როგორც ბიბლიური რედაქციების ისევე ავტორიტეტული ბერძნული ენის სპეციალისტების მიერ გარკვევით არის დადგენილი, რომ იოანე 1.1 საუბარია ღმერთზე
წამყვანი ბიბლიური რედაქციების თარგმანები:
New American Standard Bible: (©1995)
In the beginning was the Word, and 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 King James Version:
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.
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.
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;
New internation Version:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
New American Standart Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
English Standart Version:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Complete Jewish Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and Word was God.
New Century Version
In the beginning there was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
New Living Translation ® 1996:
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
New English Translation Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.
GOD'S WORD Translation © 1995
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Revized Standart Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Young Lirerals Teanslation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Darby Bible
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 Word, and Word was in relation with God and was God
Douay-Rheimes Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
New Teastment In modern Speech
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Noab Webster's Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Amplfied Bible
IN THE begining [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was the God himself (isa 9:6)
God News Trnaslation
In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Holman Christian Standard Bible® 1999
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
New Revised Standart Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Today's English Version
Before the world was created, the Word already existed; he was with God, and he was the same as God.
La Biblia de las Américas (©1997)
En el principio existía el Verbo, y el Verbo estaba con Dios, y el Verbo era Dios.
La Nueva Biblia de los Hispanos (©2005)
En el principio ya existía el Verbo (la Palabra), y el Verbo estaba con Dios, y el Verbo era Dios.
Reina Valera (1909)
EN el principio era el Verbo, y el Verbo era con Dios, y el Verbo era Dios.
Sagradas Escrituras (1569)
En el principio ya era la Palabra, y aquel que es la Palabra era con el Dios, y la Palabra era Dios.
Spanish Modern
En el principio era el Verbo, y el Verbo era con Dios, y el Verbo era Dios.
Louis Segond (1910)
Au commencement était la Parole, et la Parole était avec Dieu, et la Parole était Dieu.
Darby
Au commencement était la Parole; et la Parole était auprès de Dieu; et la Parole était Dieu.
French - Martin (1744)
Au commencement était la Parole, et la Parole était avec Dieu; et cette parole était Dieu :
Ostervald (1744)
Au commencement était la Parole, la Parole était avec Dieu, et la Parole était Dieu.
Luther (1912)
Im Anfang war das Wort, und das Wort war bei Gott, und Gott war das Wort.
Luther (1545)
Im Anfang war das Wort, und das Wort war bei Gott, und Gott war das Wort.
Latin: Biblia Sacra Vulgata: in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum
რუსული სინოდალური: В начале было Слово, и Слово было у Бога, и Слово было Бог.
მთაწმინდელი: პირველთაგან იყო სიტყვა და სიტყვა იგი იყო ღმრთისა თანა, და ღმერთი იყო სიტყვა იგი.
Orthodox jewish bible: Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem, and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem, and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim!
ხოლო ესეც წამყვანი ბერძნული ენის სპეციალისტების კომენტარები იოანეს 1.1-ზე:
Dr. Julius Mantey ეს ადამიანი ნეგატიურად იხსენიებს იეჰოვას სექსტის იოანისეულ თარგმანს და მთლიანად მათ ბიბლიურ რედაქციას. ის წერს: "Because of the word order used by John, the verse can only be interpreted to mean that the Word (Jesus) was God in the same sense as the Father." იხ: "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses" გვ: 103-105. სხვათაშორის ამ ადამიანის მოსაზრებები რასელისტებმაც გამოიყენეს თავისი ანტიბიბლიური სწავლებების დასაცავად, რის შედმეგ ხსენებულმა პიროვნებამ არაერთხელ მისწერა წერილი სამეთვალყურეო კოშკს მისი ნაშრომების ამოღებისთვის მათი ანტიბიბლიური სწავლების დასაცავად მაგრამ უშედეგოდ.
აგრეთვე მათ არასწორად, კონტექსტიდან ამოღებულად დააციტირეს ორი სხვა მკვლევარის მოსაზრებები, რომლებიც აქ ღმერთს მოიაზრებენ Philip B. Harner და John L. McKenzie-ის მოსაზრებები. Ron Rhodes Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses გვ..103-105
ეხლა ვნახოთ რას ფიქრობენ სხვა ბერძნული ენის სპეციალისტები რასელისტების თარგმანზე და იოანე 1.1-თან დაკავშირებით:
Dr. J. J. Griesback: "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor 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 doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage John 1:1 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."
Dr. Eugene A. Nida (ამერიკის მთარგმნეთლა ბიბლიური საზოგადოების, თარგმნის დეპარტამენტის უფროსი): "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". ( Bill and Joan Cetnar Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses "who love the truth" გვ. 55)
Dr. William Barclay (გლაზგოს უნივერსიტეტი, შოტლანდია): "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 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.
THE EXPOSITORY TIMES ნოემბ. 1985
Dr. B. F. Westcott (რომლის ბერძნული ტექსტიც გამოყენებული აქვთ რასელისტეს:
"The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. It is necessarily without the article . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true Deity of the Word . . . in the third clause `the Word' is declared to be `God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead." The Gospel According to St. John (The Bible Collector, ივლისი-დეკემბერი, 1971, გვ. 12.)
Dr. Anthony Hoekema,: Their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into Modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself (The Four Major Cults, გვ. 238- 239).
Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (ჩიკაგოს უნივერსიტეტი): "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb; . . .this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. `My Lord and my God.' " John 20:28
Dr. F. F. Bruce (მასაჩუსეტსის უნივერსიტეტი, ინგლისი): "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 predicate construction. `a god' would be totally indefensible."
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman (პორტლენდი, აშშ): "The Jehovah's Witness people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg (ლა მირანდა, კალიფორნია, აშშ.): "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."
Dr. Robert Countess: "has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation .... It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly "78 No wonder British scholar H.H. Rowley asserted, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."79 Indeed, Rowley said, this translation is "an insult to the Word of God."
Dr. Harry A. Sturz: "Therefore, the NWT rendering: "the Word was a god" is not a "literal" but an ungrammatical and tendential translation. A literal translation in English can be nothing other than: "the word was God." (The Bible Collector, ივლისი-დეკემბერი, 1971, გვ. 12.)
Dr. J. Johnson (კალიფორნიის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტი): "No justification whatsoever for translating theos en ho logos as 'the Word was a god'. There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse. Jn.1:1 is direct.. I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian.
A. T. Robertson:"So in John 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, -not God was the Logos." A New short Grammar of the Greek Testament, AT. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, გვ. 279.)
E. M. Sidebottom:"...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for theos en ho Iogos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to john. (The Christ of the Fourth Gospel, 1961, გვ. 461.)
C. K. Barrett: "The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity." (The Gospel According to St. John, გვ. 76)
C. H. Dodd: "On this analogy, the meaning of _theos en ho logos will be that the ousia of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos... That is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham,) the Father goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase." "New Testament Translation Problems the bible Translator, 28, 1 (იანვ. 1977), გვ. 104.
Randolph 0. Yeager: "Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate ..and the Word was a God.' The article with logos, shows that to logos is thesubject of the verb en and the fact that theos is without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of theos demands that we translate '...and the Word was God.' John is not saying as Jehovah's Witnesses are fond of teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely the opposite." The Renaissance New Testament, ტ.. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), გვ. 4.
Henry Alford: "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,--not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It noes not = theios; nor is it to be rendered a God--but, as in sarx engeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a-definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:--that He was very God . So that this first verse must be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the Father),--and was Himself God." (Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, ტ. I, ნაწილი II Guardian 'press 1976 ; originally published 1871). გვ. 681.
Donald Guthrie: "The absence of the article with Theos has misled some into t inking teat the correct understanding of the statement would be that 'the word was a God' (or divine), but this is grammatically indefensible since Theos is a predicate." New Testament Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1981), გვ. 327.
Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and literature at Princeton Theological Seminary. მისი კომენტარი: "Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering, . . . `and the Word was a god,' with the following footnotes: " `A god,' In contrast with `the God' ". It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall. As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation." "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today (April 1953), გვ. 75.
James Moffatt: "'The Word was God . . .And the Word became flesh,' simply means he Word was divine . . . . And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man ...." Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), გვ. 61.
E. C. Colwell: "...predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite -or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context,and in the case of John l:l this is not so." A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), გვ. 20.
Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.' This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it,"that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.""(Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (მარტი 1973), გვ. 87.
იგივე, the Journal of Biblical Literature-ის 1973 წლის მარტის ნომერში (გვ 86. ), იოანე 1:1-ზე: "In vs. 1c the Johannine hymn is bordering on the usage of 'God' for the Son, but by omitting the article it avoids any suggestion of personal identification of the Word with the Father. And for Gentile readers the line also avoids any suggestion that the Word was a second God in any Hellenistic sense."
Julius R. Mantey; "Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.' Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering .... In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years." Letter from Mantey to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. "A Grossly Misleading Translation .... John 1:1, which reads 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God,' is shockingly mistranslated, 'Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,' in a New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published under the auspices o Jehovah's Witnesses."
ამათგან, მეტცგერი, ვესკოტი და კოველი ითვლებიან მსოფლიოში ძველი ბერძნული ენის საუკეთესო სპეციალისტებად. მაგალითად მეტცგერი ითვლება მსოფლიოში ბერძნული ბიბლიური კრიტიციზმის საუკეთესო სპეციალისტად. რენდოლფ იაგერი კი არის XX საუკუნის ერთერთი ყველაზე მნიშვნელოვანი ბიბლიური ნაშრომის (The Renaissance New Testament:) ავტორი.
წყარო
Переводчиками в 1950 г. в качестве оригинального текста было взято издание 1881 г. под редакцией Весткотта и Хорта.
დეტალური აღწერა თუ როგორი დარღვევებით ითარგმნა ახალი ქვეყნიერების თარგმანი და რომელი ბერძნული ტექსტები იქნა გამოყენებული
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий