who admit that this should not be rendered "God."
firstname.lastname@example.orgSource(s): "What About John 1:1?" Soon to be published by: Good Companion Books. http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com/
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Really. None of the "editors" of the New World Translation are known. You lie by claiming to know that.
I'm wondering, do you personally have the articles you are referring to, or did you copy and paste off some apostate website?
First off, your year is wrong. It was in 1962, not 1961 that John 1:1 is quoted from Johannes Greber's version.
Secondly, "they were singing his praises and quoting him as an authority for their New World Translation" is really a lie. All the magazine did was quote how he translated it. And they did not quote just his version, they quoted loads others.
For those who do not have the magazine;
***Of course, the Bible reader who uses the generally accepted versions or translations will at once say: “Why, there should be no difficulty about knowing who the Word is. It plainly says that the Word is God; and God is God.” But, in answer, we must say that not all our newer modern translations by Greek scholars read that way, to say just that. For instance, take the following examples: The New English Bible, issued in March of 1961, says: “And what God was, the Word was.” The Greek word translated “Word” is logós; and so Dr. James Moffatt’s New Translation of the Bible (1922) reads: “The Logos was divine.” The Complete Bible—An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed) reads: “The Word was divine.” So does Hugh J. Schonfield’s The Authentic New Testament. Other readings (by Germans) are: By Boehmer: “It was tightly bound up with God, yes, itself of divine being.” By Stage: “The Word was itself of divine being.” By Menge: “And God (=of divine being) the Word was.” By Pfaefflin: “And was of divine weightiness.” And by Thimme: “And God of a sort the Word was.”
5 But most controversial of all is the following reading of John 1:1, 2: “The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This Word was in the beginning with God.” This reading is found in The New Testament in An Improved Version, published in London, England, in 1808. Similar is the reading by a former Roman Catholic priest: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This was with God in the beginning. Everything came into being through the Word, and without it nothing created sprang into existence.” (John 1:1-3) Alongside that reading with its much-debated expression “a god” may be placed the reading found in The Four Gospels—A New Translation, by Professor Charles Cutler Torrey, second edition of 1947, namely: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god. When he was in the beginning with God all things were created through him; without him came no created thing into being.” (John 1:1-3) Note that what the Word is said to be is spelled without a capital initial letter, namely, "god"***
It seems funny that you failed to see all the other quotes.
People like you make me realise even more that I have found the truth!!!Source(s): The Watchtower, 15th September, 1962
- debbie2243Lv 71 decade ago
Jesus was the only begotten son...the first of many angels created. He was the highest ranking angel....The Archangel Michael.
Jehovah God had no beginning or end yet Michael..who came to earth and was called Jesus did have a beginning.
The scriptures say no man has seen God at any time and yet lived. God created the sun, and is too powerful for mere humans to behold.
Jehovah is The Almighty GOD
Jesus is a mighty god.
They are not the same in importance or power or rank.
- 1 decade ago
A little bit of history is probably in order. The Jehovah's Witness cult was started by Rutherford and Russell, but its roots lie in the prediction of William Miller that Jesus would return in 1844. It is one of three groups that originated there. The other two were the Seventh-day Adventists and the Worldwide Church of God. When Jesus did not return in 1844, twice more a date was set, the last in 1845, and when Jesus did not return then, William Miller repented of the sin of setting dates. However, the Seventh-day Adventists developed the doctrine of Investigative Judgment to explain the lack of visible return. According to this doctrine, Jesus moved from one apartment of heaven (yes, that's how they speak of it) to another (the holy of holies) to open the record books and investigate who will be taken into heaven. According to this, people's good and evil deeds are to be weighed against each other. The primary good deed was keeping the Saturday Sabbath. Along with SDA, there are Seventh-day Baptists. But they do not teach the Investigative Judgment. In addition to Saturday worship, Adventists rely heavily on some very detailed instructions given by their Spirit of Prophecy, Ellen G. White, who, while not a founder, was a very early leader, along with her husband, James. It's not entirely clear how the Jehovah's Witnesses rose from these early roots. However, at some point, unlike SDA, which confesses the Trinity, JWs rejected the Trinity in favor of a singular god, Jehovah. (Incidentally, the Worldwide Church of God held that there were two Persons in the Godhead: the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit was merely a force, which is the same view the JWs hold. Eventually, a man by the name of Tkach, who was the leader of one of the factions of the Church of God after the split, had a dialog with a Lutheran pastor and writer of a rather extensive book on cults, and returned to orthodoxy. They now teach the Trinity, and have abandoned the requirement for Saturday worship. They now teach the Trinity, and have abandoned the requirement for Saturday worship. Of the various factions, this is the ONLY one that is now orthodox. The others remain cults.) At any rate, the word "Jehovah" is actually a mispronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, which is one of the names of God. The Hebrew word YHWH actually means "I am" and indicates the eternal nature of God. This was the name given to Moses for God from the burning bush. Eventually, to support their claim that Jesus is not God, the JWs made a "translation" of their own, which is known as the New World Translation. Something most JWs do NOT know is that the Watchtower Tract and Bible Society also published a book known as the Emphatic Diaglott. This was a Greek/English version that was both interlinear and contained an English translation which had been smoothed grammatically on the side. The verse John 1:1 is CORRECTLY translated in the Emphatic Diaglott. Not surprisingly, the WT&BS no longer publishes the Diaglott, but I have a copy. Unfortunately, for the JWs, they missed doctoring one of the most important passages that establishes Jesus' diety. In John 8:58, the Jews had asked Jesus a question about His identity, to which He replied, "Before Abraham was, I am." Note the phrase "I am". This is a claim to be JHWH! And in John 10, it is shown that the Jews RECOGNIZED this claim, because when Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" they took up stones to try to stone Him, and when He asked why they wanted to stone Him, they said it was because He claimed to be God! And the JWs COMPLETELY missed this in their NWT!
Just to clarify one more point, relevant to your response on another question. Joseph Smith was the founder of the Mormon church, and a Freemason. I am not aware that either Russell or Rutherford were Freemasons, and they have no connection to the Mormon church, but I am not positive they were not Freemasons. Regardless, the Temple marriage ceremony was drawn from Freemasonry, but the JWs have nothing that comes from masonic sources.
Reading other people's responses shows that the heresy that Jesus isn't God is nothing new. In fact, it was already promoted by Arius, early in the history of the Christian church. This is known as the Arian heresy, and the early creeds (such as the Apostle's Creed) were written to clarify the point of the Trinity. As they say, there is nothing new under the sun.
I hope this helps.Source(s): The Bible, the works of Ellen G. White, the New World Translation, the Emphatic Diaglott, and extensive readings of the materials of all three sects.
- 1 decade ago
Actually, neither of these matter. You can look at John 1:1 as a complete work of fiction therefore making your point moot. It matters not if the JWs add an article to it or not. There is still no god, jesus or otherwise.
- isnrblogdotcalmLv 51 decade ago
Vot Arkin, you continue to be wrong. There was a court case and Franz was compelled under oath to disclose the translaters.
It turns out the NWT translators were: Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, Fred Franz, M. Henschel. Franze however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self-taught in Hebrew.
Four out of the five men on the committee had no Hebrew or Greek training at all. Most were only high school graduates. I don't have the link handy, but I will publish it here or email it to you
The translators are known but the JW's keep them under wraps, ostensibly so that no "Glory goes to man", but just to God. Actually most are dead and the Society does not want to reveal how uneducated they were by revealing who they were.
In fact they misquoted Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
Mantey said in a taped interview "Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation. " (These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Julius Mantey on The New World Translation" ) He also calls the NWT "a shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
In fact he wrote a letter to the Society complaining about being misquoted. He said, in part:
"Your statement: "their work (meaning Mantley) allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1." There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation in John 1:1. A. We had no "rule" to argue in support of the trinity. B. Neither did we state that we did have such intention. We were simply delineating the facts inherent in Biblical language."
Basically in their common pattern of deceit the Society misquotes when convenient and hides information when it conflicts with what they want you to believe.
Good luck with the NWT. It seems, by virtue of the education of its authors, it's on the level of a high school book report.
UPDATE: John G. I think its the Muslims who show the greates faith. They sacrifice themselves, literally for their beliefs.
Personally, I'm a Deist. I don't care what you or anyone else believes. I just point pout the facts,
UPDATE KEICHHI, or whatever you sure go on with "this is false" and "that is false" without quoting any sources. Oh wait, the 1st, 20th and 21st century JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. I doubt your 1st Century assertion.
Why don't you research facts. At least Vot Arkin has some references. The upshot is scholars disagree, the Witnesses misquoted scholars and the NWT was translated by high school graduates.
Look at YUM YUM's post. Facts, not knee jerk blather from your thouroughly "washed brain"
You really should look some of this stuff up.
Honestly I dont care if Jesus was a God, the God or George Burns in "Oh God, 2". My point here is that the Witnesses bend and hide facts and the flock swallows it no question.
Do some research.