Kan det Misforståes - John 1:1

´
ÅBENBART!
For der er Ingen diskussion hos JV - ER DERES udgave af John 1:1 den eneste sande -
Men hvis det er rigtigt, Så burde alle disse såkaldte Scholars levere deres LØN tilbage, med samt deres skolepenge fra diverse universiteter!
Men allerførst skal vi være enige om:
1) at i JOHN 1:1 er ORDET = JESUS !
2) at alle John 1:1 starter - IKKE GUD, MEN MED JESUS = "I BEGYNDELSEN VAR JESUS"!

Det der er interessant er,
AT ALLE STARTER MED AT FORTÆLLE, AT LIGEFRA BEGYNDELSEN VAR JESUS - Der står så vidt jeg kan se INTET om at han blev skabt - HAN Jesus var der fordi han var en del af GUD - Og i TREDIE LINIE FORTÆLLER ALLE UDGAVER "OG JESUS VAR GUD"!
"Tyndale New Testament" siger det lidt tydeligere: "OG GUD VAR DET ORD"!
....... Og:
Altså lige med undtagelse af JV,
de har gjort "JESUS TIL ÈN GUD" og altså ikke en del af GUD men 1 gud - som sikkert er lidt mindre end jehova gud - Ergo er JESUS:
1) ÆRKENGLEN MICHAEL - der transformeres til:
2) GUDS SØN JESUS - der transformeres til:
3) en jesus gud - der transformeres til:
4) OVERKONGE OVER JV's JORD/VERDEN -

JV's New World Translation John 1:1:
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

Nedenstående er den danske samt Engelske og tyske udgaver af JOHN 1:1
Da92 =
I begyndelsen var Ordet, og Ordet var hos Gud, og Ordet var Gud.
Tyndale New Testament
In the beginning was that word, and that word was with god: and god was that word

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
King James Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
American Standard Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Bible in Basic English
From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.
Douay-Rheims Bible
IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Darby Bible Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
English Revised Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Weymouth New Testament
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Webster's Bible Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
World English Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Young's Literal Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
JOHANNES 1:1 Afrikaans 1953
In die begin was die Woord, en die Woord was by God, en die Woord was God.
Johannes 1:1 German: Luther (1545)
Im Anfang war das Wort, und das Wort war bei Gott, und Gott war das Wort.

Jeg indrømmer jeg har svært ved at forstå dem der ikke kan se, at John 1:1 direkte siger, at JESUS ER GUDS ALTER EGO (Guds andet jeg (Helligånden = GUDs Tredie Jeg))

Med venlig hilsen
jalmar

som du kan fordreje Skrifterne.

´
egentlig IKKE, at du kun sparker - Men ikke fortæller Hvorfor -
ER det måske fordi DU IKKE ved det - Anonym?

Dette er en af de Herre, der IKKE aner en skid om, hvordan en Bibel skal oversættes -
Hvorfor han jo må udtale sig langt ud over hvad hans kompetencefelt rækker til!
Dr. Eugene A. Nida,
head of Translations Department, American Bible Society:
"With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." [Responsible for the Good News Bible - The committee worked under him.]
og en til af slagsen
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton
(Professor of New Testament Language and Literature):
"A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible"
"If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."

Og her er en til af disse "IGNORANTER":
Dr. F. F. Bruce
The University of Manchester, England:
"Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible."
[Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]

Dr. William Barclay
The University of Glasgow, Scotland:
"The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated:
'...the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impossible...
It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."

Og en til:
Dr. Phillip B. Harner
Heidelberg College:
"The verb preceding an anarthrous 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. In the form that John actually uses, the word "THEOS" is places at the beginning for emphasis."

Og endnu en der burde have sine skolepenge retur!

Dr. J. Johnson
The California State University, Long Beach:
"No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.'
There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....
I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian."
Og en igen:
Dr. J. J. Griesbach
(whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Emphatic Diaglott):
"So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favour of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrin can by any man be called in doubt.
Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."


Der er mange flere af disse såkaldte Scholar's Med forskellige udtalelser - Der er vist ikke meget tvivl om, at JV med deres NWT står rimelig alene i den form for oversættelse, der KUN og KUN alene passer ind i JV's noget specielle Tro - Det ER Dogmatisme så det batter!

Med venlig hilsen
jalmar