Re: John 14:14
On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Alan Repurk wrote:
Ron Minton said:
> > I do not doubt that a case can be made for both readings. I am
> > suggesting the NWT team is a case in point where theology makes such
> > decisions. This seems to be a textual decision based on doctrine just
> > like "god" (Jn. 1:1) was a theological translation; it is the only time
> > in 25 applicable texts in John's writings that they translate the anarthrous
> > theos with a lower case.
> That is not true, as even a cursory examination reveals.
You noted John 1:18 and 10:33. I did not consider 1:18 because of the
variant, but you are right; it should be counted. I did not consider
10:33-4 as applicable, but if 10:33 is considered, then the NWT
translates the anarthrous theos in John's works as "God" 24 times and as
"a god" 3 times (the only three that Jesus is in view). I think that it is
conclusive: the NWT is theologically slanted in the extreme.
The fact that they rejected the Greek "me" in 14:14 says the text was
theologically chosen at least in this case (unless we can demonstrate
which of their claimed sources do not have that word, and I do not have
all of them). All I wanted to demonstrate here was the fact that "me"
was common in the immediate context, and it is; cf. believe me, ask me,
It may be that Jim West was correct and the NWT does not follow W-H as
claimed. If that is the case, what I said doesn't mean much because all
I did was show one place where they did not use W-H. I would like to
know if any study has been done to validate or invalidate their statement.
Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@... W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803