Jehovah’s Witnesses watchman Forums Watchman Forum Sahidic Coptic New Testament In English, John 1:1 & Michael the Archangel

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
  • Ken_RosenbergKen_Rosenberg
    Post count: 36
    #39720 |

    I never studied the trinity until now, this what I found:

    How Does The Coptic Text Render John 1:1?

    The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: ‘Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3rd century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant [still-existing] witnesses.'”

    A significant fact concerning the Coptic language is that, unlike the Greek, it used an indefinite article (“a” or “an” in English).

    So in NT Greek for example, the literal translation of John 1:6 is, “came to be man having been sent forth ….” But Bible translators always render ‘man’ here as ‘a man.’ This is because the Greek did not use any form of an indefinite article, and it had to be understood and supplied by the English translator.

    The Coptic, however, DID use a form of an indefinite article (‘a’ or ‘an’ in English).

    Therefore, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. We find that the Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word ‘God’ in the final part of John 1:1! So when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: ‘And the Word was a God.’

    I went ahead and purchased this translation from logos, I wanted to see what the understanding of Michael the Archangel was in the 2nd Century CE.

    Here is a snapshot 1 Thessalonians 4:16 in the oldest New Testament Translation known to man.

    Here is Jude 9

    As we know, “the” is definite, thus Michael is the only Archangel, Jesus uses the voice of Archangel, but you can use Jude 9 NIV against a Trinitarian to prove the definite argument, since it is their Bible after all.

    And just for the sake of it, here is John 1:1

    This translation to me is the most accurate, because Jesus is a God, the other God is Jehovah, for one of Jesus’ titles is Mighty God and in Philippians 2

    Post count: 36
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.