70 Non Trinitarian translations of John 1:1

[Shermana]

An excellent collection though a few show a few signs of liberties. There's a lot more "A god" translations than I realized.

Is it logical to conclude that there is much more than the JWs as an authority that this reading of John 1:1 can be legitimately read as "a god"?

Are there enough translations that present the case of "a god" or "Divine" as the translation of an article-less "Theos" to conclude that it's not just some fringe baseless position? Is it more of a Theological issue why the "A god" translation is so unappreciated by the "Conservative scholars"?

[jedicri]

Are you talking about proper translation because proper interpretation plays a big role...

One must also be infallible to properly do so...

BTW, it could also be argued that the link you posted also has "poor and/or theologically biased Bible translations of John 1:1".

[Shermana]

Are you talking about proper translation because proper interpretation plays a big role...

One must also be infallible to properly do so...

BTW, it could also be argued that the link you posted also has "poor and/or theologically biased Bible translations of John 1:1".

Why don't you get into why these translations are poor and "Theologically biased" while the "Mainstream ones" aren't, in detail.

So if "Proper interpretation" plays a role, what is the correct "proper interpretation", and why?

[jedicri]

The way I see it, whoever determined the canonicity of the Bible would be, and is, the proper interpreter of Scripture.

There are claims that Scripture is infallible since it is the Word of God. If that were so, it follows that Scripture needs an infallible interpreter and whoever determined the canon of Scripture would be that one.

The early Church, as history shows, not the Bible itself, resolved the issue of the canon. It was the authority of the Catholic bishops which settled disputes about which books belonged in the Bible and which did not. They had standards by which they made these judgments. The only way you can be sure that the standards and judgments were correct is if you believe the Holy Spirit was working in the Church to make sure the correct canon arose.

It's interesting to note that as the canon develops in the first couple of centuries, developing alongside it and even before it, are beliefs such as baptismal regeneration, apostolic succession, the Mass as sacrifice, etc. In fact, by the time you get to Nicea that's pretty much standard Christian practice. So, if you think the Holy Spirit was working in the Church then, and that Church had all that Catholic teachings, then why accept the Bible and not Catholic theology and dogma since nobody at the time thought the latter was inconsistent with the former?

Moreover, does it make sense to reject such teachings, such as the Trinity, if we believe that the Holy Spirit inerrantly guided these men and the Church since the day of Pentacost and is backed by Jesus's solemn practice that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Her?

Now, how authoritative and binding was the Church's witness --- its tradition --- upon the individual Christian? Must it be accepted by all Christians on the pain of heresy? If the Church's decision on the canon isn't authoritative, then what happens to the authority of the books which comprise the Bible? If one rejects the teaching authority of the Church, its teachings, and its stance that they alone are proper interpreters of Scripture, why do these still continue to use the Bible? By continuing to use the Bible, they are indirectly admitting the Church's authority.

If they so reject Catholic doctrine and teachings, let these individuals then determine the canonicity of the Bible, and, having done so, let them translate and interpret according to their own whims.

[Shermana]

Okay, that was a nice discourse on why you think the Catholic Church has all the answers, but it doesn't exactly hit any of the specifics about John 1:1c.

[arian]

Okay, that was a nice discourse on why you think the Catholic Church has all the answers, but it doesn't exactly hit any of the specifics about John 1:1c.

Thank you for that Shermana.

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

In the beginning was the Word, so that is not God, for God has no beginning or an end.

The 'Word' was 'with' God, and not 'God was with God' so here again the Word is NOT God, for this Word was 'with' Him.

"The Word was God" and we know God was always God, so the Word is someone else who used to be God. Besides, it would not make sense to say: 'God was God' if the Word really is God.

Let's see the image of God, Adam:

God created Adam in HIS image. So Adam represents GOD.

Eve was begotten, or 'taken out of' Adam, and 'Eve' is now 'with' Adam.

Is Eve Adam?

No, Eve WAS Adam. Case closed.

Why? to make sure we don't confuse the Word with GOD, here is verse 2:

John 1:2
2 He was in the beginning with God.
NKJV

Who was with God in the beginning?
The Word, and not God.

John 1:3
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
NKJV

Who creates things?

God.

Through whom?

The 'Word' and without Him nothing was made that was made.

John 1:4-5
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
NKJV

In this created universe God put an example of Himself and His Son who He calls His Word;

Our sun represents God, for we cannot look in the sun nor approach it.

"The WORD became flesh and dwelt among us", as Jesus Christ.

The moon represents the Son of God, who was Jesus Christ in the 'flesh'. It is this Word of God Jesus who is that light that shines in the darkness, too bad that even now "the darkness did not comprehend it."

Why? It is so plain to see!

[JohnOneOne]

An excellent collection though a few show a few signs of liberties. There's a lot more "A god" translations than I realized.

Is it logical to conclude that there is much more than the JWs as an authority that this reading of John 1:1 can be legitimately read as "a god"?

Are there enough translations that present the case of "a god" or "Divine" as the translation of an article-less "Theos" to conclude that it's not just some fringe baseless position? Is it more of a Theological issue why the "A god" translation is so unappreciated by the "Conservative scholars"?

Regarding the translating of John 1:1, it may interest you to know that there is soon to be published an 19+ year study (as of 07/2011), an historical analysis, an exhaustive annotated bibliography, with its main focus on the wording and meaning of that verse entitled, "What About John 1:1?"

To learn more of its design and expected release date, you are invited to visit:

http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

When finally published, you will discover over 430 scholarly reference works which have opted to say something other than, "and the Word was God," and that, among these, are included over 120 which had chosen to use "a god" within the third clause of their renderings.

As you might expect, we are very excited at the opportunity to share our findings with others.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[JehovahsWitness]

Are there enough translations that present the case of "a god" or "Divine" as the translation of an article-less "Theos" to conclude that it's not just some fringe baseless position?

"enough" is a subjective quantifier but there are a a number of respected scholars that make a case for this understanding of John 1:1











BIBLE SCHOLARS:

"the Word [logos] was a god". -Origen's Commentary on John, Book I, ch. 42 - Bk II, ch.3.

"The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself." -- Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian & scholar (the American Standard Version)

"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'" -- And Jesuit John L. McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible





**Interlineary Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott, "In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."

**Edward Harwood, H KAINH DIAQHKH. London, 1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols. 1768,"and was himself a divine person"

**Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"

**Crellius,as quoted in The New Testament in an Improved Version "the Word was God's"

**La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel,1928: “and the Word was a divine being.�

**John Samuel Thompson, The Montessoran; or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore; published by the translator, 1829, "the Logos was a god"

**Goodspeed's An American Translation, 1939, "the Word was divine"

**Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, "the word was a god."

Prof. Felix Just, S.J. - Loyola Marymount University, "and god[-ly/-like] was the Word."

**Moffatt's The Bible, 1972, "the Logos was divine"

**International English Bible-Extreme New Testament, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word]

**Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek, 1694, "and the Word was a god"

**Hermann Heinfetter, A Literal Translation of the New Testament,1863, [A]s a god the Command was"

Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, "The Word was a God"

Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885,
"[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"

Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god�

Leicester Ambrose, The Final Theology, Volume 1, New York, New York; M.B. Sawyer and Company, 1879, "And the logos was a god"

Charles A.L. Totten, The Gospel of History, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]

**J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901, [A]nd was a god"
International Bible Translators N.T. 1981

Samuel Clarke, M.A., D.D., rector of St. James, Westminster, A Paraphrase on the Gospel of John, London
"[A] Divine Person."

Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. [Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37). "a God"

Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156). "a God"

Andrews Norton, D.D. [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). "a god"

Paul Wernle,(in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16). "a God"

"and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." 21st Century Literal

**George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"

Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University Press, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"

James L. Tomanec, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"

Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"

Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

Johannes Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos"

**Scholar's Version-The Five Gospels, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was"

**J. Madsen, New Testament A Rendering , 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"

**Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1979, "a God/god was the Logos/logos"

**Curt Stage, The New Testament, 1907, "The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being."

Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "the Word was of divine kind"

**Fredrich Pfaefflin, The New Testament, 1949, "was of divine Kind/kind"

Albrecht, 1957, "godlike Being/being had the Word/word"

Smit, 1960, "the word of the world was a divine being"

Menge, 1961, "God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word"

Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"

William Temple, Archbishop of York, Readings in St. John's Gospel, London, Macmillan & Co.,1933,
"And the Word was divine."

John Crellius, Latin form of German, The 2 Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One God the Father, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"

Greek Orthodox /Arabic Calendar, incorporating portions of the 4 Gospels, Greek Orthodox Patriarchy or Beirut, May, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"

Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was Divine"

Robert Harvey, D.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, in The Historic Jesus in the New Testament, London, Student Movement Christian Press1931
"and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"

Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'

All translations
http://web.archive.org/web/200312042125 ... wisdom.htm

[Student]

Are there enough translations that present the case of "a god" or "Divine" as the translation of an article-less "Theos" to conclude that it's not just some fringe baseless position?

"enough" is a subjective quantifier but there are a a number of respected scholars that make a case for this understanding of John 1:1

You say "this understanding", when Shermana refers to two different translations.

Firstly "a god", which treats the anarthrous theos as indefinite, and secondly "divine" which treats the anarthrous theos as qualitative.

So which is it to be, "a god", or "divine"? It can't be both.

[Sum1sGruj]

The Trinity is a symbolic notion of deliverance. Any Christian who believes it is more is simply mislead.
That is why the context speaks of one God, and three different things. Deliverance.
If I made a phone call, sent mail, and shouted across town with a horn, does that make me three different beings?
No.
Deliverance. I think that some simply forget the obvious.