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

[firedragon]

@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.

Thanks. Cheers.

 

[sojourner]

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

I’d have to read his exegesis to know. Your citation of a blanket statement doesn’t tell me anything about his rationale of how he arrived at that opinion.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Because it’s already clear what God John is referring to. Did you not read the whole post?

 

[firedragon]

Because it’s already clear what God John is referring to. Did you not read the whole post?

Well, that would make it a new discussion. But this thread is simply referring to the linguistics and its analysis.

 

[firedragon]

I’d have to read his exegesis to know. Your citation of a blanket statement doesn’t tell me anything about his rationale of how he arrived at that opinion.

You could read his bible translation.

 

[firedragon]

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

Google translate in this matter provides the well known translation. It is not essentially the correct one.

 

[Muffled]

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?

I believe context is everything. There is a myriad of evidence that Jesus is God in the flesh and much of that can be found inthe book of John so it stands to reason that is what he meant. That and the fact that he finds the incarnation remarkable.

 

[Muffled]

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?

I believe toward does not look correct. certainly the word has other meanings.
More meanings for προς (pros)
to preposition

για, μέχρι, εις
towards preposition

πλησίον, περί
on preposition

επί, κατά, επάνω, εμπρός, εις
toward preposition

πλησίον, περί
concerning preposition

σχετικά με, ως, όσο αφορά, εν σχέσει με
unto preposition

εις, μέχρι, για

I like "unto."

 

[Muffled]

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].

I believe one might say God is as good as His word.

 

[firedragon]

I believe context is everything. There is a myriad of evidence that Jesus is God in the flesh and much of that can be found inthe book of John so it stands to reason that is what he meant. That and the fact that he finds the incarnation remarkable.

Thats not relevant and is a completely different discussion.

Also, even if you believe Jesus is God, yet the question of the linguistics in the stipulated verse stays. Please try and address the linguistics because it will be interesting.

 

[cataway]

I believe context is everything. There is a myriad of evidence that Jesus is God in the flesh and much of that can be found inthe book of John so it stands to reason that is what he meant. That and the fact that he finds the incarnation remarkable.

your myriad of evidence contradics other scripture which says he is not

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Let's try that again:

• Kingdom Interlinear Translation of John 1:2:
  
• English: "This (one) was in beginning toward the God."

Yes, pre-human Jesus was " in " the beginning but Not " before " the beginning.
Only God was "before" the beginning or as Psalms 90:2 says God is from everlasting..... ( No beginning )
Pre-human Jesus had a beginning but his God had No beginning.
Only God was before the beginning and pre-human Jesus was Not before the beginning as his God was before the beginning of anything.

 

[savagewind]

I believe one might say God is as good as His word.

Good point and I agree but God is not partial to the modern English language. They are debating words here on the forums. I recollect that doing like so isn't righteous according to the very book you people (and whatever else) seem to know all about. A shoutout to @Jayhawker Soule. Hi! I understand that my opinion is only worth two cents (or less, I suppose) and I won't be debating it here or anywhere...so, help me, God! I love you!

 

[Terry Sampson]

I believe toward does not look correct.

I'm not crazy about it either.

 

[Clear]

Google translate in this matter provides the well known translation. It is not essentially the correct one.

No, Google does NOT provide the "well known' or "most common" translation. That is the point.

Google will translate "The Word is A God" grammatically as "Θεοσ ην Λογοσ" (same as Λογοσ ην Θεοσ - word order doesn't matter in greek in this phrase).

IF you want translate "The word is God", it WILL do so grammatically and translate and "θεοσ ην Ο Λογοσ". (it ADDS the article).

Google is correct in it's grammatical translation (which is the way the NWT translates this phrase).

While CONTEXTUALLY the writer of John may have MEANT the word was THE God, he wrote grammatically, "the word was A God". Thus, I agree with you that what John wrote grammatically, might not be what he meant and thus the "well known" translation may not be the correct one.

Clear.
δρτωσεω

 

[firedragon]

No, Google does NOT provide the "well known' or "most common" translation. That is the point.

Google will translate "The Word is A God" grammatically as "Θεοσ εν Λογοσ". IF you want translate "The word is God", it WILL do so grammatically and translate and "θεοσ εν Ο Λογοσ". (it ADDS the article). Google is correct in it's grammatical translation (which is the way the NWT translates it). While CONTEXTUALLY the writer of John may have MEANT the word was THE God, he wrote grammatically, "the word was A God".

I agree with you that what John wrote grammatically, might not be what he meant and thus the "well known" translation may not be the correct one.

Clear.

Nice. Cheers.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

Not an age-old question to me. This is the only verse under consideration that Jesus was "a God" and not part of the triune God.

JW's have bad exegesis if they take one verse over 200 other clear verses.

 

[cataway]

Not an age-old question to me. This is the only verse under consideration that Jesus was "a God" and not part of the triune God.

JW's have bad exegesis if they take one verse over 200 other clear verses.

i'm going to need ya to list all the 200 verses please

 

[savagewind]

The same word that some people say it says that Jesus is a god says that we must have no other gods than God! So now, you say that Jesus is a god. Why would Jehovah give us a god to listen to and follow when the Law says don't do it?

 

[Thief]

no one has ever seen God.

who spoke to Moses?
who walked with Adam and Eve?