1. Kakistocracy (noun)- "government by the worst citizens." See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kakistocracy
The word has a Greek etymology.
2. Apodeictic-"unquestionably true by virtue of demonstration"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/apodeictic
The adjective has Latin and Greek roots.
3. "Pusillanimity" which means "Want of that firmness and strength of mind which constitutes courage or fortitude; weakness of spirit; cowardliness; that feebleness of mind which shrinks from trifling or imaginary dangers" (Webster's 1928 English Dictionary. From the Latin abstract noun "pusillanimitas.")
4. Egoism-"Ethics. the view that morality ultimately rests on self-interest."
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/egoism
23 comments:
Kakistocracy : might be the word of the century.
Hi Dr. Foster! Do you have some post talking about the NWT and some criticism it receive?
Hi Alamini, various friends have written articles that address such criticisms. Please see https://jehovah.to/exe/general/index.htm
http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/
https://onlytruegod.org/defense/pageindex.htm
Thank you so much Dr. Foster ;)
You're welcome
These are in Spanish but will translate into English.
https://lamejortraducciondelabiblia.blogspot.com/
http://labibliaysumensaje.blogspot.com/
___
Not in Spanish
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RQu3VT2sD_SAOxc8nRselEbjclOX4ZxM/view?usp=drivesdk
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RLmcuXeSbw6hz9rgrsBFnRNFb2fTirJm/view?usp=drivesdk
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1afOdy9I5OrpZy15fpY_yxMAZzWY2JYhH/view?usp=drivesdk
https://jehovah.to/xlation/wo.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19w9tuIj4C6TpC-ONhFg8XOHqAmwmAK9u/view?usp=drivesdk
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S54QuiaqkpwX08Ay-darlHnbn6sz6Sa5/view?usp=drivesdk
This one too.
http://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/
https://youtube.com/@nwtdefended
Here is an awesome YouTube channel that has done some amazing videos on some of the most common rebukes to JWs
Tho I would love to see one on some of our recent debates like “ek” meaning part of etc
Dear Mr Foster,
please allow me to briefly respond here to Sean Kasabuske's commentary on John 1:1c.
@Sean Kasabuske
First of all, I think you misunderstand the need to take "theological" aspects into account, it does not mean that they want to show some kind of "trinitarianism" here at all costs.
I think that before we start with this linguistic categories (definite-indefinite, nominative and qualitative), we have to clarify whether in the theological framework of the NT, the term θεός is indeed a general concept that can be applied in a positive and affirmative sense to creatures: angels, prophets, agents of God, human leaders, or not.
Because all the examples you mentioned ("a prophet", "a king", etc.) are all concepts that are self-evidently applicable not only to a single entity in a positive and affirmative sense, and thus the indefinite article by definition expresses that the subject about whom the given thing is claimed is only one of many others.
The main problem with the NWT translation of John 1:1c is that it assumes, without any evidence, that this is the default meaning of the word θεός, that is, that it is an existing category in the theological framework of the NT, and then quickly includes the Logos in it.
This is the problem here, that we have not clarified this before we start to engage in various linguistic discussions. Because when we discuss the translation "one god", the criticism should start there, that this type of θεός category, that "one" (smaller) "god" (among many) does not even exist in the terminology of the NT. Well, the NT nowhere calls angels, God's agents (e.g. the apostles), no one in a positive and affirmative sense, and this is relevant here.
This is the problem here, that we have not clarified this before we start to engage in various linguistic discussions. Because when we discuss the translation "a god", the criticism should start there, that this type of θεός category, that "a" (lesser) "god" (among many) does not even exist in the terminology of the NT.
Well, the NT nowhere calls angels, God's agents (e.g. the apostles), no one in a positive and affirmative sense, and this is relevant here. This is so true that even the OT verses where angels are named as "elohim" are not rendered as θεοί in the NT quotes, in my opinion precisely because these remnants of henotheism have been weeded out so far.
And now I will answer your linguistic criticism.
Dear Nincsnevem, I am not approving your last post to this thread because it's supposed to be about the word of the month and because we have discussed some of Allin's work already here although I plan to address more of his misleading claims if time and circumstances permit.
I only let some things be posted in defense of the NWT before I close this thread. We really should stay on topic or else the discussions get far away from the original subject matter. This thread is going to close soon unless someone wants to comment on the OP. Thanks.
So the NT, and John also uses θεός to refer to the one true God consistently, and “a god” would imply monolatristic henotheism, which contradicts John’s monotheistic context. John, a first-century Jewish-Christian monotheist, would not imply such monolatristic henotheism by suggesting that the Logos was "a god." Instead, John emphasizes the Logos sharing in the divine nature of the one true God. By not addressing these broader syntactical and contextual nuances, your argument remains superficial, and you neglect key interpretative elements that contribute to understanding John 1:1c.
For example, BeDuhn asserts that "a Greek definite noun will have a form of the definite article (ho), which will become 'the' in English," and "a Greek indefinite noun will appear without the definite article, and will be properly rendered in English with 'a' or 'an'." This is not a recognized rule in Greek grammar. Standard Greek grammar texts do not support these claims.
The argument that "Son" in Mark 15:39 is qualitative based on Roman understanding is speculative. The context of Mark’s Gospel, deeply rooted in Jewish traditions, must be considered. The term "Son of God" in Jewish context carried more profound theological implications, reflecting divine nature rather than merely functional roles.
While it is true that "Son of God" could be understood functionally in a Jewish context, this does not diminish its ontological significance within the broader narrative of the Gospel. The centurion, a Roman, likely had a different understanding, but Mark’s Gospel aims to reveal Jesus’ divine nature throughout, culminating in this declaration. Jewish usage of "Son of God" often signified more than mere obedience; it included divine endorsement and unique relationship with God. In Mark 15:39, the Centurion’s declaration aligns with this profound recognition of Jesus’ divine nature. This aligns with the broader theological themes of the gospels where Jesus’ divinity is gradually unveiled.
The assertion that "Son" should be seen through a Roman lens overlooks the broader theological narrative of the Gospels, which consistently portray Jesus as divine. Luke’s portrayal of Jesus as δίκαιος ("innocent" or "righteous") complements but does not negate His divine sonship.
Harner’s analysis of "Son" as qualitative does not exclude its definite nature. The term "Son of God" can convey both qualitative attributes and a definite status. Jesus being "Son of God" signifies his unique divine relationship and role, not merely a functional title.
Colwell's Rule emphasizes that a predicate noun preceding the verb without an article can still be definite. In John 1:1c, "θεός" (theos) is best understood as definite, signifying the Word’s divine nature. The absence of the article does not necessitate the indefinite article "a." Contextually and grammatically, "theos" emphasizes the divine nature of the Word, aligning with John’s theological presentation of Jesus as fully divine.
Colwell's Rule states that a definite predicate nominative preceding the verb usually lacks the article. It doesn’t imply that all anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb are definite. This nuance is crucial. While some scholars misinterpreted the rule, this doesn’t invalidate its application in proper contexts.
This is important because it helps in understanding the definite nature of such nouns in Greek, particularly in the context of the NT. It doesn’t determine definiteness but recognizes patterns of article usage in Greek, assisting in translation accuracy.
While it is essential to recognize and correct misapplications of grammatical rules, translating sacred texts involves not only understanding grammatical rules but also comprehending the broader theological narrative. The primary issue with the "a god" rendering isn’t strictly grammatical but contextual. John 1:1’s context, the broader Johannine corpus and the NT in general emphasize the divine nature of the Logos, which has to be interpreted within the strictly monotheistic framework of Second Temple-era Judaism and early Christianity. The qualitative nuance, as explained by Harner and others, aligns with this context, underscoring the Logos’s shared divine essence with God.
The claim that "the data" (?) favor the NWT’s rendering overlooks the significant theological and grammatical evidence supporting the traditional translation. The traditional rendering avoids henotheistic implications and aligns with the monotheistic framework of early Christian and Jewish thought.
The argument that the traditional rendering is theologically biased fails to account for the rigorous exegetical work supporting it. Any translation must consider grammatical rules, context, and the broader theological implications, all of which affirm the traditional understanding of John 1:1c.
Your claim that Colwell's rule doesn't favor any translation is a misunderstanding. While the rule itself does not assign definiteness, it supports translating anarthrous predicate nominatives as definite when contextually appropriate. Colwell’s Rule is a grammatical observation, not a prescriptive measure for translation but is vital for understanding Greek syntax in context.
The rule that a definite predicate nominative preceding the verb lacks the article does not favor one translation over another by itself, but it does provide a framework for understanding Greek syntax. The traditional translation "and the Word was God" aligns with this rule because it emphasizes the qualitative aspect of the noun, indicating that the Word shares in the nature of God.
In John 1:1c, θεός before the verb without the article aligns with Colwell's observation, implying definiteness without requiring the article. The absence of the article does not imply indefiniteness but rather emphasizes the qualitative aspect of the noun, consistent with the traditional translation.
The assertion that Colwell's rule cannot favor a translation overlooks the broader context in which it is applied. The rule is a tool for analyzing the likelihood of definiteness based on Greek syntax and context, which supports the qualitative understanding of θεός in John 1:1c, rather than an indefinite "a god."
Dixon’s analysis is rooted in defending the qualitative understanding of "θεός" in John 1:1c, which does not conflict with Colwell’s Rule but provides additional nuance. The analyses of Harner and Dixon are supported by the broader scholarly community. Harner's focus on non-Johannine texts does not invalidate his qualitative interpretation of θεός, as it is a common practice to consider broader linguistic patterns. Furthermore, Dixon's thesis presents a methodical approach to understanding the grammatical construction in John 1:1.
The qualitative nuance, indicating that θεός in John 1:1c emphasizes the divine nature of the Word, fits the broader context of John's Gospel. For instance, John 20:28, where Thomas calls Jesus "my Lord and my God," reinforces the high Christology present throughout John’s writings. This usage underscores that the Logos shares the same divine essence as God, rather than being a lesser deity.
The claim that Johannine style and context support the NWT’s rendering is not substantiated by the evidence. John’s Gospel repeatedly presents Jesus in ways that affirm his full divinity. The NWT's rendering introduces theological implications inconsistent with John's monotheistic framework. In the context of first-century Judaism and early Christianity, portraying Jesus as "a god" conflicts with the strict monotheism practiced and preached by the early church.
Dear Mr. Foster,
I've just reacted to Anon's links.
Dear Nincsnevem, to be fair, it may not have been apparent that I allowed the initial comment by Alamini so that A could get some info to defend NWT. As I mentioned, and I'm not criticizing you, but we've discussed Allin here previously. But it was not my intent to prolong this thread.
I havvve approved your reply to Sean and he will likely want to respond. Again, it's not my desire to have a long off-topic thread. Plus we've had lots of John 1:1c discussions on this blog.
"I havvve approved your reply to Sean and he will likely want to respond."
I appreciate the offer, but I don't have anything further to say to Nincnevem, and don't even have time to read anymore of his/her posts right now. From what I've already read from him/her under piercing post, I'm sure I know what I'd expect to read if I had time to do so. In any case, I've grown weary of arguing with Trinitarians, who aren't willing or able to hear truth that falls outside of the triangle.
I'm working some really long days for an old man, and need some sleep.
Nincs:The NWT's rendering introduces theological implications inconsistent with John's monotheistic framework. In the context of first-century Judaism and early Christianity,
Me:John Ch.10:34,35NKJV"Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? 35If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),"
Jesus is here quoting psalms 82:6
So no the sctiptures referring to an exalted servant of JEHOVAH as a God never means that said servant is equal to his God
@servantofJEHOVAH
No, I have already talked about this many times, John 10:34 does not establish at all that this is an existing category of θεός within the theological framework of the NT, and especially not that this is the default meaning. This is merely a quote that Christ uses here to argue "a forteriori", at the same time he distances himself from it, because he refers to it as "in *your* Law", and otherwise the original psalm is mostly mocking about these judges, at all it does not break the fundamental and strict monotheism of Second Temple Judaism, which is also John's own (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 44:6).
* https://t.ly/CsF2b
* https://t.ly/esyel
Nowhere in the NT will you find a place that claims the exalted servants of God as θεοί in a actual, positive and affirmative sense. In all cases, it is consistently used in a condemning, mocking sense, for usurper, impostor "gods", like 2 Corinthians 4:4, 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
It is no coincidence that for example in Hebrews 2:7, the inspired author translates what the original psalmist wrote as "elohim" to "aggeloi" (angels). Why? Because, on a principle level, in the NT, calling actual "theoi" to created beings is kept away.
The JWs' translation implies a category of θεός that refers to a lesser deity or one among many. However, the NT does not support this usage. The NT consistently uses θεός to refer to the one true God and does not apply it to angels, apostles, or any other beings in a positive and affirmative sense.
JWs often refer to Psalm 82 where judges are called "elohim," which means "gods." However, this term's use in Psalm 82 is unique and context-specific, referring to human judges who represent God's authority but are not divine beings. The term "elohim" here is used poetically and sarcastically, criticizing the judges for their failures. In the OT, calling someone "a god" did not mean they were divine in the sense of possessing the fullness of deity like Christ. The term was used in a specific, limited context, primarily to emphasize the judges' representative role and their failure to uphold justice.
The use of "elohim" in Psalm 82 should be interpreted within the poetic and literary context of the Psalms, which often employ metaphorical language. This does not establish a general category of divinity applicable in a positive sense to humans or angels in the NT. The term "elohim" in Hebrew is much broader and can be translated as "mighty ones" or "judges," rather than "God" in the proper sense. This broader usage is not carried over into the NT at all, where θεός specifically refers to the one true God, in all cases where this is not stated mockingly or condemningly.
The only NT example where a similar usage appears is in John 10:34, which quotes Psalm 82:6. Here, "gods" (elohim) refers to earthly judges mockingly called "gods" due to their role, but they are condemned for their corruption and mortality. Jesus uses this passage to argue from the lesser to the greater (a "kal va-chomer" argument) to defend his divinity but does not equate his divine nature with the flawed judges (cf. v36). He argues that if human judges could be called "gods" in a limited sense, how much more could he, the Son of God, be called God? Jesus does not equate his divinity with that of the judges in Psalm 82. Instead, he uses a "kal va-chomer" argument to assert a higher and superior sense of divinity.
If representatives of God could be called "gods" in the theological framework of the NT, why are the apostles or angels never called "gods" in the NT? This absence indicates a significant shift in understanding from the OT to the NT. Acts 28:6, where Paul is mistaken for a god by the Maltese, is neither affirmative nor positive. It shows the misunderstanding of the pagans, not a biblical endorsement of calling God's representatives "gods."
In the NT, the term θεός refers to the omnipotent, creator, infinite single God, not to any lesser beings. This is significant because it shows that the NT authors, including John, did not recognize a category of lesser deities within their monotheistic framework. The NT attributes to Jesus characteristics that affirm his divinity: omniscience, timelessness, the ability to hear prayers, and being worshipped. These attributes cannot apply to created beings, like angels or human judge, and firmly place Jesus within the identity of the one true God.
This superior divinity is consistent with Jesus being truly God. The NT never calls angels or apostles "gods" in a positive and affirmative sense, indicating that the category of "lesser gods" does not exist within the theological framework of the NT.
The NT consistently uses θεός to refer to the one true God. There is no category of lesser deities or "gods" in the NT. This usage underscores the monotheistic context of the NT, where only the one true God is recognized and worshipped. Designating Jesus as "a god" would imply a form of monolatristic henotheism, which contradicts the NT's monotheistic theology. John, as a Jewish-Christian monotheist, would not suggest such a concept by describing the Logos as "a god."
The NWT translators inconsistently apply their principle of translating anarthrous θεός as "a god." For instance:
John 1:6 - "There came a man who was sent as a representative of God" (not "a god").
John 1:12 - "However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become God’s children" (not "a god").
John 1:13 - "And they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from God" (not "a god").
The NWT thus inconsistently translates θεός as "a god" in John 1:1c but does not do so in other contexts where θεός appears without the article. This inconsistency reveals a theological bias rather than adherence to grammatical rules. Scholars like Philip B. Harner and Daniel B. Wallace argue for the qualitative aspect of θεός in John 1:1c, indicating that the Logos shares the divine nature of God. This interpretation aligns with the broader context of John's prologue and the NT's theological framework.
Daniel Wallace, in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, supports the qualitative interpretation, stating that the most likely understanding of θεός in John 1:1c is qualitative, indicating that the Logos shares the divine nature of God. Ronald D. Peters, in The Greek Article: A Functional Grammar of ὁ-items in the Greek NT, also supports this view, distinguishing between the concrete usage of θεός with the article (referring to God the Father) and the abstract qualitative usage without the article. Mikolaj Szymański notes that here "θεός is one of the attributes of the ruler of the Universe, and not his regular name", precisely an abstract use of anarthrous θεὸς.
The NWT's rendering of John 1:1c as "the Word was a god" is flawed due to its assumption that θεός can refer to a lesser deity within the NT's theological framework. This interpretation lacks support from the NT, which consistently uses θεός to refer to the one true God. The qualitative interpretation, supported by scholars like Harner and Wallace, accurately reflects the divine nature of the Logos without implying polytheism or a lesser deity. Therefore, the traditional translation "the Word was God" remains the most theologically and grammatically sound rendering of John 1:1c.
I'm shutting this thread down soon, but will allow rebuttals of Nincsnevem's statements.
Edgar,
As I said above, I've said what I have to say about John 1:1c for now, but I would like to repost my comment about the bonehead Colwell blunder, with a minor tweak to the first paragraph. I hope you don't mind.
A final Comment about the Colwell Blunder
The blunder wasn't in believing that the rule is valid; rather, it was in believing that it suggests that QEOS at John 1:1c is definite, and that this supposedly invalidates the "a god" rendering.
What some of the biggest names in the business did, like Metzger, Bruce, Barclay, and others, was assume that the converse of the rule was true. In other words, they read that "definite predicate nouns that precede the verb usually lack the article" and assumed that "anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb are definite." Not only did they restructure the rule in their minds in an invalid way, but they omitted the word “usually” completely.
The rule itself seems to be valid, but it lacks the ability to favor one translation over another. The converse of the rule is not valid, yet that is what "scholars" used to criticize the NWT's rendering of John 1:1c in some of the most over-the-top unchristian terms imaginable. It was an amateurish mistake that any first-year student of logic should have recognized, yet Trinitarians, chronically blinded by the presupposition of Trinitarianism, misused the rule and, for decades, caused lay and educated people alike to reach a false conclusion.
It was not the “orthodox” academic community’s finest moment! This is why I stress that one must focus on *the data* when it comes to this theologically loaded text. As I’ve said several times, the data, including Johannine style and context, overwhelmingly favor the NTW’s rendering over against the traditional one.
Ok, I will address this confused and erroneous assertion, as the error is so often repeated by people who have an incomplete understanding of how translation works:
Begin Quote
"The NWT translators inconsistently apply their principle of translating anarthrous θεός as 'a god.' For instance:
John 1:6 - 'There came a man who was sent as a representative of God" (not 'a god').
John 1:12 - 'However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become God’s children' (not 'a god').
John 1:13 - 'And they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from God" (not 'a god')."
End Quote
All three of these texts fail to illustrate inconsistency on the part of the NWT's translators, as the nouns in question are not comparable to Θεὸς at John 1:1c.
Let me reiterate the criteria for comparability. As I’ve pointed out before, for a noun to be comparable to Θεος at John 1:1c, it must:
1. be singular
2. be preverbal
3. be anarthrous
4. be a predicate nominative
5. be count (not abstract/mass)
6. not be definite (in consideration of Harner’s hypothesis)
Let’s take a look at the three examples:
John 1:6: There the genitive Θεοῦ appears, not the nominative Θεὸς, so it fails criterion #4. Also, “God” is clearly definite there, not descriptive, so it also fails criterion #6.
John 1:12: There the genitive Θεοῦ appears, not the nominative Θεὸς, so it fails criterion #4. Also, “God” is clearly definite there, not descriptive, so it also fails criterion #6.
John 1:13: There the genitive Θεοῦ appears, not the nominative Θεὸς, so it fails criterion #4. Also, “God” is clearly definite there, not descriptive, so it also fails criterion #6.
None of these texts have any bearing at all on the proper rendering of John 1:1c, where Θεὸς is in the nominative case, not the genitive case, and is being used descriptively and is clearly NOT definite.
Noun function is critical for determining proper translation. In reality, it is the trinitarian translators who are inconsistent, and to learn why, see:
https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2021/08/23/was-the-wts-inconsistent-in-translating-qeos/
Post a Comment