Is the NWT translation of John 1:1 correct?

[Justin108]

John 1:1 (NWT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

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

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

Why does the Jehovah's Witness translation of John 1:1 differ from virtually every other translation? Which is the correct translation of John 1:1? "The Word was a god" or "The Word was God"?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 25 by Monta]

Lots of flowery words.....and IMHO meaningless.

Jehovah, the Most High, the Source of all things, did not "put on" a garment of human flesh. He remained in heaven while He sent His ONLY-BEGOTTEN Son. BTW, what does "only-begotten" mean? A person can tell just by looking at the word. "Begotten" means to have been brought into existence, and Jesus was the ONLY "begotten." What does that mean? Simply that he was the only person (or anything} that Jehovah brought into existence by Himself alone. All other things were created THROUGH His Son. (Colossians 1:15; I Corinthians 8:4-6)

You are giving a physical body (he remained in heaven) to God who is Omnipresent - in all time and space apart from time and space.
Yes, begotten, descent into human form.

Just HOW am I "giving a physical body to God"? God is too majestic to be able to fit into a human body. He knows every atom in every star in the universe. He is much more than one of his creations.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 31 by onewithhim]

God is not limited by space and time as we are.
Yes he is in 'heaven' actually Swedenborg says he is above the heavens because heaven is where angels are and they can not sustain the love/wisdom intensity manifested as light (truth) and heat (love). A perfect metaphor with our sun on which we depend yet we are protected of its intensity by atmospheres.

There shall always be a huge gap between the infinite/eternal God and humans.
We are blessed that God has given us intelligence to be able to perceive something of Himself, eternal life - a continous endevor manifesting image and likeness.

We differ because we have embraced theology that makes sense to us personally.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 31 by onewithhim]

God is not limited by space and time as we are.
Yes he is in 'heaven' actually Swedenborg says he is above the heavens because heaven is where angels are and they can not sustain the love/wisdom intensity manifested as light (truth) and heat (love). A perfect metaphor with our sun on which we depend yet we are protected of its intensity by atmospheres.

There shall always be a huge gap between the infinite/eternal God and humans.
We are blessed that God has given us intelligence to be able to perceive something of Himself, eternal life - a continous endevor manifesting image and likeness.

We differ because we have embraced theology that makes sense to us personally.

I don't care what Swedenborg says. I think I remember that he believes in hell-fire and the immortality of the soul, and therefore he and I do not have any kind of meeting of the minds.


What you say above, though, I cannot disagree with.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 11 by polonius.advice]

The phrase "In the Beginning" indicates that Jesus was not eternal. The beginning refers to the start of creation. It cannot pertain to eternity as in the case of God.

Right, "in the beginning indicates that the word "WAS" eternal. The "was" is the past tense, but prior to the beginning there is no beginning. There is no beginning before the beginning. There is no time before the beginning of time, There is no space before the beginning of space. There is no existence before the beginning of existence, but we also know that God is eternal (or do we?), and if the word "was" already in the beginning, then the word is eternal.

Paul points out in 1 Cor. 8:6 that it is God that is "of whom are all things" i.e. the origin or source of all things, therefore the father God cannot exist if he is the origin of existence. God can only exist "WITH" the word.

Paul also points out in the previous reference that Christ is to be distinguished from God as "by whom are all things"

Paul and John both distinguish God from Christ, and yet neither indicate that the word was created. They both suggest quite strongly that the word exists eternally.

[ttruscott]

JOHN'S BEGINNING
This category has to do with the apostle John's use of the word "beginning" in his first letter.
1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning… the Word of life.
This introduction is very similar to the one John used in his gospel, which begins with: In the beginning was the Word. I believe that both refer to the same time, and that this time is synonymous with the time in Genesis 1:1 in the beginning. Thus these three references refer to the time before (or at the front of) the six days of the (re)creation of the world.

1 John 2:7 I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. I cannot help but think that John was alluding to Isaiah 40:21 Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood since the earth was founded? If he is not alluding to Isaiah, he certainly is referring to the same truth in my opinion.

1 John 2:14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him [that is] from the beginning. It probably is not necessary, but for the last time, “that is� is not in the Greek text. Therefore, in Greek, it reads, “known Him from the beginning�.

1 John 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. It should be noted that in the Bible, “the beginning� usually refers to all the time and events that happened before Genesis 1:2, that is, the time when the angels were created and the rebellion in Paradise took place, 1 John 3:8 ...for the devil sinneth from the beginning.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's commentary(#27) says: “sinneth from the beginning - from the time that sin began; from the time that he became what he is, the devil.� This must be around the same time as In the beginning of Genesis 1:1. At least, it can not be much after.

1 John 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. I believe that John is referring to the loving purpose GOD has for each of us. 1 John 3:23 And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

According to 2:7, we heard this commandment “from the beginning�.

Conclusion for John's Beginning.
When the word “beginning� has to do with Jesus or the devil, it means around the same time as Genesis 1:1, that is, before or at the beginning of the six day creation (depending how one translates the “was - became� in Genesis 1:2).

Are we really warranted in redefining it whenever it refers to us? I know that it has been redefined to fit in with the traditional presuppositions regarding the creation of our spirit on earth, but does this not constitute a twisting or taking Scripture out of context?
According to preconception theology, each of these references, by the same author, in the same letter, has the same meaning. To my mind, this is much superior to two definitions of the same word, in the same letter, by the same author. Why did John not use two different words if he meant two different times? I do not think that John was mixed up. In fact, I think he knew very well exactly what he was saying. He seems to be very good at saying it over, and over, and over, and over…

[dio9]

Go to the sources go to the Greek. its easy to find : pros (toward) ton ( the) theon (God )
The Logos moves toward God. Make of it what you will but it doesn't say a God.

[tigger2]

Go to the sources go to the Greek. its easy to find : pros (toward) ton ( the) theon (God )
The Logos moves toward God. Make of it what you will but it doesn't say a God.

I have gone to the sources: the NT Greek texts of John; many NT Greek Grammar books; Interlinears; etc.

My independent study of John 1:1c took me years. I had to discover how theos was used by John in all his writings. I found and listed all the predicate noun clauses found in all of John's writings and list them. From that list I had to locate all the clauses that were parallel to John 1:1c in all of John's writings and list them. I also had to study the definite article as used by John and determine what exceptions to his usual usage were and what caused them.

I then isolated all the uses by John of the uses of the constructions parallel to John 1:1c (omitting the exceptions which Trinitarian grammarians had admitted).

That final list, then, showed that (except for John 1:1c, of course) all 19 uses of predicate nouns parallel to the construction in John 1:1c are translated in all English Trinitarian Bibles as nouns with the indefinite article ('a'). These include "a prophet," "a murderer," "a sinner," etc.

Unless I missed a clause in my initial searches, I believe I have found every predicate noun clause truly parallel to John 1:1c in all of John's writings and have proved that "a god" is the proper translation at John 1:1c. Make of it what you will but it doesn't say 'God.'

Of course, no Trinitarian that I am aware of has ever even read my study files which I have provided links to numerous times.

I think I'll go to my quiet corner now and whine some more.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 37 by tigger2]

Don't be discouraged Tig, I think this conversation illustrates the situation for most
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 268#924268

You did the research because you wanted to know the truth, because truth meant something to you. In my experience most don't because they the truth on such matters essentially is not of primary importance. You do good presenting your research, I appreciate it and have learnt a lot from it, anyone that comes across them that wants to dig deeper will too.

It brings to mind something a sister told me working in the Arabic field (my territory is mostly Muslim), when I complained about how hard it is to find and develop interest with Muslims, she said not to worry, our job is to find those that have already done most of the work alone. They have started asking questions and researching and we simply guide them in the right direction. In short she said, we're looking for independent thinkers. I think this applies to everything, including trinitarians.

Someone that presents so-called trinity texts such as John 1:1, John 8:58, Phi 2:6 with a view to supporting the trinity is, in my experience, coming from a position where he has not made enough progress on the basics. They haven't looked at the overall picture and seen the disaccord between how Jesus presents himself and the premise of the trinity. If they haven't done that, in my experience they will rarely be motivated enough to read detailed studies such as yours. In general people have to reject the trinity first based on the simple texts in the bible and then if they want to understand the more complex they dig, not the other way round.

As for the intellectuals and the so called "experts", I believe they have a vested interest in defending their position; Anyone that waits on a "consensus" from them to decide on what to believe is simply not the type of person we are looking for. (see above). Experts are in my opinion are doubly culpable because in a world where we are educating people down to the lowest common denominator and the average concentration has been reduced according to one study to less than a goldfish, they know that what they say will be accepted by the masses who for the most part have no desire to understand the mechanics of an alternative view even if they wanted to. In other words they present so called "proof texts" and people then raise the question but their leaders know they themselves cannot understand or concentrate on the answers long enough to change to follow the arguments against the trinitarian interpretation.

Independent thinkers will read your website if they come across it, they will research they will read and they will keep looking for truth or die trying. That's just the way we are.

Keep up the good work Elijah!!


JW

[dio9]

[Replying to post 37 by tigger2]

there is no predicate here "ton" is the , an article of speech. The word "pros" before tan means toward. The phrase means toward the God. "pros ton Theon." The word was with God and the word was God .

Am I misunderstanding your point? does ton translated as "a" mean the word is a separate being from God?

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 37 by tigger2]

there is no predicate here "ton" is the , an article of speech. The word "pros" before tan means toward. The phrase means toward the God. "pros ton Theon." The word was with God and the word was God .

Am I misunderstanding your point? does ton translated as "a" mean the word is a separate being from God?

........................................


John 1:1 is made up of 3 clauses: John 1:1a is "In [the] beginning was the word"; John1:1b is "and the word was with the god [ton theon"God"];
John 1:1c is "and the word was a god [theos without modifiers]."

It is John 1:1c with which we are most concerned: καὶ θεὸς ἦν � λόγος.

NT Greek may be found in different word orders because the Greek identifies a word's position as it would be in English purely by its ending. So, when we see the -on ending on theon, for example, we understand that it is not being used as a subject (or p.n.) because of the word ending. Instead it is an object (direct object, object of preposition, etc.) When it is meant for 'God,' it will have the definite article (ton) modifying it.

Theos, on the other hand, still means 'God' or 'a god' depending on the presence or absence of article ho, but its ending ('-os) tells us that it must be used as a subject or predicate noun.

So, ton theon means 'the god' ('God') when used as an object.

Ho theos (� θεὸς) means 'the god ('God') when used as a nominative.

There is no indefinite article in NT Greek, but when the Greek is translated into English (in John and the other gospels at least) unmodified singular count nouns (such as theos in John 1:1c) are given the English indefinite articles ('a', 'an').

And that is what my studies have proved.

.....................................

JW, thank you for your encouraging support. I needed that.