a god?

[MissKate13]

If the Word was “a god” in John 1:1 because the definite article does not precede the word God, then do JW’s and others also believe that John 1:6, 1:12, 1:13 and 1:18 should also be translated as “a god” since there is no definite article preceding the word God? Shouldn’t the same rule apply in every case?

John 1:6
There was a man sent from God (a god), whose name was John. (Emphasis mine)

John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God (a god), even to them that believe on his name: (Emphasis mine)

John 1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (a god). (Emphasis mine)

John 1:18
No man hath seen God (a god) at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. . (Emphasis mine)

[William]

So he created man in the image of himself, and only in the aspect of bearing his image, he refers to them as gods.

Therein is the contradiction apparent. On the one hand we have a claim that the biblical God said "Before me there was no God formed, Neither shall there be after me." and on the other hand we have biblical writ claiming the God also refers to humans as "gods".

The contradiction naturally leads to differences among Christians and other competing religions and subsequent in-house fighting so the best course of action re the apparent contradictions would be to accept that The Source Creator does indeed create gods and for reasons which assist in the continuing unfolding of the creation.

There are no contradictions in God’s word other than in the minds of skeptics.

I am not sure what your statement there is attempting to achieve. Perhaps a rebuttal?

Are you suggesting that the bible is the only thing which exists representing "Gods Word"?

If not, then what reason can you give me as to why you wrote that?

If so, then how is it a rebuttal to my own words?

[MissKate13]

[Replying to William in post #11]

Still waiting for you to address the OP.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #11]

Still waiting for you to address the OP.

I am addressing your statement "There are no contradictions in God’s word other than in the minds of skeptics.".

Are you saying that your statement has nothing to do with the OP...?

[JehovahsWitness]

HOW SHOULD JOHN 1 VERSE 1 PROPERLY BE TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH?

Put very simply, John explains in that someone called "The Word" (logos) was with God. He uses the definite article "THE" (Greek "HO" ) when talking about the later. So he says The Word was with THE God (ho theos) . But then John turns his attention to The Word (in Greek : "logos") , he says this one (The Word) "was God". Interestingly, this time he does not used the definite article.

So there is a difference in the original text between the how first GOD (theos) appears and the second. ( For more on the definite article used for God see the following WORD STUDY: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... 11c-a.html
viewtopic.php?p=849585#p849585).

Bible scholar Philip B. Harner points out that in "... these cases the English reader might not understand exactly what John was trying to express" but here is where a knowledge of the basic Greek comes in. In Greek in John 1: 1c (speaking about The Word) we have what is called a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, this construction points to a quality about someone.

One might think of the famous Oscar Wilde play "THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST" which is a play on words of the adjective "earnest," meaning honest or sincere, and the German boy's name "Ernest". Although in English the two words are pronounced the same, Ernest identifies the individual while "earnst" tells us something about his character or behaviour. So the sentence "Ernest was earnest" may sound the same but the two words have completely different functions

In very simple terms, the second time "god" (theos) apears its acting like an adjective, its telling us what this person was like rather than who he is. We do something similar in English when we might say of someone : "She's an angel". Again we are not identfying what she is (a winged supernatural creature) but how she behaves. We say "She is an angel" we MEAN she is a very good, kind person; she is like an angel. She has an angelic nature As Harner explains, the clause could be translated, "the Word had the same nature as God." - "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1", Philip B. Harner, (Journal of Biblical Literature, March 1973), 92:75-87. (For more considerations of an unmodified "theos" without the article see the following WORD STUDY : http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... er_21.html)

ADDING AN "A"

So how can the translator help the English reader understand the difference between the two appearances of the word GOD? How can the English properly reflect the Greek meaning that the 2nd apearance of the word "God" (theos) was speaking about qualities rather than identity? More Greek anyone?

There are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb in scripture, such as in Mk 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article [ a ] is inserted before the anarthrous‚ in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read ... "a god" ( For more on the adding of an indefinite article see the folowing WORD STUDY http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... er_21.html
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 29#p924329)

So by adding the indefinite article : "a"/ an , (and for some translators, using a lower case 'g' ) the translator can signal to the English reader what is evident in the Greek, while still using the English word " god " (theos), namely ... that "The word " was "godlike", of a "divine" nature. For more on this : viewtopic.php?p=1108708#p1108708







FURTHER READING

http://onlytruegod.org/defense/john1files.htm
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... 11c-a.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... gress.html

Does "Colwell's Rule" shed light on how John1:1 should properly be translated?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 38#p822838
http://onlytruegod.org/defense/metzgercolwell.htm
http://fosterheologicalreflections.blog ... n-11c.html

RELATED POSTS

Is it true that one cannot use an indefinite article with a predicate nominative in Greek?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 78#p822778

What is the literal Greek meaning of John 1:1c according to biblical scholars?
viewtopic.php?p=1111946#p1111946

JOHN 1:1 The word was "divine"
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 96#p870896

Is The New Word translation the ONLY bible that has rendered John 1:1c " . ... and the word was a god"?
viewtopic.php?p=1111348#p1111348

Is The New World Translation a literal translation?
viewtopic.php?p=1112080#p1112080

To learn more please go to to other posts related to ...

JESUS , , THE "TRINITY TEXTS" DEBUNKED and ... BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

[JehovahsWitness]

"and the Word was a god" - The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Thomas Belsham, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcom New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

"and the Word was a god" - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)

"and the Word was a god" - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)

"and the Word was a god" - A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)

"and the Word was a god" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)

"and the Word was a god" - Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)

"and the Word was a god" - The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911)

"The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine" - James Moffatt

Dr. J. D. BeDuhn "And the Word was a god " The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar supports this translation. - Truth in Translation , p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003.

TRINITARIAN SCHOLARS

W. E. Vine John 1:1c is literally translated " ... a god was the Word" .- p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.

C. H. Dod , director of the New English Bible project, : "A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, The Word was a god. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted" - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, "the Word was a god" - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1cp. is and a god (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word - 54, (New Covenant section), Young' s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.

Dr. William Barclay: "You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: the Word was a God ... - Ever yours, p. 205, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985

.

FURTHER RESEARCH : http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... er_21.html

[MissKate13]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #15]

I wonder why no JW’s seem to have an answer to the following?

Shouldn’t the same rule apply in every case? There is no definitive article in the following verses.

John 1:6
There was a man sent from God (a god), whose name was John. (Emphasis mine)

John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God (a god), even to them that believe on his name: (Emphasis mine)

John 1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (a god). (Emphasis mine)

John 1:18
No man hath seen God (a god) at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. . (Emphasis mine)

[onewithhim]

If the Word was “a god” in John 1:1 because the definite article does not precede the word God, then do JW’s and others also believe that John 1:6, 1:12, 1:13 and 1:18 should also be translated as “a god” since there is no definite article preceding the word God? Shouldn’t the same rule apply in every case?

John 1:6
There was a man sent from God (a god), whose name was John. (Emphasis mine)

John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God (a god), even to them that believe on his name: (Emphasis mine)

John 1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (a god). (Emphasis mine)

John 1:18
No man hath seen God (a god) at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. . (Emphasis mine)

Your emphases (plural of emphasis) show that you do not understand what "god" means and also what "god" means that has the article for "the" before it. The term "god" simply means an important, powerful, highly respected individual. Men are called "gods" in the Scriptures (Psalm 82:1,6) and referring to Jehovah: "There is no one like You among the gods, O Lord [YHWH]." (Psalm 86:8, NASB) Even someone's stomach is referred to as a "god." (Philippians 3:19) So, really, "god" is anything that people put before the God, YHWH. They think that that thing or person or idol is more important than YHWH.

Now, when the article for "the" is put before "god," that means YHWH, the almighty god. Men have chosen to put "god" with a capital "G," but in Greek and even Hebrew there are no capital letters or punctuation. So the only way a Greek speaking person could tell which god a verse is referring to is by way of the article, and in certain instances the context of the verse.

All of your references are to YHWH, the God. He is not just "a god." He is God Almighty. Jesus, the Word, is referred to as "a god" because he is an important, powerful individual, but not THE God. John was trying to make that distinction at John 1:1.

[MissKate13]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #17]

The definite article does not precede “God” in John 1:1, 1:6, 1:12, 1:13 or 1:18. The translators of the NWT not only show inconsistency in translating, but bias as well in not applying the same rule to the verses listed above.

The word “God” in John 1:1, 1:6, 1:12, 1:13 and 1:18 lacks the definite article.

If the lack of a definite article means there should be an indefinite article, then John 1:6 should be translated as follows. “There was a man sent from a god.” The meaning here is obscured if not altogether changed since it is clear that the writer means to convey the fact that this man was sent from the True Living God, not from a false god.

To be consistent, the NWT should have translated John 1:6, 1:12, 1:13, and 1:18, applying the same rule to all. By not doing so, they’ve shown bias. Christendom knows this. They’re not being fooled. All your arguments fall flat and do nothing to change the hearts and minds of true followers of Christ.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #17]

The definite article does not precede “God” in John 1:1, 1:6, 1:12, 1:13 or 1:18. The translators of the NWT not only show inconsistency in translating, but bias as well in not applying the same rule to the verses listed above.

The word “God” in John 1:1, 1:6, 1:12, 1:13 and 1:18 lacks the definite article.

If the lack of a definite article means there should be an indefinite article, then John 1:6 should be translated as follows. “There was a man sent from a god.” The meaning here is obscured if not altogether changed since it is clear that the writer means to convey the fact that this man was sent from the True Living God, not from a false god.

To be consistent, the NWT should have translated John 1:6, 1:12, 1:13, and 1:18, applying the same rule to all. By not doing so, they’ve shown bias. Christendom knows this. They’re not being fooled. All your arguments fall flat and do nothing to change the hearts and minds of true followers of Christ.

The first "god" in John 1:1 DOES have the article. You can see it if you looked at an Interlinear Bible. And the context means alot in many verses. You are splitting hairs when you quote all those verses that are referring to YHWH and make it seem like they are not. The NWT does not show any bias. You have shown bias by insisting that Jesus is God when the Scriptures show clearly that he is not. Did you look at Post #15? It shows that the NWT is not the only translation that translates "and the Word was a god." Maybe you're "not being fooled" because you don't listen to the truth when it comes along.

[MissKate13]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #19]
And this is why I won’t bother wasting time in discussions with you. The first use of God in John 1:1 was never in question. It’s the second use we were discussing. The excuse used for translating it “a god” is because there is no definite article. There is no definite article preceding the verses I’ve provided repeatedly. If you see the non-application of the rule used to translate John 1:1 in John 1:6, 1:12, 1:13 and 1:18 as “splitting hairs,” then you are in denial. You are as inconsistent as your beloved NWT.

I’m done. I pray someday you’ll see the light.