jehovah witness and john 1:1 deity of christ

[vanquish29]

John 1:1 What do scholars say?

Following are comments by some of the experts in the field of Biblical languages:

Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own Kingdom Interlinear TransIation): "A shocking mistranslation. "Obsolete and incorrect." It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1 :1 "The Word was a god.'

Dr. B. F. Westcott (whose Greek text not the English part is used in the Kingdom InterIinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in iv. 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."

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature): "A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "Irepre-hensible" , " If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."

Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article "a'" means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase "the Word was a god."

Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar In their mistranslation of John 1 :1 "

Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "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. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of , or read of any Greek Scholar who would agree to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses . . . I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language."

Dr. Walter Martin (late): "The translation "a god" instead of "GOD' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language many of whom are not even Christ-ians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention." ..

Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow , Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations John 1:1 is 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."

Dr. F. F. Bruce of the 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 predicative construction. . . . "a god" would be totally indefensible".
(Barclay and Bruce are generaIIy regarded as Great Britain's Ieading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!)

Dr . Ernest C. Colwell of the 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. Philip B. Harner of Heidelberg College: "The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the Iogos was "a god" or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos but as a distinct being from ho theos. In the form that John actually uses, the word "theos" is placed at the beginning for emphasis."

Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "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; John 1:1 is direct. . . I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian."

Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society: "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." (Responsible for the Good News Bible- The committee worked under him.)

Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text, not the English parts used in the Emphatic Diaglott ):
"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: 1-3, 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".

Other scriptures without the definite article

The following passages, as with John 1:1, also identified the word "God" in the Greek scriptures without the use of the definite article as in John 1:1. Yet, if you will see the NWT, the Watchtower does not translate these passages as "a god" as they did in John 1:1! The following are quoted directly from the 1984 New World Translation.

John 1:6 There arose a man sent forth as a representative of God, his name was John. (no definite article)

John 1:13 and they were born, not from blood, or from a fleshly will, or from man's will, but from God. (no definite article)

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten god, who is in the bosom with the Father is the one that has explained him. (no definite article)

John 8:54 Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing: it is my Father that glorifies me; he who YOU say is YOUR God. (no definite article Noun/Nominative case as in John 1:1)

Each of the above scriptures, clearly speaking of God the Father, could NOT be translated by the Watchtower as "a god" without creating suspicion by their followers. Yet, each of these passages are written in the Greek, without the definite article, as in John 1:1!


Scholars' explination for the "missing" definite article!

John 1:1
And the Word was God (kai theos e¯n ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos e¯n ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in Joh_4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1Jo_4:16 ho theos agape¯ estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in Joh_1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality. (Robertson's Word Pictures)

And the Word was God (kai theos e¯n ho logos)
In the Greek order, and God was the Word, which is followed by Anglo-Saxon, Wyc., and Tynd. But Theos, God, is the predicate and not the subject of the proposition. The subject must be the Word; for John is not trying to show who is God, but who is the Word. Notice that Theos is without the article, which could not have been omitted if he had meant to designate the word as God; because, in that event, Theos would have been ambiguous; perhaps a God. (Vincent's Word Studies)



The notable Greek scholars agree, by proper Greek grammer, the reason that the article is omitted here in John 1:1, is because John was defining who the "Word" was, not who "God" was! To include the article in John 1:1, would change the entire structure and meaning of the verse to be defining who "God" was, instead of defining who the "Word" was! Instead of saying "and the Word was God," by including the article it would say "and God was the Word" which was not the intent of John!

No doubt the Watchtower is aware of this fact, but has hidden it from their flock. If they were to reveal this truth to their subjects, their followers would realize they are lying about their false teachings about the Christ and this anti-christ group would cease to exist. Since John 1:1 is a key scripture identifying that Jesus is God, it is most vital for them to continue to hide the truth! Thomas knew the truth, and declared the deity of Christ when he finally believed:

John 20:28-29 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. [29] Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

i has some Jehovah witness that deny jesus in every turn with scripture at my door step and they couldnt deal with jesus being both fully man and fully God in colossians 2:9 and john 1:1, 14

[PaulSacramento]

It is clear that the WT has translated their bible based on their doctrines.
Now, it is A possible translation, even an accurate on grammatically ( debatable) BUT within the context of the GOJ, it just doesn't make any sense.

It is clear that John is making a statment of NATURE and not identity:
John states that the words was in existence from the very beginning, the Word was WITH God and and was GOD.
Now, since The Word was WITH God, what does "and was God" mean?
It means that The divine Logos, The WORD was of the same nature that God was.
It is a statement of nautre and divine power, but why does John mention that?

Because he continues to show that The WORD became flesh ( incarnation) and that means that a being that had the same nature of God, became Human and walked with Us, just as Isaiah fortold ( He will be called Immanuel - God with Us).

The JW's in there drive to deny the Trinity, seek to strip Christ of being of the same nature as The Father, that is why they say He was the archangel Michael.

[PeteSinCA]

v29, you quoted this article in its entirety and without attribution. Are you the article author? Or do you have the author's permission to quote the entire article without linking to the source?

[B. W.]

v29, you quoted this article in its entirety and without attribution. Are you the article author? Or do you have the author's permission to quote the entire article without linking to the source?

Yes, please cite your sources Vanquish29 - that is all we ask...
-
-
-

[vanquish29]

heres my source
http://crossbearer-brian.tripod.com/id237.htm
wheres your source for asking wheres my source? you can cross reference the scholars look them up, on the source i provided, if you really want a true source get a strong concordance on john 1:1, you cant ask for a infinite regression of sources, it stops on the Greek, but if you dont accept Gods word on the greek on John 1:1 on the deity of christ then your in a different theology.

[PeteSinCA]

heres my source
http://crossbearer-brian.tripod.com/id237.htm
wheres your source for asking wheres my source? you can cross reference the scholars look them up, on the source i provided, if you really want a true source get a strong concordance on john 1:1, you cant ask for a infinite regression of sources, it stops on the Greek, but if you dont accept Gods word on the greek on John 1:1 on the deity of christ then your in a different theology.

v29, your snarky response to B.W., a moderator on this discussion board, is unworthy of this board's hospitality - you're a guest here, remember (as am I, of course) - and a Christian believer. As for B.W.'s source for the question about sources, B.W. quoted that source, me.

I'm a pretty ordinary person - you won't be hearing about me on the 6 O'Clock news or in some scholarly journal, but I do have some experiences that are relevant to the question at hand.

First, I've been (and continue to be) a Moderator on several news/politics discussion boards for over 8 years. Compliance with copyright laws is important for discussion boards. Wikipedia's articles about Free Republic and Righthaven are good starting points, if you are interested in the topic. The two discussion boards on which I've been a Mod these past 8 years both require members to keep quotes brief (a couple hundred words, a few paragraphs; for very brief articles, less than half of the article).

Second, I worked, briefly, with a couple of ministries that reach out to Jehovah's witnesses. They were meticulous about citing/crediting sources, which serves three purposes. First, it lets the reader verify that the source is being used accurately and honestly. Second, it gives readers the opportunity to learn more of the source author's work. Third, it gives credit where credit is due, rather than leaving the reader with the mistaken idea that what is quoted is original work. Systematically citing/crediting sources is also the expected norm in academic research. Failing to do so is called Plagiarism.

As Jesus said, speaking to a different context, "the laborer is worthy of his wages" (Luke 10:7). In this context, that means "fair usage" of copyrighted material and identifying/crediting sources.

[PeteSinCA]

Back on topic ...

Finding places where the New Testament identifies the Son, Jesus, as God is not difficult, and can be seen from multiple perspectives:

* Directly stating that the Son is God, e.g. Matthew 1:23, John 1:1, John 8:58, John 20:28, Philippians 2:6, and Hebrews 1:8

* Attributing to the Son characteristics that are unique to God, e.g. John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16

* Showing that the Son is given an honor that belongs only to God, e.g. passages in the Gospels where Jesus is worshiped (without correcting rebuke, as the Law of Moses would require) and Hebrews 1:6

Showing scholarly academics' views of passages such as John 1:1 (and others) is helpful, as the New World Translation fudges such passages to suit Watchtower doctrine (check out what the NWT does to Colossians 1:15-18!). But the obstacle to be overcome is not the rarity of New Testament passages evidencing the Deity of the Son, but Jehovah's witnesses' unwillingness to acknowledge what the New Testament teaches. That persuasion, once believers show what the NT says, is the work of the Holy Spirit.

[vanquish29]

hey i thought you were just some guy didnt know you were a moderator, excuse my passion, you did make a couple of views that make sense, my point was the jw on there view about the nature of God and the nature of the Son, in john 17:5 the greek word is para for "with" meaning jesus has always been with the father as the Word, jesus said he will give a comforter greek word is parklatos excuse my spelling, it means the holy spirit is a person not a active force as jw will tell us, i would like to stay on topic on john 1:1 and the incarnation of jesus in phil 2:5 where it says jesus existing with the father the greek word is aparkon for "existing", excuse my spelling , and in Hebrews 1 before the incarnation let all the angels of God worship the son, then when he brings the son into the world meaning to be in the flesh to die on the cross, he is the first and the last the alpha and omega, the logos the divine word, this is what the early church fathers taught as well as 1 God in 3 persons in genesis 1:26 "let US make man in OUR image, now he has become one of US" as sincere as i am to jw they are programmed to worship only Jehovah the father when i show verses like acts 20:28 and point out a few other passages they shut down in there thinking when it comes to jesus being with the father from eternity, and they quote sources that the trinity is false its pagan its not taught in the bible when in fact the same source there quoting is not in the whole context of there source i always tell them to quote the whole source and they cant, so i understand the reason to have sources and not to plagiarize without consent what i think ,most of this, is public domain meaning its meant for the world and for the public, and meant for believers to have access to historical accounts of jesus and his ministry during his life here on earth.

[PeteSinCA]

Just to be clear, B.W. is a Board Moderator here. I'm an ordinary member.

If the topic of witnesses' belief that the trinity is paganism that crept into the church interests you, we had a thread on that subject some 6 months ago. A witness using the forum name Alter2Ego started several threads here on witnesses' views, including one claiming that the origins of the Trinity are pagan, not Scripture. You should be able to find it using the Advanced Search function, searching for "Alter2Ego". A2E goes from Internet discussion board to Internet discussion board to Internet discussion board to ... posting the same material at every site. She seems to last on each board for a couple of weeks and then either gets banned or the heat gets too hot for her tastes and she moves on. I guess she sees it as the Internet version of going door-to-door; I could see the logic of that if she stuck to religious boards and news/politics boards that have forums for religious topics, but she goes on equestrian boards, boxing boards, muscle-building boards, etc..

[B. W.]

heres my source
http://crossbearer-brian.tripod.com/id237.htm
wheres your source for asking wheres my source? you can cross reference the scholars look them up, on the source i provided, if you really want a true source get a strong concordance on john 1:1, you cant ask for a infinite regression of sources, it stops on the Greek, but if you dont accept Gods word on the greek on John 1:1 on the deity of christ then your in a different theology.

It is important that we all need to post our sources due to copyright laws and professionalism.

It is not that hard and should be done.

If not, an author of an article does have the right to sue the individual who fails to acknowledge the author if they so choose. Please keep that in mind. Plagiarizing is by law - theft.
-
-
-