Do Ancient Coptic Manuscripts Vindicate Jehovah Witnesses At John 1:1?

Jehovah's Witness literature attempts to defend their erroneous translation of John 1:1 by appealing to copies of ancient Coptic translations that they think agree with them. This line of argument fails for multiple reasons.

Source

budaatum:
The gospel of John is the work of a Christian of the second century, who endeavors to construe a history of Jesus upon the basis of a belief in his supernatural existence. To him Jesus is no longer the expected Messiah of the Jews, but a cosmic being (viii. 23, 58), one with God his Father (x. 30; xiv. 10), through whom alone life, salvation, and resurrection are obtained (xiv. 6), while on the other hand the Jews were from the beginning his implacable enemies, with whom he had nothing in common (vii. 1, 13; viii. 41-47, 59; x. 8, 10, 31; et al.). All his discourses reiterate the same idea: God's fatherhood is understood only through the recognition of Jesus as His son (vi. 29, 46; xiv. 2; xv. 8-10, 26; et al.). The teaching of Jesus is summed up in the words, "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another" (xiii. 34); and yet this teaching of love is combined with the most intense hatred of the kinsmen of Jesus. All the miracles performed by Jesus assume in John a symbolical character (vi. 26, and frequently). The Temple (ii. 21), the manna (vi. 32-59), the water libation on Sukkot (vii. 37), the light of Ḥanukkah (viii. 12, x. 22), the vine (xv. 1-17), "the way" (xiv. 6)—all these are turned into symbols of the Christ. In the preface, in place of the genealogies in Luke and Matthew, a heavenly pedigree is given him (i. 1-18), written by one who desired to represent his advent as a new Creation.

If I may ask, have you read the book of John by yourself?

Emusan:


If I may ask, have you read the book of John by yourself?

Of course I have. It's my favorite gospel!

budaatum:

Of course I have. It's my favorite gospel!

it's your favorite yet you are promoting what you posted.

Emusan:


it's your favorite yet you are promoting what you posted.

I posted it in a thread where op is promoting hatred of his neighbours. That however bothers you not but my post does.

The truth, they say, frees. The Gospel of John is the most historically unreliable Gospel and indeed is my favorite. Unravelling the truths therein is like Jesus spitting on mud and rubbing it in one's eye. I trust that you will use your own brain and see no reason to hide information from you.

budaatum:
I posted it in a thread where op is promoting hatred of his neighbours. That however bothers you not but my post does.

The truth, they say, frees. The Gospel of John is the most historically unreliable Gospel and indeed is my favorite. Unravelling the truths therein is like Jesus spitting on mud and rubbing it in one's eye. I trust that you will use your own brain and see no reason to hide information from you.

Claiming it's your favorite and as well MOST HISTORICALLY UNRELIABLE Gospel, doesn't make sense!

Anyway, I didn't see anything like hatred in the OP, it simply asked the same question people have asked for century.

Since you're unravelling the truth in John. Can you tell us which rendition is most likely correct or perfectly correct?

Emusan:


Claiming it's your favorite and as well MOST HISTORICALLY UNRELIABLE Gospel, doesn't make sense!

Anyway, I didn't see anything like hatred in the OP, it simply asked the same question people have asked for century.

Since you're unravelling the truth in John. Can you tell us which rendition is most likely correct or perfectly correct?

Then you don't know op, and you don't know Christ, for whosoever is not against him is with Him, and those with Him are peacemakers and not division makers like op.

There's nothing like "perfectly correct" when it comes to the Gospels. They were all written long after Christ had died by people who were not even there, and they have all gone through edits and rewrites over the years for all sorts of intentions and purposes. The JW version is just one more rewrite with intentions, but so are every version from the very beginning.

Yet are they all for the perfection of we humans, to learn from and to perfect ourselves like the Father in heaven is perfect. For when it is said that you should "Seek first the Kingdom of God", Wisdom is principal.

budaatum:
Then you don't know op, and you don't know Christ, for whosoever is not against him is with Him, and those with Him are peacemakers and not division makers like op.

Ok

There's nothing like "perfectly correct" when it comes to the Gospels. They were all written long after Christ had died by people who were not even there, and they have all gone through edits and rewrites over the years for all sorts of intentions and purposes. The JW version is just one more rewrite with intentions, but so are every version from the very beginning.

If there's no "perfect correct", at least there should be MOST LIKELY CORRECT rendition.

Which rendition is most likely correct, the word was God or the word was a god?

Yet are they all for the perfection of we humans, to learn from and to perfect ourselves like the Father in heaven is perfect. For when it is said that you should "Seek first the Kingdom of God", Wisdom is principal.

But if those texts are already corrupted and MOST HISTORICALLY UNRELIABLE Gospel, then it can't be for the perfection of humans.

Emusan:

If there's no "perfect correct", at least there should be MOST LIKELY CORRECT rendition.

Which rendition is most likely correct, the word was God or the word was a god?

The question you ask above is similar to the [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12%3A18-24&version=KJV]dispute[/url] between the Pharisees and the Sadducees that Christ was asked to resolve. One group only accepted the Books of Moses as the Word of God, while the other included much more books. Christ said to both parties:

Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?

We say Scripture is inspired. I would add, so too is understanding. We err if we know not Scripture nor the Power of God.

Emusan:

But if those texts are already corrupted and MOST HISTORICALLY UNRELIABLE Gospel, then it can't be for the perfection of humans.

Corrupted? Be thankful that you have what you have, I'd say, for the choice really is, that or nothing.

History was not so much done as we know it to be done today so judging Scripture by its historical accuracy is an error. It was not intended to be historical, yet, for perfection it still is. For if you can possibly remove the influence of Scripture through the centuries from the human psyche, I am certain we'd be a lot more unevolved than we are today.

A work in progress I call it. We are being built into a people of power through the immense power of the Word of God. We definitely would have been a lot more ignorant than we are now if God had not breathed the Word into our nostrils, and would love each other a lot less than we currently do.

OLAADEGBU:
Do Ancient Coptic Manuscripts Vindicate Jehovah Witnesses At John 1:1?

Jehovah's Witness literature attempts to defend their erroneous translation of John 1:1 by appealing to copies of ancient Coptic translations that they think agree with them. This line of argument fails for multiple reasons.

Source

STORY for the gods. Straw man sophistry.
OLAADEGBU lying Pharisee & carm lying Pharisee have ABSOLUTELY ZERO PROOF that Coptic bibles of the 2nd/3rd centuries in John1:1 never said "the word is a god".


https://www.scribd.com/document/25496486/Translating-Sahidic-Coptic-John-1-1



http://nwtandcoptic..com/2008/04/coptic-john-11-ambiguous.html?m=1