'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God,and the Word was God'John 1:1.?

Question

What justification do Jehovah's witnesses have for inserting the word 'a' before God at the end of this verse?

Answer 1

What is the justification? I believe that to be a fair question. John 1:1 is, of course, a particularly favorite scripture of many. That is understandable. Most are quite used to a translation which renders John 1:1, in part, as "the word was God." "Witnesses have rewritten John 1:1 to suit their own theology," say some. "They are a cult," say others, as if that contention explains everything. Is this really so? Have Witnesses taken unauthorized liberty in translating this verse? Are they the only ones who have ever translated John 1:1 in this fashion? No, not really. Though many Bibles read ".and the word was God", not all of them follow this format.

Notice how The Bible - An American Translation by Smith & Goodspeed (1935) reads: "the word was Divine."

Notice the New Translation of the Bible by James Moffatt (1934) reads: "the Logos was divine"

Notice the NTIV (1808) reads: "the word was a god."

These three translations predate the NWT. Reasonably, then, not only are Jehovah's Witnesses not unique in translating this verse as above, they neither introduced it nor invented it to support a peculiar theology.

Considering, generally, the grammatical evidence, the immediate context, and, considering specifically, a preponderance of the Biblical evidence respecting the identity of God and the identity of his son, Jesus, Jehovah's Witnesses feel quite vindicated in translating this verse as above. As other translations evince, they are not alone in this regard.

Hannah J Paul

Answer 2

RS reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (KJ, Dy, JB, NAB use similar wording.) However, NW reads: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God.”

Which translation of John 1:1, 2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.” Verse 14 clearly says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory.” Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.” Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Heb. 1:3.

Is the rendering “a god” consistent with the rules of Greek grammar? Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, “The Word was God.” But not all agree. In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the·os´ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, 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, JB and KJ both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.”

John J. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.

In harmony with the above, AT reads: “the Word was divine”; Mo, “the Logos was divine”; NTIV, “the word was a god.” In his German translation Ludwig Thimme expresses it in this way: “God of a sort the Word was.” Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as “a god” is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as “gods” (Hebrew, ’elo·him´; Greek, the·oi´, at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Jehovah and were to speak his law.

Answer 3

What the JW's refuse to even think about , even though this has been brought to their attention several time on here..Is that their Bible reads in John 1:1 the same as Johannes Greber..a former Catholic Priest translated his New Testament Bible
..see where he otained his information on how to translate this scripture:

From the Forward to Greber's New Testament - 1937 edition


"The New Testament, as interpreted by the scholarly Pastor Johannes Greber,...is an absolutely independent translation, without restriction to the dogma of any Church.
This task was not simple. Many contradictions between what appears in the ancient scrolls and the New Testament, as we have grown to know it, arose and were the subject of his constant prayers for guidance - __prayers that were answered and the discrepancies clarified to him by God's Spirit World.
At times he was given the correct answers in large illuminated letters and words passing before his eyes. Other times he was given the correct answers during prayer meetings. His wife, a medium of God's Spiritworld, was often instrumental in conveying the correct answers from God's Messengers to Pastor Greber."

Why would a spirit..which we all know as Christians that a spirit that does this is an evil one..want that scriptures to say "a god"? They should think about this with much thought..

Answer 4

first Jesus is god but he is not Jehovah the bible says that all the sons of God are gods in Psalms 82:1-6 and Jesus is a son of God, the first one but not the only one cause all angels are sons of God according ot Job 1:6 and 2:1.

Simple , in the original greek scripture the "a" as article didn´t exist if You read the book of Acts 28:6 at the end of the verse "they changed their mind and began saying he was a god. "

in the original scripture says "he was god" talking about Paul and in several others parts is the same but the bible you have added "a" in that part of the bible and in the rest, but Catholic Church created the trinity who first translated the bible changed that verse to fit and to justify the pagan believe of trinity so they can worship Mary as the Mother of God, it is calling fit certain agenda, but don´t worry all the lies rthat Catholic Church has been discovering and they are recognizing that they "were mistake" for example 8 years ago they recognize that hell is not a place of torture, now the Limbo, etc sooner that big lie will fall.


John 1:1 "εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος"

by the way θεον θεος wasn´t written in the same way the second time was in non capital letter.

Acts 28:6 "ατοπον εις αυτον γινομενον μεταβαλομενοι ελεγον αυτον ειναι θεον"

"αυτον ειναι θεον" before the last word isn´t any article but your bible put that article there and in more than 200 places but not in John 1:1 Why?

Answer 5

--WE ARE NOT the first to do that needed correction:

*** rs p. 416 - p. 417 Trinity ***
John 1:1, 2:
RS reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (KJ, Dy, JB, NAB use similar wording.) However, NW reads: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God.”

Which translation of John 1:1, 2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.” Verse 14 clearly says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory.” Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.” Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Heb. 1:3.

Is the rendering “a god” consistent with the rules of Greek grammar? Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, “The Word was God.” But not all agree. In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the·os′ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, 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, JB and KJ both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.”

John J. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.

In harmony with the above, AT reads: “the Word was divine”; Mo, “the Logos was divine”; NTIV, “the word was a god.” In his German translation Ludwig Thimme expresses it in this way: “God of a sort the Word was.” Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as “a god” is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as “gods” (Hebrew, ’elo·him′; Greek, the·oi′, at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Jehovah and were to speak his law.

*** Rbi8 p. 1579 6A Jesus—A Godlike One; Divine ***

A Jesus—A Godlike One; Divine

Joh 1:1—“and the Word was a god (godlike; divine)”

Gr., καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (kai the·os′ en ho lo′gos)

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 (J21,
interlinear reading), 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.

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

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

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

1979 “and a god was the Logos” Das Evangelium nach
Johannes,by Jürgen Becker,
Würzburg, Germany.

These translations 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 and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·os′. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ὁ 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.

In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 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 “a” 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 θεός in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read “a god.” The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering.

In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in Joh 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite.” On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.”
thief

Answer 6

TIME and again, Jesus showed that he was a creature separate from God and that he, Jesus, had a God above him, a God whom he worshiped, a God whom he called “Father.” In prayer to God, that is, the Father, Jesus said, “You, the only true God.” (John 17:3) At John 20:17 he said to Mary Magdalene: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (RS, Catholic edition) At 2 Corinthians 1:3 the apostle Paul confirms this relationship: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Since Jesus had a God, his Father, he could not at the same time be that God.

The apostle Paul had no reservations about speaking of Jesus and God as distinctly separate: “For us there is one God, the Father, . . . and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ.” (1 Corinthians 8:6, JB) The apostle shows the distinction when he mentions “the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels.” (1 Timothy 5:21, RS Common Bible) Just as Paul speaks of Jesus and the angels as being distinct from one another in heaven, so too are Jesus and God.

Answer 7

Grammar is relative to the ideas of the translator. That's why you get it translated both ways. (I personally think the JW's have the best arguments though. But I'm not an expert.)

Answer 8

Jesus and Paul both spoke of those who would preach false doctrines. We were warned, For those who fall to these, they have no excuse

Answer 9

none. thats why its a cult.