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"?

[Donray]

Why is everyone concerned about the grammer of John?????

First there is no original of John so no one has any idea what it said.
Second no one knows who wrote John.
Third no one knows the original language that it was written in. (Actively used languages in first-century C.E. Palestine included Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew and, to a lesser extent, Latin.)
Forth

So, unlss someone can come up with in original of John the arguments of the grammer are useless.


The aurthor(s) could have been speakers of one language and written it in another language that would further confuss the grammer. Was it written in the grammer of the native language in a second language. For example a Aramaic native writing in Greek.


So it is useless to talk about what was originally written.

[tigger2]

So it is useless to talk about what was originally written.

There are no originals of any Bible Scriptures. If this means we cannot examine the best NT texts (based on the oldest, and the best, and the most) NT manuscripts, we have no scriptures - no Bible.

That is ludicrous. The NT is the best attested of any ancient writings, by far!

John 1:1c itself has read the same in NT Greek manuscripts from ca. 150 A.D. (p66, Comfort and Barrett) and 175 A.D.( p75) until the latest manuscripts. No NT Greek text used by English translators has it worded differently.

If you wish to question every word in the entire Greek NT, be my guest.

[Tcg]

John 1:1c itself has read the same in NT Greek manuscripts from ca. 150 A.D. (p66, Comfort and Barrett) and 175 A.D.( p75) until the latest manuscripts.

How did this text read the day it was written? The answer is obvious. No one knows. This also clearly displays the point being made.

[2timothy316]

John 1:1c itself has read the same in NT Greek manuscripts from ca. 150 A.D. (p66, Comfort and Barrett) and 175 A.D.( p75) until the latest manuscripts.

How did this text read the day it was written? The answer is obvious. No one knows. This also clearly displays the point being made.

Yet Jesus quoted scriptures that had no original manuscript. So having the original is apparently not important to know the truth. So, this means the copies are either spot on or really close and to 'no one knows' is not accurate. Someone knew. The copyist.

[Donray]

Yet Jesus quoted scriptures that had no original manuscript. So having the original is apparently not important to know the truth. So, this means the copies are either spot on or really close and to 'no one knows' is not accurate. Someone knew. The copyist.[/quote]

If there was manuscript then Jesus did not quote it. You don't seem to understand what quoting something means. It had to be written to quote it. And if it was just a verbal thing then one would paraphrase it since one does not know an original to quote.

You have no idea of the exact words that Jesus would have said. Nothing was written or at least we don't have it by anyone that would have heard Jesus speak. .

[William]

Whatever.

In relation to the claims, Jesus trumps the bible as 'The Word of GOD' and any Christian who claims the bible is The Word of GOD, worships the bible, in the same way that any Christian who argues for Paul over Jesus, is a follower of Paul.

"In the beginning was The Bible and The Bible was with a GOD and was a GOD"?

And GOD didith bind the bible in the skin of an animal and make the words of Jesus red to emphasis blood and sacrifice. And GOD was pleased, and gave unto the faithful Christians The Word which was a GOD, that they might worship it as The Word of a GOD, and take it with them when knocking on doors, calling themselves The Bible Witnesses.

[2timothy316]

If there was manuscript then Jesus did not quote it. You don't seem to understand what quoting something means. It had to be written to quote it. And if it was just a verbal thing then one would paraphrase it since one does not know an original to quote.

You have no idea of the exact words that Jesus would have said. Nothing was written or at least we don't have it by anyone that would have heard Jesus speak. .

So do you have proof that what the copyist wrote down is exact? No.

Seems to me we can either trust God can give us an accurate book or not. I trust that 2 Tim 3:16, 17 to be true. You?

[Tcg]

John 1:1c itself has read the same in NT Greek manuscripts from ca. 150 A.D. (p66, Comfort and Barrett) and 175 A.D.( p75) until the latest manuscripts.

How did this text read the day it was written? The answer is obvious. No one knows. This also clearly displays the point being made.

Yet Jesus quoted scriptures that had no original manuscript. So having the original is apparently not important to know the truth. So, this means the copies are either spot on or really close and to 'no one knows' is not accurate. Someone knew. The copyist.

If you read my reply carefully, you'll note that the phrase, "No one knows.", is in the present tense. And yes, it is accurate.

[Tcg]

I trust that 2 Tim 3:16, 17 to be true.

Then you trust that some unspecified group of Hebrew scriptures are trustworthy. This passage can't possible be referring to anything in the NT as none of those books would have been considered scripture when 2 Tim 3:16, 17 was written.

Some hadn't even been written yet. The book of John itself hadn't been written when the author of 2 Timothy wrote this passage so it certainly can't be used to support the reliability of the passage in question.

[2timothy316]

I trust that 2 Tim 3:16, 17 to be true.

Then you trust that some unspecified group of Hebrew scriptures are trustworthy. This passage can't possible be referring to anything in the NT as none of those books would have been considered scripture when 2 Tim 3:16, 17 was written.

Some hadn't even been written yet. The book of John itself hadn't been written when the author of 2 Timothy wrote this passage so it certainly can't be used to support the reliability of the passage in question.

You are aware that the letters of the NT were considered God inspired even when the 1st century Christians first read them right? 1 Thessalonians 2:13 says, "Indeed, that is why we also thank God unceasingly, because when you received God’s word, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God, which is also at work in you believers."

In 2 Peter 3:15, 16, Peter refers to Paul's writing long with 'the other Scriptures'. So the letters were already being called scripture before the end of the 1st century. It says, "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." - 2 Pe 3:15, 16

Paul is not talking about just OT he is talking about the very letters from him and the other NT writers we are still reading today. It's not like those letters lost their 'God inspired' status over time. So therefore the idea that Paul was only talking about the OT is dismissed as 2 Peter 3:15, 16 disproves it.