John 1:1 - The JW's NWT vs TNIV/KJV, the age old question

[firedragon]

John 1:1

JW's (NWT) - “1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.*”

TNIV - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

JW's explanation - Christians intentionally mistranslates it in order to establish their theology of the trinity.
Christian Explanation - JW's intentionally mistranslate it to establish their anti-trinitarian theology.

Well, as any theology and division of course both of them accuse each other. But lets get to the text.

Well, there is no definitive article in the sentence "Theos en o logos" so its a justifiable objection in the part of the JW's. Yet, without any article how did they translate it as "a God"?

How did the Christians translate it as "the word was God" with out a definitive article and just saying theos is only an attribution as Edgar Goodspeed says?

Whats the justification?

 

[sojourner]

Here’s my reply copied from another thread regarding this same passage. I think you may find it helpful.

No, this is mistaken. Here's why. You have to know how Greek actually works. In Greek if the definite article is missing, it does not logically follow that an indefinite article should be inserted (there is no indefinite article in Greek). In John 1 there is no definite article in front of the word 'God' in the phrase, 'and the Word was God.' However, in this case, we can't just assume that the word 'God' is meant to be 'indefinite,' and therefore just insert an indefinite article in the English translation. Even though the Greek language does not have an indefinite article like we would think of in English, there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea. This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun "tis." Because the first use of the word 'God' in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, John would more than likely have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase to refer to some ‘lesser’ god, and didn't want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this 'indefinite pronoun' ('tis') as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was 'a certain god,' but not the one he was just referring to. Therefore, according to the Greek grammatical structure here, it seems clear that john is indicating that the Word is of the same essence and nature as the true God he first mentioned.

Additionally, the syntax reveals John's meaning, as well. The phrase in John 1:1 is an example of a predicate nominative preceding the subject in the sentence. (Sentences like this one that use a linking verb require the noun in the predicate part of the sentence to be in the nominative case. The subject of this clause is 'the Word' and the predicate is 'God.' In Greek, the word 'God' comes before 'Word.' According to normal Greek usage, the word 'God' should not have a definite article. Very often, emphasis is shown in Greek by placing a word out of its normal, expected word order. Special emphasis can be illustrated when the predicate comes first in the sentence. In other words, contrary to the thought that 'since there is no definite article used here it could mean some other god,' the fact that the word 'God' is used first in the sentence actually shows some emphasis that this Logos (Word) was in fact God in its nature. However, since it doesn't have the definite article, it indicates that the Word was not the same 'person' as the Father God, but has the same essence and nature.

Anti-Trinitarian bias means that the translators of the NWT have added the little word “a” to the translation in order to make it look like John was not equating Jesus with God.

 

[Terry Sampson]

"John 1:1 - The JW's NWT vs TNIV/KJV, the age old question"

 

[Clear]

This has been beat to death.

GRAMMATICALLY John 1:1c is "and the word was a God". It is only CONTEXTUALLY, that one can argue the sentence means "and the word was THE God".

Readers can easily prove this by simply using a non biased translator such as a computer which uses grammar and not bias to translate. For example :

Cut and paste these eight blue words
"and the word was a God" in greek
into google search and you will see that the sentence is translated exactly as John wrote the Greek in John 1:1c
(other than the modern sentence will use the modern verb ηταν instead of ην)
(Google will leave out the article).

Now Cut and paste these seven blue words
"and the word was God" in greek
into google search and google will correctly translate the sentence differently than John wrote in John 1:1c greek. It will be DIFFERENT than the Greek text. Google will automatically ADD the article that the original geek doesn't have.

The point is, that the google translator is using grammatical rules to translate whereas translators have contextual bias (we all do). IF the translators specific historical contextual bias is correct, then their translation can be correct. If their personal bias is wrong, then this will affect their translation.

It is historical context and not grammar which determines which translation is correct.

Clear
τωακω

 

[Terry Sampson]

Well, there is no definitive article in the sentence "Theos en o logos" so its a justifiable objection in the part of the JW's.

But is it a justifiable objection?

Bear with me while I attempt to explain the reason for my question.

Here is John 1:1 again, in Greek. [Note: The screenshot below is from the Jehovah's Witness "Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scripture" at: https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/kingdom-interlinear-greek-translation/books/john/1/ ]

In verse 1, the noun "θεος" appears twice, once preceded by a definite article and once not preceded by a definite article. In the first instance, "τον θεον" is in the accusative case because the preposition "προς" requires the noun to be in that case.

• προς = "toward" or "with" + accusative case
  
• θεον = 2nd declension, masculine, singular noun without the definite article in the accusative case
• τον θεον = 2nd declension, masculine, singular noun with the definite article in the accusative case

In the second instance, "θεος" is in the nominative case because it is the singular predicate nominative of the copulative verb "ἦν" (was). Note that it is not preceded by a definite article.

Now, notice the third instance of the noun "θεος" in verse 2. In this instance, we see the noun is preceded by a definite article and both follow the preposition "προς" and are, therefore, in the accusative case: "προς τον θεον".

It appears, then, that the rationale for deciding to translate "θεος" as "God" or "god" is whether the word is preceded by a definite article or not preceded by a definite article.

Would you agree?

 

[savagewind]

How about John 1:1 really meant a prophesy that the word would become a god as we see what has happened to scripture by Christians?

Like, "We must do it because the Bible says so" and "We can't do it because the Bible says not to do it".

At the beginning of the salvation by God was the word and the word was with God [but then] the word became the god [of them].

 

[URAVIP2ME]

John 1:1
JW's (NWT) - “1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.*”
TNIV - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..........................

First of all, please notice the word " in " because according to Psalms 90:2 God had No beginning. God is from everlasting ( meaning No beginning )
Whereas, pre-human Jesus was " in " the beginning but Not " before " the beginning as his God was " before " the beginning of anything.
This is why gospel writer John could write about Jesus at Revelation 3:14 that pre-human Jesus was the beginning of the creation by God.
Jesus looked at his God as Creator at Revelation 4:11.

Plus, King James is Not consistent at John1:1 and Acts of the Apostles 28: 6 B.
At John KJV omits the letter "a", but at Acts KJV inserts the letter "a" even though the same Greek grammar rule applies at both verses.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

View attachment 41923 [\QUOTE]

 

[URAVIP2ME]

At post # 8 above I see there are two (2) different Greek words for God / god.
The 12th word uses the capital letter "G" for God
The 14th word uses the lower-case letter " g ". for god
To me this shows there is a difference between the two words.
Plus, at Acts of the Apostles 28:6 B KJV does uses the lower-case letter " g " for god although the same Greek grammar rule applies in both cases.

 

[Deeje]

John 1:1

JW's (NWT) - “1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.*”

TNIV - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

JW's explanation - Christians intentionally mistranslates it in order to establish their theology of the trinity.
Christian Explanation - JW's intentionally mistranslate it to establish their anti-trinitarian theology.

Well, as any theology and division of course both of them accuse each other. But lets get to the text.

Well, there is no definitive article in the sentence "Theos en o logos" so its a justifiable objection in the part of the JW's. Yet, without any article how did they translate it as "a God"?

How did the Christians translate it as "the word was God" with out a definitive article and just saying theos is only an attribution as Edgar Goodspeed says?

Whats the justification?

The official explanation....?

Is It Grammar or Interpretation? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[Terry Sampson]

attachment

At post # 8 above I see there are two (2) different Greek words for God / god.
The 12th word uses the capital letter "G" for God
The 14th word uses the lower-case letter " g ". for god
To me this shows there is a difference between the two words.
Plus, at Acts of the Apostles 28:6 B KJV does uses the lower-case letter " g " for god although the same Greek grammar rule applies in both cases.

If you are attempting to say something to me, I suggest that you delete your posts and ask someone whom you trust to give you a quick lesson regarding the endings of 2nd declension, masculine, singular nouns in general and of the nominative and accusative cases, in particular.

The Greek word "θεος" is a masculine noun, pronounced "thay-ohs". As I wrote the word in the last sentence, it has the singular masculine ending: "-ος". The complete declension of that noun is as follows:

[Notes: That list DOES NOT include definite articles.

• Number:
  • sing. = singular (one)
  • plur. = plural (more than one)
• Case:
  • nom. = nominative
  • gen. = genitive
    
  • dat. = dative
  • acc. = accusative
  • voc. = vocative]

Here is a complete list of forms of the Greek definite article which is translated in English as "the":

 

[firedragon]

But is it a justifiable objection?

Bear with me while I attempt to explain the reason for my question.

Here is John 1:1 again, in Greek. [Note: The screenshot below is from the Jehovah's Witness "Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scripture" at: https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/kingdom-interlinear-greek-translation/books/john/1/ ]

View attachment 41923

In verse 1, the noun "θεος" appears twice, once preceded by a definite article and once not preceded by a definite article. In the first instance, "τον θεον" is in the accusative case because the preposition "προς" requires the noun to be in that case.

• προς = "toward" or "with" + accusative case
  
• θεον = 2nd declension, masculine, singular noun without the definite article in the accusative case
• τον θεον = 2nd declension, masculine, singular noun with the definite article in the accusative case

In the second instance, "θεος" is in the nominative case because it is the singular predicate nominative of the copulative verb "ἦν" (was). Note that it is not preceded by a definite article.

Now, notice the third instance of the noun "θεος" in verse 2. In this instance, we see the noun is preceded by a definite article and both follow the preposition "προς" and are, therefore, in the accusative case: "προς τον θεον".

It appears, then, that the rationale for deciding to translate "θεος" as "God" or "god" is whether the word is preceded by a definite article or not preceded by a definite article.

Would you agree?

How about what Good speed says? He says that Theos without a definitive article ton or O, its an attribute, not God himself.

But what I dont understand in what you said is that you said Pros is preceded by either O or Ton in the second verse but its not correct or I misunderstood you. The second verse ton is presiding Theos, not Pros.

 

[firedragon]

The official explanation....?

Is It Grammar or Interpretation? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

I read the official interpretation. The question is based on that.

 

[firedragon]

No, this is mistaken. Here's why. You have to know how Greek actually works. In Greek if the definite article is missing, it does not logically follow that an indefinite article should be inserted (there is no indefinite article in Greek).

Well, I already cited in the OP about what Goodspeed has taken. How would you respond to that?

 

[firedragon]

According to normal Greek usage, the word 'God' should not have a definite article. Very often, emphasis is shown in Greek by placing a word out of its normal, expected word order.

Sojourner. That is probably one of the more bizarre statements I have heard so far. This is not the case. In the case of a husband, the reference ho aneer means husband, but the word without the definitive article means "male". If the sentence is not speaking about a husband where it specifically mentions "her husband" as in "her man", it means man or "the male" with the definitive article.

 

[Terry Sampson]

But what I dont understand in what you said is that you said Pros is preceded by either O or Ton in the second verse but its not correct or I misunderstood you. The second verse ton is presiding Theos, not Pros.

Let's try that again:

• Kingdom Interlinear Translation of John 1:2:
  
• Greek: "Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν." ("πρὸς" precedes "τὸν"; "τὸν" precedes "θεόν"; therefore, "πρὸς" precedes "τὸν θεόν". Sorry, you're going to have to show me where I wrote that "πρὸς" is preceded by either O or "τὸν" in the second verse, because I can't find where I said that.)
  
• English: "This (one) was in beginning toward the God."

 

[Hockeycowboy]

In John 1, the Apostle twice says “the Word was with ( the) God”. A few verses later, the Apostle says, “No one has ever seen God.”

Context. Yes, Jesus was “divine (The Bible—An American Translation, by Smith and Goodspeed, & also by Moffat)”; “godlike (The New Testament in an Improved Version, published 1808 in London)”; “a powerful one (2001Translation.com)” But none of these descriptors mean THE God.


You might enjoy this....
“...translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, The J[erusalem] B[ible] and KJ both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.” “

From Trinity — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[Eyes to See]

URAVIP2ME brings up a simple and good point. Why would John state that Jesus was with God in the beginning and not before the beginning?

What is the beginning? Think about that. Because certainly God is eternal so he never had a beginning. Certainly this is NOT talking about being with God eternally, rather being with God from the beginning. What beginning?

The Bible teaches that God created spirit sons before he created the physical universe. It tells us that the very first of these is the angel that is now known as Jesus Christ. So from the beginning, when God first created Jesus was with him, as the first and only direct creation of God, because all other things were created through Jesus and for Jesus.

A little further on in John 1, in verse 18, after telling us that Jesus came to earth and walked among men, he tells us that no one has ever seen God. So he obviously was not stating that Jesus was God Almighty. It is not complicated to differentiate between Jehovah God the Almighty, and Jesus Christ the son of God.

ETA
Here:

 

[firedragon]

Let's try that again:

• Kingdom Interlinear Translation of John 1:2:
  
• Greek: "Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν." ("πρὸς" precedes "τὸν"; "τὸν" precedes "θεόν"; therefore, "πρὸς" precedes "τὸν θεόν". Sorry, you're going to have to show me where I wrote that "πρὸς" is preceded by either O or "τὸν" in the second verse, because I can't find where I said that.)
  
• English: "This (one) was in beginning toward the God."

Okay. If I misunderstood your post I apologise. I thought you said Pros is preceded by a definitive article like O or Ton. And of course theos is preceded by ton which is the definitive article. Second verse, and the first. The difference is in the second part of the 1st verse, it just says "Kai Theos en O logos" so Theos is without a definitive article, be it ho or ton. Thus the question is why is Goodspeed wrong when he says "its an attribute" which makes the logos divine, not "And the logos was God" but rather "Divine was the logos" or "Theos en ho logos".

Hope you understand.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Whats the justification?

@firedragon

• Questions that I ask myself:
  1. Regarding your question above, from your OP, what's the justification for what?
  2. In "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Scriptures", the JWs translate "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος", in John 1:1, as "and god was the Word". Why do JWs translate "θεὸς" as "god" and not as "God"?
     
  3. In "The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Study Edition)", John 1:1 says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Why do JWs translate "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" as "and the Word was a god"?
  4. In a side-note to the NWT 1st chapter of the Gospel of John, I read:
     • "...the Greek word the·osʹ occurs three times in verses 1 and 2. In the first and third occurrences, the·osʹ is preceded by the definite article in Greek; in the second occurrence, there is no article. Many scholars agree that the absence of the definite article before the second the·osʹ is significant. When the article is used in this context, the·osʹ refers to God Almighty. On the other hand, the absence of the article in this grammatical construction makes the·osʹ qualitative in meaning and describes a characteristic of “the Word.” [https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/john/1/#v43001001]
     • IMO, JWs may be applying that "rule" inconsistently, to wit:
       • Genesis 1.
         • NWT, English
           
           • 4. At this the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die. e 5. For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad.”
         • Septuagint, Greek
           • 4 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ὄφις τῇ γυναικί Οὐ θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε· 5 ᾔδει γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ὅτι ἐν ᾗ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ φάγητε ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ, διανοιχθήσονται ὑμῶν οἱ ὀφθαλμοί, καὶ ἔσεσθε ὡς θεοὶ γινώσκοντες καλὸν καὶ πονηρόν.
         • www.chabad.org, English
           • 4 And the serpent said to the woman, "You will surely not die. 5 For God knows that on the day that you eat thereof, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like angels, knowing good and evil."

re: Question #2. IMO, JWs translate "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος", in John 1:1, as "and god was the Word" because θεὸς is not preceded by a definite article.