| ACTS 20:28 NWT: 28 Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed YOU overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own [Son].
TNIV: 28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.
KJV: 28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
NASB: 28“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
DISCUSSION:
In a blog that I have read concerning this subject, the writer told that there are some early manuscripts found in which on the last part of the word “own” there is an ellipsis (…) which we of course are familiar with in a grammar language. Ellipsis is use to indicate that there is a next word/statement that follows after a certain word. Upon looking for the Greek text of this verse, we can see that there is an article before the word “idiou” and that is “tou” which means “the”. So it is possible to say that “idiou” may refer to an identity to which Jesus is being identified implicitly and not just only the word “own” that refers to the speaker itself. If someone will say, “…which he made with (through/by) the effort of his own” would it not mean that he made something through the effort of the thing he own and not just by his own effort? Basically, the two are possible meaning. Since the Greek term used for “with” on the said verse was “dia” which means “with, by or through” then it could also proper to restate the said phrase verse to “…which he purchased through the blood of his own” or “… which he purchased by the blood of his own” or “… which he purchased with the blood of his own”. The first two possible phrases denote an implicit thought of an implicit identity i.e. he purchased something through the blood of someone he own. Ironically, Trinitarian Greek translators put this statement on its opposite way which we can see on many bible versions. Though all possible meaning of the word “dia” can be used in any way one chooses and reversing the thought of the context by interchanging the position of the noun “blood” and “his own” to be acceptable and valid statement and to say that this is the thought of God, it is also possible (but the only possible as the JW believe) that the “blood of his own” really show that God purchased his church through the blood of his own son. The proof to this assertion can be noticed and considered as parallel to John 1:11 which says, “11He came unto his own, and his own received him not” wherein in Greek it is written as
| “eis / ta / idia / ēlthen / kai / oi / idioi/ auton / ou/ parelabon” (slash put for division of words) which can be transliterated in English as “unto / those / own / he came / and / those / own / him / not / receive”. Thus when looking to the final output of the translation, it shows he (Jesus) came to his own, in which “own” implies implicit identity (noun) that is own by Jesus which is the Israel, the nation which God has chosen to be his own. Let us show some examples from the Greek Scriptures that uses the kind of Greek word to Greek word “idiou”. Notice the Greek word for “own”, the “idia” and “idioi”, both of them has article which is “ta” and “oi” thus the “own” signifies identities or persons involved because there is no noun mention after the word “own”. The words “his own” refers to a certain group of people. Consider also 1 Thessalonians 4:11 in which the word “business” is implicitly mention in Greek text. The exact phrase mention to that is “kai/ prassein/ ta/ idia” which in transliterated English becomes “and/to do/the/own” but when looking to some Bible translations it has the implicit words “business”. Thus it shows an exact example of Acts 20:28 where “son” is implicitly identified in the context. Thus, there is a valid reason to render it as “with the blood of his own son” even without the necessary to put a bracket on the word son.Let us quote Galatians Galatians 6:5 which states, “For every man shall bear his own burden.” – KJV In Greek it is written as “ekastos/gar/to/idion/phortion/bastasei” which when transliterated in English becomes “man/for/the/own/load/will bear” and arranging it in proper position it will become for/man/will bear/the/own/load and so it is proper to write it now as “for every man will bear his own load”. Let us now compare the Greek text to English text. We can notice that “idion” as it has the meaning of “one’s own” has an article before it and the Greek word “phortion” has no more article. Thus, the thing that is own by every man is his own load (or burden in another term). There is only one article use to describe that one’s own load of a man. Since there is article on it, the load which is being described and own by every man is not only a load which is part of many loads but rather in general it speaks for all the load of every man. When we say “death is a load of every man” it means death is one of the loads of every man. But when we say “trials are the load of every man” it speaks about all the problems in life of a man in general. It involves all the problems that every man may encounter rather than a single problem that may come to a person.
Let us use another verse that used the word “own” in which the Greek is somehow related to the word “idiou”. Let us quote James 1:14 which states, “But every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed.” The Greek text of this verse is “ekastos / de / peirazetai / upo / tes / idias / epithumias / exelkomenos / kai / deleazomenos” which when transliterated in English becomes “man / but / is tempted / of / the / own / lust / being drawn away / and / enticed. As you can noticed there is also an article before the Greek word “idias” (own) but no article before the Greek word “epithumias” (lust or desire). The word lust was used in KJV but in other translations it generally refers to desire which means eagerness to something. Thus, again this is in parallel of the example above. The desire which is spoken about can be used as a general term that refers to all the desires of man in general. Another example that shows this sameness can be found in John 4:44 which states, “For Jesus himself testified that a prophet hath no honour in his own country.” The same structure can be seen on the word “his own country” which written in Greek as “te idia patridi” which when transliterated in English becomes “the own country” but can be written properly as what the whole context suggest as “his own country”. From all of the three examples we can say that whenever the noun is spoken as one’s own whether it refers for a collective group or a single person it is usually has an article before a specific noun is being introduced. The country in the last example suggests not a single country but speaks of the countries of prophets in general. Thus, the article use from the three examples above shows not only a single or unique identity or a single or specific object but rather suggests a singular noun which generally refers to many identities or objects if not all. Let us go back to Acts 20:28. The Greek texts of the phrase “which he purchased with the blood of his own” generally written in other versions as “which he purchased with his own blood” is written as “en periepoiesato dia tou aimatos tou idiou” which when transliterated in English becomes “which/he purchased/with/the/blood/the/own”. We can noticed that there are two articles mention i.e. before the word “blood” and before the word “own”, so this is very significant in knowing the truth. What the Trinitarians suggests in their translation is that the blood of Jehovah is the one that purchased the church (God’s church). However, when looking in the above examples above and trying to connect it in their versions we could see that their translation falls to the above examples. So in getting back the Greek translation of their own translation it must show similarity on the above examples and that it should follow the structure of the said verses though the noun spoken in Acts 20:28 shows a single object from a single person unlike those nouns from above which shows multiple identities or objects. If for example one will translate in Greek the words “He live with his own effort” then the only possible way to write it in Transliterated English of its Greek is “He live, with, the own, effort” and not “He live, effort, with, the own”. If the word “effort” has article then the statement will go like this “he live, the effort, with, the own” and if translated as like in NWT we could have as “he live with the effort of his own (…)” Seemingly, the sentence clearly shows that he lives not by his own effort but by an effort of someone he own (a person). The thing that the word “blood” has an article denotes that it is a definite object from the person he own and not simply as his own blood. I think if Jehovah claims this blood as his own I guess the proper rendering of the word in Greek that should be used is “eautou” which means “of himself” just what it would show as, “which he purchased with the blood of himself”.
Of course, when Trinitarians insist their own version to put up their own doctrine as Jehovah and Jesus are coequal then definitely this would favor their own doctrine without considering many verses and proofs that point out the distinction of Jehovah and Jesus. Contrary to other versions, NWT provides the original thought of God and not of man which does not conflict from all the other verses in the Bible. Consider the following verses and study the real thought of Jesus here.
John 15:15 I no longer call YOU slaves, because a slave does not know what his master does. But I have called YOU friends, because all the things I have heard from my Father I have made known to YOU.
John 16:32 Look! The hour is coming, indeed, it has come, when YOU will be scattered each one to his own house and YOU will leave me alone; and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.
John 12: 49 because I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak. 50 Also, I know that his commandment means everlasting life. Therefore the things I speak, just as the Father has told me [them], so I speak [them].”
If Trinitarians still insist their own doctrine, then definitely they do not accept the plain but true words of Jesus. It is a matter of acceptance and refusal. If you deny Jesus words about his distinction to his Father, then one must explain what Jesus meant on his words. If those words are methaphor, then how would they interpret the words of Jesus and why did Jesus said it on that way and for what reason?
For further discussions that supports the veracity of the translations of Acts 20:28 of NWT please see the link below.
http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/blog/acts-2028-son-implied-or-not-334338/
http://onlytruegod.org/defense/acts20.28.htm |
|
Fromthesunrising's Blog 