And the WORD was GOD !

[civic]

The unitarians have no Scholarship to defend their position on a god in John 1:1. These Greek Experts, Linguistic Experts, Grammarians and Theologians below leave no case for the unitarian argument.

Omission of the article with "Theos" does not mean the word is "a god." If we examine the passages where the article is not used with "Theos" we see the rendering "a god" makes no sense (Mt 5:9, 6:24; Lk 1:35, 78; 2:40; Jn 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Ro 1:7, 17, 18; 1 Co 1:30; 15:10; Phil 2:11, 13; Titus 1:1). The "a god" position would have the Jehovah's Witnesses translate every instance where the article is absent. As "a god (nominative), of a god (genitive), to or for a god (dative)." But they do not! "Theou" is the genitive case of the SAME noun "Theos" which they translate as "a god" in John 1:1. But they do not change "Theou" "of God" (Jehovah), in Matthew 5:9, Luke 1:35, 78; and John 1:6. The J.W.’s are not consistent in their biblical hermeneutics they have a bias which is clearly seen throughout their bible.

Other examples-In Jn.4:24 "God is Spirit, not a spirit. In 1 Jn .4:16 "God is love, we don’t translate this a love. In 1 Jn.1:5 "God is light" he is not a light or a lesser light.

WHAT DO GREEK SCHOLARS THINK ABOUT JEHOVAH'S WITNESS TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?

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 (Head of the Translation Department of the American Bible Society Translators of the GOOD NEWS BIBLE): "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" p..55

Dr. William Barclay (University of Glasgow, Scotland): "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 Nov, 1985

Dr. B. F. Westcott (Whose Greek text is used in JW KINGDOM INTERLINEAR): "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 (Eerdmans,1953- reprint) p. 3, (The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12.)

Dr. Anthony Hoekema, commented: 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, pp. 238, 239].

Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (University of Chicago): "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 (University of Manchester, England): "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 (Portland OR.): "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 (La Mirada CA.): "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, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World Translation, concluded that the The Christ of the New World Translation "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: (Dr. Sturz is Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College) "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 July - December, 1971 p. 12

Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach. When asked to comment on the Greek, said, "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.

 

[civic]

Continued below :

DO ANY REPUTABLE GREEK SCHOLARS AGREE WITH THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?

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, p. 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 (S.P.C.K., 1961), p. 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 (S.P.C.K., 1955), p. 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 (Jan. 1977), P. 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, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), P. 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, Vol. I, Part II Guardian 'press 1976 ; originally published 1871). p. 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), p. 327.

Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and literature at Princeton Theological Seminary said: "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), p. 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), p. 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), p. 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 (March 1973), p. 87.

Philip Harner states in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973) on Jn.1:1 "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." (pg. 86. Harner notes the source of this quote: Brown, John I-XII, 24)

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." Statement JR Mantey, published in various sources.

Many of these Greek scholars are world-renowned whose works the Jehovah's Witnesses have quoted in their publications to help them look reputable. Westcott is the Greek scholar who with Hort edited the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Yeager is a professor of Greek and the star pupil of Julius Mantey. Metzger is the world's leading scholar on the-textual criticism of the Greek New Testament. It is scholars of this quality who insist that John l: l cannot be taken to mean anything less than that the Word is the one true Almighty God.letusreason

hope this helps !!!

 

[Yahchristian]

The unitarians have no Scholarship to defend their position on a god in John 1:1. These Greek Experts, Linguistic Experts, Grammarians and Theologians below leave no case for the unitarian argument.

I agree!

And Trinitarians have no Scholarship to defend their position on "a member of" God in John 1:1.

John 1:1... In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

I believe John 1:1 is saying "Jesus was/is God".

Whereas Trinitarians believe John 1:1 is saying "Jesus was/is one of the members of God".

Here is an overview of what I believe...

For this creation, YHWH God (the only one who transcends all creations) determined to create a universe with a kingdom of redeemed humans (living souls) for his glory where he would reign as a living soul himself. The Scriptures describe how God would accomplish his plan. In an instant, transcendent God (called God the Father) created the supernatural and space-time of this universe and also became immanent as a spirit (called the Spirit of God) and in the form of a living soul (called the Word of God) with a glorious body. God the Father then created all things within the universe by the power of the Spirit of God commanded by the Word of God. But whereas God created a human spirit and soul for each of us, God himself as the Word became the human spirit and soul of Jesus. At his conception, Jesus' glorious body was changed to a mortal body to be made like us so he could make reconciliation for our sins. At his resurrection, Jesus' mortal body was changed back to a glorious body and he will also give each of his elect a glorious body when he returns to reign in his kingdom forever.

 

[Stephen]

The unitarians have no Scholarship to defend their position on a god in John 1:1. These Greek Experts, Linguistic Experts, Grammarians and Theologians below leave no case for the unitarian argument.


WHAT DO GREEK SCHOLARS THINK ABOUT JEHOVAH'S WITNESS TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?

It is interesting/hilarious/ridiculous that the OP got his cut and paste arguments mixed up and can't tell the difference between Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

[civic]

It is interesting/hilarious/ridiculous that the OP got his cut and paste arguments mixed up and can't tell the difference between Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses.

JW's are unitarians.

next............................

Thats like saying you don't know the difference between Baptists and trinitarians. Baptists are trinitarians.

duh............................

 

[Stephen]

JW's are unitarians.


Thats like saying you don't know the difference between Baptists and trinitarians. Baptists are trinitarians.

Baptists are trinitarians, but trinitarians aren't Baptists.

JWS may be Unitarians, but Unitarians aren't JWs.

 

[OldShepherd]

Baptists are trinitarians, but trinitarians aren't Baptists.
JWS may be Unitarians, but Unitarians aren't JWs.

And your point is?

 

[Stephen]

And your point is?

Way over your head apparently.


I'll walk you through it.

1. The OP claimed "The unitarians have no Scholarship to defend their position on a god in John 1:1."
2. The OP then presented cherry picked academics addressing the NWT understanding of John 1:1.

It would be as if

1. I claimed that Trinitarians have no scholarship on transubstantiation
2. Then I showed a Baptist's understanding of Matthew 26:26.

 

[OldShepherd]

Way over your head apparently.
I'll walk you through it.

1. The OP claimed "The unitarians have no Scholarship to defend their position on a god in John 1:1."
2. The OP then presented cherry picked academics addressing the NWT understanding of John 1:1.

It would be as if

1. I claimed that Trinitarians have no scholarship on transubstantiation
2. Then I showed a Baptist's understanding of Matthew 26:26.

Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church for 2000+ years. Who better than the native Greek speaking scholars know the correct meaning of the words in the Greek NT?

The Eastern Greek Orthodox translation EOB
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was {what} God {was}.​

Footnote for this verse in the EOB

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. This second theos could also be translated ‘divine’ as the construction indicates a qualitative sense for theos. The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: “God (qualitative or derivative) from God (personal, the Father), Light from Light, True God from True God … homoousion with the Father.”[1]​

​

---

[1] Cleenewerck, L. (Ed.). (2011). The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament. Laurent A. Cleenewerck.
Cleenewerck, L. (Ed.). (2011). The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (Jn 1:1). Laurent A. Cleenewerck.​

 

[Stephen]

Greek has been the language . . . .

Can you please explain the link between this particular brutalization of John 1:1 and my post(s) in this thread? Please be specific.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

The unitarians have no Scholarship to defend their position on a god in John 1:1. These Greek Experts, Linguistic Experts, Grammarians and Theologians below leave no case for the unitarian argument.

Omission of the article with "Theos" does not mean the word is "a god." If we examine the passages where the article is not used with "Theos" we see the rendering "a god" makes no sense (Mt 5:9, 6:24; Lk 1:35, 78; 2:40; Jn 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Ro 1:7, 17, 18; 1 Co 1:30; 15:10; Phil 2:11, 13; Titus 1:1). The "a god" position would have the Jehovah's Witnesses translate every instance where the article is absent. As "a god (nominative), of a god (genitive), to or for a god (dative)." But they do not! "Theou" is the genitive case of the SAME noun "Theos" which they translate as "a god" in John 1:1. But they do not change "Theou" "of God" (Jehovah), in Matthew 5:9, Luke 1:35, 78; and John 1:6. The J.W.’s are not consistent in their biblical hermeneutics they have a bias which is clearly seen throughout their bible.

Other examples-In Jn.4:24 "God is Spirit, not a spirit. In 1 Jn .4:16 "God is love, we don’t translate this a love. In 1 Jn.1:5 "God is light" he is not a light or a lesser light.

WHAT DO GREEK SCHOLARS THINK ABOUT JEHOVAH'S WITNESS TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?

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 (Head of the Translation Department of the American Bible Society Translators of the GOOD NEWS BIBLE): "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" p..55

Dr. William Barclay (University of Glasgow, Scotland): "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 Nov, 1985

Dr. B. F. Westcott (Whose Greek text is used in JW KINGDOM INTERLINEAR): "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 (Eerdmans,1953- reprint) p. 3, (The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12.)

Dr. Anthony Hoekema, commented: 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, pp. 238, 239].

Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (University of Chicago): "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 (University of Manchester, England): "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 (Portland OR.): "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 (La Mirada CA.): "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, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World Translation, concluded that the The Christ of the New World Translation "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: (Dr. Sturz is Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College) "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 July - December, 1971 p. 12

Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach. When asked to comment on the Greek, said, "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.

LOL, for Christianity is not a relationship with more flesh and blood to tell you who God is, but rather it is instead a relationship with the living God himself and whereby we seek and ask and wait upon him for the answers instead of running to more flesh and blood like you are doing with all of those scholars.

For it reveals that you are not really putting your faith in the Living God and what he can reveal to you but rather instead you are putting your faith in men and what they will tell you second hand about God and therefore also not to be trusted either.

Here is a word from God for you on this civic and it is taken from a prophecy concerning what is soon to happen in our time also and it is from Isaiah 2 and the last verse.


Isaiah 2:22 "cease from putting your trust in men, and in whose nostrils is the breath of life, for why should you esteem him for anything" and that is my paraphrase but it is truly what God was warning us about this age we live in and if you read Jeremiah 9, he also warns of the same thing.


Therefore, no human reasoning from all those men is needed here at all but only the discernment of the Holy Spirit and the true and complete definition of the word Logos, for it refers to God's mind and through which he would create and order the universe.

It is God's mind and either unspoken before creation or spoken in creation and after creation and then also written in the scriptures and it all revolved around His Divine plan and purpose in sending Jesus Christ his human heir and Son and as per Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:20.

Therefore John is not speaking of another person of God at all in this passage but rather God in regards to his mind "The Logos" and his reciprocation towards himself in his thoughts "and the Logos was pros God" and just like we also do who are made in the image of God with our thinking also.

Jesus the human Son of God and the redemption and restoration that would come through him, was at the center of God's "Logos" = His Mind, in God's foreknowledge and plan in the beginning and therefore through and in Jesus as God's plan and purpose all things were created also.

 

[Ongyo no Kiheiji]

The unitarians have no Scholarship to defend their position on a god in John 1:1. These Greek Experts, Linguistic Experts, Grammarians and Theologians below leave no case for the unitarian argument.

Omission of the article with "Theos" does not mean the word is "a god." If we examine the passages where the article is not used with "Theos" we see the rendering "a god" makes no sense (Mt 5:9, 6:24; Lk 1:35, 78; 2:40; Jn 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Ro 1:7, 17, 18; 1 Co 1:30; 15:10; Phil 2:11, 13; Titus 1:1). The "a god" position would have the Jehovah's Witnesses translate every instance where the article is absent. As "a god (nominative), of a god (genitive), to or for a god (dative)." But they do not! "Theou" is the genitive case of the SAME noun "Theos" which they translate as "a god" in John 1:1. But they do not change "Theou" "of God" (Jehovah), in Matthew 5:9, Luke 1:35, 78; and John 1:6. The J.W.’s are not consistent in their biblical hermeneutics they have a bias which is clearly seen throughout their bible.

I'm not sure what the point is here. The NWTTC didn't translate QEOS as "God" or "a god" based on whether or not it had or lacked the article.

Other examples-In Jn.4:24 "God is Spirit, not a spirit.

I never understood this argument.

In 1 Jn .4:16 "God is love, we don’t translate this a love.

AGAPH is an abstract noun, so could not be translated "a love".

In 1 Jn.1:5 "God is light" he is not a light or a lesser light.

While FWS could be translated as 'a light', because it is contrasted to "darkness" in this verse, it is translated as "light":

ο θεος φως εστιν και σκοτια εν αυτω ουκ εστιν ουδεμια

WHAT DO GREEK SCHOLARS THINK ABOUT JEHOVAH'S WITNESS TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?

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 (Head of the Translation Department of the American Bible Society Translators of the GOOD NEWS BIBLE): "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" p..55

I don't see any grammatical arguments in these quotes.

Dr. William Barclay (University of Glasgow, Scotland): "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 Nov, 1985

This statement is false.

Dr. B. F. Westcott (Whose Greek text is used in JW KINGDOM INTERLINEAR): "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 (Eerdmans,1953- reprint) p. 3, (The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12.)

Not only is Wescott reading "nature" into the text (when it doesn't address nature), "the Word is declared to be 'God' cannot be gleaned from QEOS HN hO LOGOS.

Dr. Anthony Hoekema, commented: 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, pp. 238, 239].

This is not a grammatical argument

Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (University of Chicago): "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

The "climax" of John is found at John 20:31. Nevertheless, this quote doesn't argue for or against the validity of the translation of John 1:1 in the NWT.

Dr. F. F. Bruce (University of Manchester, England): "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 (Portland OR.): "The Jehovah's Witness people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."

Not sure how these are grammatical arguments(. They look like unsubstantiated claims).

Dr. Charles L. Feinberg (La Mirada CA.): "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."

How does Feinberg define "reputable"?

Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World Translation, concluded that the The Christ of the New World Translation "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."

Not a grammatical argument (but an unsubstantiated opinion).

Dr. Harry A. Sturz: (Dr. Sturz is Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College) "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 July - December, 1971 p. 12
Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach. When asked to comment on the Greek, said, "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.

These statements are false.

 

[Ongyo no Kiheiji]

Continued below :

DO ANY REPUTABLE GREEK SCHOLARS AGREE WITH THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?

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, p. 279.

This is not a grammatical argument.

E. M. Sidebottom:"...the tendency to write 'the ord 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 (S.P.C.K., 1961), p. 461.

I'm not sure how this is an objection to the way the NWTTC has translated John 1:1.

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 (S.P.C.K., 1955), p. 76.

John writes in terms of "God" and "Logos". "Persons of the Trinity" cannot be gleaned from John 1:1.
Moreover, the absence of the article doesn't "indicate that the Word is God" (unless you are a Modalist).

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 (Jan. 1977), P. 104.

Dodd is eisegeting "OUSIA" into the text.

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, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), P. 4.

The "emphatic position" doesn't demand such a translation. Moreover, the NWT's translation of John 1:1 is expressing the same thought expressed in mainstream Bibles(. The problem is that both are problematic and require extensive explanation).

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, Vol. I, Part II Guardian 'press 1976 ; originally published 1871). p. 681.

Alford is reading his theology into the text.

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), p. 327.

How does QEOS being the predicate make 'the Word was a God (or divine)' "grammatically indefensible (as though--in these translations, "a God" or "divine" is not the predicate)?

Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and literature at Princeton Theological Seminary said: "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), p. 75.

The NWTTC's statement "A god,' In contrast with `the God'" is basically the English way of expressing "QEOS in contrast with hO QEOS" as Metzger should've realized. Moreover, stating that the NWT's rendering of John 1:1 is a "frightful mistranslation" could only be true if QEOS HN hO LOGOS could not be translated as 'the Word was a god".

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), p. 61.

While the latter is read into the text, "The Word was God . . .And the Word became flesh,' simply means he Word was divine . . . . And the Word became human" is what (I believe) both the traditional translation and the NWT's rendering are both trying to express.

Unfortunately, both (translations) fail to do this.

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), p. 20.

Most (if not all) scholars view QEOS in John 1:1c as qualitative.l

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 (March 1973), p. 87.

The text doesn't refer to either the nature of hO LOGOS or hO QEOS. (This is read into the text.)

Philip Harner states in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973) on Jn.1:1 "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." (pg. 86. Harner notes the source of this quote: Brown, John I-XII, 24)

This is a theological argument(, not a grammatical one).

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." Statement JR Mantey, published in various sources.

Mantey failed to make a grammatical argument (but instead made unsubstantiated claims).

Many of these Greek scholars are world-renowned whose works the Jehovah's Witnesses have quoted in their publications to help them look reputable. Westcott is the Greek scholar who with Hort edited the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Yeager is a professor of Greek and the star pupil of Julius Mantey. Metzger is the world's leading scholar on the-textual criticism of the Greek New Testament. It is scholars of this quality who insist that John l: l cannot be taken to mean anything less than that the Word is the one true Almighty God.letusreason

hope this helps !!!

The problem is: John 1:1 does not mean anything like "the Word is the one true Almighty God".

 

[OldShepherd]

Can you please explain the link between this particular brutalization of John 1:1 and my post(s) in this thread? Please be specific.

I don't know about you but I have always found it very helpful to actually read a post before trying to respond. My post was an irrefutable source for the correct definition of the second Theos is Jn 1:1. The link was to an online copy of the Eastern Greek Orthodox NT translation, EOB. I have it on my laptop. I recommend reading the 200 page preface documenting the scholarship supporting the translation.
In order to disprove the EOB one must produce credible, verifiable, historical, grammatical etc. evidence equal to the EOB which conclusively shows the EOB to be incorrect. Posting 100 translations/version does not prove anything but the bias of the translator.

 

[OldShepherd]

...The NWTTC's statement "A god,' In contrast with `the God'" is basically the English way of expressing "QEOS in contrast with hO QEOS" as Metzger should've realized. Moreover, stating that the NWT's rendering of John 1:1 is a "frightful mistranslation" could only be true if QEOS HN hO LOGOS could not be translated as 'the Word was a god"....

Unless you have a PhD/ThD in Theology, heavy on Greek, you have no basis for speculating what accredited scholars should/should not have done in their translations. How do you deal with the 4 other occurrences of Theos without the article in Jn chap. 1; Joh 1:6, Joh 1:12, Joh 1:13, Joh 1:18?

 

[Ongyo no Kiheiji]

Unless you have a PhD/ThD in Theology, heavy on Greek, you have no basis for speculating what accredited scholars should/should not have done in their translations.

Even if I had no degrees in the Biblical Languages, what I've stated is not "new information".

How do you deal with the 4 other occurrences of Theos without the article in Jn chap. 1; Joh 1:6, Joh 1:12, Joh 1:13, Joh 1:18?

John 1:6, 12, 13--genitive uses(; the genitive case does not require the article to be definite); John 1:18--QEOS is made definite by John's use of TOU PATROS.

 

[OldShepherd]

* * *. How does QEOS being the predicate make 'the Word was a God (or divine)' "grammatically indefensible (as though--in these translations, "a God" or "divine" is not the predicate)?* * *

Perhaps you should consult a Greek grammar.

 

[OldShepherd]

Even if I had no degrees in the Biblical Languages, what I've stated is not "new information".

John 1:6, 12, 13--genitive uses(; the genitive case does not require the article to be definite); John 1:18--QEOS is made definite by John's use of TOU PATROS.

In the absence of credible scholarship anonymous unsupported opinions don't mean very much.

 

[Ongyo no Kiheiji]

Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church for 2000+ years. Who better than the native Greek speaking scholars know the correct meaning of the words in the Greek NT?

Anybody that understands Greek grammar. (BTW, ever heard of George Gangas? Was he not a native Greek speaker?)

The Eastern Greek Orthodox translation EOB​

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was {what} God {was}.​

Footnote for this verse in the EOB

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. This second theos could also be translated ‘divine’ as the construction indicates a qualitative sense for theos. The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity.​

This explains why QEOS HN hO LOGOS should not be translated "the Word was God"(--because that's not what John meant).

The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: “God (qualitative or derivative) from God (personal, the Father), Light from Light, True God from True God … homoousion with the Father.”[1]​

​

​

​

---

[1] Cleenewerck, L. (Ed.). (2011). The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament. Laurent A. Cleenewerck.​

Cleenewerck, L. (Ed.). (2011). The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (Jn 1:1). Laurent A. Cleenewerck.​

John 1:1c does not carry any connotation regarding the nature or essence of hO LOGOS(. This is read into the text--not gleaned from it).

Speaking of the Nicene Creed, it also states "τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων" (which shows he had a beginning and therefore is not "eternal" in the same sense as God his Father).

 

[Ongyo no Kiheiji]

Perhaps you should consult a Greek grammar.

No need (as I speak Greek).