why does the jehovah's witness bible change jonh 1:1?

Answer 1

So that it would fit their argument against that of the trinity. There are other places that have been altered but then thats up to them at the end of the day.

Wow achtung - you managed to copy and paste the same thing again. You must have a library of cut and paste answers like microwave dinners.

Answer 2

Jehovah's Witness (New World Translation)
John 1:1 says - "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

Holy Bible (NIV)
John 1:1 says - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Difference is --- a god vs. God , right?

Regardless of your question, sweetie, we both know that there is ONLY, ONE True God....... which is Jehovah. Ps. 83:18.

I am truly sorry for whatever has happen to you to where you are out to destroy us as witnesses on this Yahoo!Answers. I can't imagine why that is...... But I'm a truly sorry. I hope everything goes well for you. And take Care!

Also, too this translation at John 1:1, use such words as “a god,” “divine” or “godlike” because the Greek word θεός (the·os′) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb. This is an anarthrous the·os′. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ο θεός, that is, the·os′ preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·os′. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god” or “divine” or “godlike” does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself.

Answer 3

New World Translation is not the only Bible to correct John 1:1

Emphatic Diaglott reads: “In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.”

The New English Bible says: “And what God was, the Word was.” The Greek word translated “Word” is Lo´gos; and so Moffatt’s translation reads: “The Logos was divine.” The American Translation reads: “The Word was divine.” Other readings, by German translators, follow. By Böhmer: “It was tightly bound up with God, yes, itself of divine being.” By Stage: “The Word was itself of divine being.” By Menge: “And God (= of divine being) the Word was.” And by Thimme: “And God of a sort the Word was.” All these renderings highlight the quality of the Word, not his identity with his Father, the Almighty God. Being the Son of Jehovah God, he would have the divine quality, for divine means “godlike.”—Col 2:9;

other translations say something different. Some are as follows:

1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864: “and a god was the Word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1935: “the Logos was divine.” A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt, New York.

1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany.

1978: “and godlike sort was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.

1979: “and a god was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jurgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany.1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

Sir. Isaac Newton did not believe in the Trinity

Newton’s principal reason for rejecting the Trinity was that when he sought to verify the statements of the creeds and the councils he found no support in Scripture for the doctrine.

Newton firmly held that reasoning should be used. He argued that nothing created by God was without purpose and reason, and Bible teachings would be sustained by similar application of logic and reason. Speaking of the apostle John’s writings, Newton said: “I have that honour for him as to believe that he wrote good sense; and therefore take that sense to be his which is the best.”11 So, as a second reason for rejecting the Trinity teaching, Newton declared: “Homoousion [the doctrine that the Son is of the same substance as the Father] is unintelligible. ’Twas not understood in the Council of Nice, nor ever since. What cannot be understood is no object of belief.”

a Newton manuscript entitled “Queries Regarding the Word Homoousios.” It reveals a third reason for his denial of the Trinity. This teaching was not part of early Christianity. Queries twelve to fourteen all highlight the doctrine’s lack of original first-century character:

“Query 12. Whether the opinion of the equality of the three substances was not first set on foot in the reign of Julian the Apostate [361-363 C.E.], by Athanasius, Hilary, etc.?

Query 13. Whether the worship of the Holy Ghost was not first set on foot presently after the Council of Sardica? [343 C.E.]

Query 14. Whether the Council of Sardica was not the first Council which declared for the doctrine of the Consubstantial Trinity?”

So on the basis of Scripture, reason and the authentic teaching of early Christianity, Newton found that he could not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. He believed strongly in the supreme sovereignty of Jehovah God, and the proper position of Jesus Christ, neither derogating him as the Son of God nor elevating him to the position occupied by his Father.

He wrote, “Whence are you certain that ye Ancient of Days is Christ? Does Christ anywhere sit upon ye Throne?” His own conclusion here is obvious, and the clarity of his thought regarding the relationship of the Father with the Son is always evident in Newton’s writings. So elsewhere he makes the point that prayer can be made to “God in the name of the Lamb, but not to the Lamb in the name of God.”

Perhaps the best summary of Isaac Newton’s Scriptural arguments for his repudiation of the Trinity is found in fourteen ‘Argumenta,’ written in Latin, giving Bible citations for many of them. Numbers four to seven are particularly interesting:

“4. Because God begot the Son at some time, he had not existence from eternity. Proverbs 8:23, 25.

5. Because the Father is greater than the Son. John 14:28.

6. Because the Son did not know his last hour. Mark 13:32, Matt. 24:36,

7. Because the Son received all things from the Father.”

Answer 4

Trinitarians repeatedly mock anything and everything that Jehovah's Witnesses do. Perhaps the most egregious is whent they pretend that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian.

Trinitarians use an artificial, trinity-specific definition of the term "Christian" which excludes anyone who does not believe that Jesus is God Himself, rather than the Son of God. Interestingly, pagans in the first century pretended that Christ's followers were Atheists(!) because the Christians had a somewhat different idea from the pagans about the nature of God.

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that no salvation occurs without Christ, that accepting Christ's sacrifice is a requirement for true worship, that every prayer must acknowledge Christ, that Christ is the King of God's Kingdom, that Christ is the head of the Christian congregation, that Christ is immortal and above every creature, even that Christ was the 'master worker' in creating the universe! Both secular dictionaries and disinterested theologians acknowledge that Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian religion.

The Trinitarian arguments are intended to insult and demean Jehovah's Witnesses, rather than to give a Scripturally accurate understanding of the term "Christian".

In fact, the bible most closely associates being "Christian" with preaching about Christ and Christ's teachings. Review all the times the bible uses the term "Christian" and note that the context connects the term with:
"declaring the good news"
'teaching quite a crowd'
'open eyes, turn from dark to light'
"uttering sayings of truth"
"persuade"
"keep on glorifying"

(Acts 11:20-26) [The early disciples of Jesus] began talking to the Greek-speaking people, declaring the good news of the Lord Jesus... and taught quite a crowd, and it was first in Antioch that the disciples were by divine providence called Christians.

(Acts 26:17-28) [Jesus said to Paul] I am sending you, to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light and from the authority of Satan to God... Paul said: “I am not going mad, Your Excellency Festus, but I am uttering sayings of truth and of soundness of mind. ...Do you, King Agrippa, believe the Prophets? I know you believe.” But Agrippa said to Paul: “In a short time you would persuade me to become a Christian.”

(1 Peter 4:14-16) If you are being reproached for the name of Christ, you are happy... But if he suffers as a Christian, let him not feel shame, but let him keep on glorifying God in this name


So why do anti-Witnesses try to hijack the term "Christian" and hide its Scriptural implications? Because anti-Witnesses recognize that it is the preaching work that makes it clear that the relatively small religion of Jehovah's Witnesses are by far the most prominent followers of Christ:

(Matthew 28:19,20) Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded


Learn more!
http://watchtower.org
http://watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm

Answer 5

Many translators have agreed that the King James Version of John 1:1 is misleading and have changed their rendering of it. Jehovah's Witnesses just agree with them. The whole Bible is inspired of God and MUST be consistant throughout. Jesus said he could do nothing of his own initiative--HELLO, how could he be God??

Answer 6

Because they can. Lots of Christian sects change the bible to suit their particular version of Christ's message.

Answer 7

u ask alot of questions about witnesses! hmm.... why is that? were u one? do u have family that are? do u know alot of people who are? or are u curious? Well if u know ur bible u would know that in ps 83:18 ! That people may know only You whose name is ( well u know the rest)! is the most high of all the earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!