Jehovah's Witnesses, can you explain John 1:1?

Question

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Your Bible (New World Translation [NWT]) says:
"In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

Your very own publication "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures" state "god was the word."

Your reasoning: "If the word 'god' follows the word 'the', it implies 'the god' (ho theos) or Jehovah (articular); but if the word 'the' follows the word 'god', it implies someone or something is "godlike" or possesses the same qualities as God."

Then how would your reasoning fit John 20:28?
"Answered Thomas and he said to him The Lord of me and the God of me." -- John 20:28 The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures.

Going by your reasoning, was Thomas suggesting that Jesus is Jehovah because the singular predicate noun "God" follows the indefinite article "the"?

(continued in added details)

You explain that when there is no definite article "the" in the Greek text, the article "a" should be inserted.

This being the case, how do
you explain the beginning
of John 1:1? Since the word "the" doesn't appear before the word
"beginning" in the original Greek text, why does the New World Translation
insert the word "the" instead of the word "a"? Does this not break your
grammatical rules?

The New World Translation refers to the first person as "God" with a capital G and the second person as "god" with a lowercase g.

Early Greek manuscripts were
written in all capital letters. The Watchtower Society knows this and they also know that it is referred to
as uncials (of an inch). Even though the Watchtower Society recognized that original Greek text contained uncials, they went against all the rules of original Greek and used capital and lowercase within their version of John 1:1 in support of their anti-Trinitarian teachings.

If John had intended to describe the Word as godlike or "a god" he
would have simply used the Greek word "theios" instead of "theos".

UPDATE:

"In the beginning was the Word."

NOTE: ERROR in Jehovah's Witnesses theology.... If Jesus was the archangel Michael, a created being, who was the instrument through which God did all the other creation, then he himself would have been a created thing and he could not have already been in existence "in the beginning". According to your theology, it should say "in the beginning the word became." But this is not what the scripture says.

UPDATE 2:

Note about the word "other". The Watchtower Society claims that certain words are inserted with [brackets] within
the New World Translation to make for smoother reading in English. They also claim these "inserted words" do not change the meaning of the original text. Although the New World Translation is not the only translation that uses brackets, it is their motive for this extreme style of translating that needs to be examined.
Interestingly, within the Watchtower Society's own publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures) the word "other" does not
appear within the actual Greek translation of Colossians 1:16 and 17.
YET The word [other] was inserted four times to make it appear that Jesus was created first by Jehovah, and then Jesus
was used by Jehovah to create all other things in the universe. This is of course to support their unorthodox teachings that Jesus was merely a created being and not God.

KEIICHI -- Your "word for word rendering" is wrong. Not only does the rendering you quote NOT found in your NWT Bible, (according to the WT's reasonings) it would actually say: "In a beginning the Word was, and the word was with a God, and the Word was a god".
Is your NWT wrong?
You are correct, no one has seen God. Jesus is not supposed to be God. He is a HUMAN. God was, as Phillippians 2 says, made in the likeness of humans and an appearance as a man. Not God Himself.
God is the Alpha and Omega, so is Christ.
The Rev. 3:14 verse is not the answer. The "creation" spoken here is not of the very beginning of the creation of trees and the world, but rather the beginning of NEW men and women.
"Create" and "creation" are frequently used in this regenerative sense in the New Testament. See, for example, the following: Eph. 2:10, 15 cf. 4:23, 24; Col. 3:9, 10 R.S.V.; Gal. 6:15; James 1:18; 2 Cor. 5:17.

Answer 1

Nice presentation Jereme K. I assume that you are not JW or converting anytime soon. I bet they love knocking on your door. Keep 'the' faith brother.

Answer 2

A word-for-word Greek rendering of John 1:1, 2 is: "In [a] beginning [arche] was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and [a] God was the Word. This was in [a] beginning with the God."

Trinitarians tried to level the field by leaving out the article (ton) "the." In the King James, as in many other translations, all references to God are equal to the English reader. You do not get the contrast between the emphasized God spoken of twice and the unemphasized God referring to the Logos.

Yet consider how later in this chapter (John 1:18), in the same context, a clear distinction is drawn between these Gods apart from mere grammatical emphasis: "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten god, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (New American Standard Bible, Marshall Interlinear, etc.)

Clearly, there is a "begotten God" and a begetter "God." Hence, John 1:1 must be understood in a manner that harmonizes with this verse.

Is it possible to prove Jesus is the supreme God from this passage? Does the passage in fact say that the Logos God has parity with the God? Without parity, he cannot be the God, nor can he be one-third God. What beginning is John talking about? God has no beginning or end, for He is "from everlasting to everlasting" (Psa. 90:2). So what "beginning" is the Logos identified with?

Rev. 3:14 supplies the answer: "The Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [arche] of the creation of the [ton] God."

Furthermore, John 1:1 could not be a proof of the Trinity, for no mention is made of the holy Spirit. That is most embarrassing when the key scripture to the whole Trinity concept omits one-third of the Trinity. Therefore, whatever John 1:1 proves, it does not mention the holy Spirit, and it fails to provide the third part necessary to support the Trinity.

--

The word for word rendering is the literal english with the articles. There really is no such thing as a literal english bible otherwise every bible would say: en arch "in beginning"

So what did the Apostle John mean when he said "en arch?" (that is, "in beginning")

He was thinking in Greek, therefore he was thinking of an indefinite "beginning" because he did not use the Greek definite article here. To convey accurately what John (thinking in Greek) meant, e.g., "in a beginning."

However this might sound strange to an English speaker so "the" is put there for aesthetic purposes provided it does not compromise the critical meaning of the verse.

Answer 3

Ok well check out John 1:14 where it says: "So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth."

Right? So at first glance it sounds like God became human and came to earth.

But then read John 1:18 "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him."

So when people might think that we (Jehovah's Witnesses) just simply added a vowel to make our beleifs work but when you read the Bible (namely those two verses) they dont gel with the common beleif that Jesus is God, because we know that Jesus had apostles, he had a family and friends, talked to and healed people all over the land yes John 1:18 says that No man has ever seen God, logic tells us that Jesus could not be God. Further investigation is required. Whatever explanation coming from that further study and research is generally brushed off as a likely story or convenient excuse but the Bible isn't some mystical/mysterious book, it is logical and orderly, so when something doesn't gel, there is always a logical explanation.

But what about the apostle Thomas' saying, "My Lord and my God!" to Jesus at John 20:28? To Thomas, Jesus was like "a god," especially in the miraculous circumstances that prompted his exclamation. Some scholars suggest that Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment, spoken to Jesus but directed to God. In either case, Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God, for he and all the other apostles knew that Jesus never claimed to be God but taught that Jehovah alone is "the only true God."—John 17:3.

Answer 4

As I learned here in R&S, it is not only the NWT Bible that is written like that. Take it like an example "If you whisper the words *The Holy Bible is truly from God.* when it is whispered in the 100th ear and that person stands up to say what he heard; what are the chances of it being correct from the first mouth? 1 to a hundred. Why don't you let the Holy Spirit reveal what is true or you don't trust the Holy Spirit. Why will you say what is a lie and what is not if you don't know for sure, sure. If you say its a lie and it is not, then you risk the chance of saying the Holy Spirit lied when the Bible was written. Do you know the EXACT meaning and translation behind all the scriptures of the Father, Son, & the Holy Spirit? If not, then you do risk the chance of saying the Holy Spirit lies. That would be "blaspheme against the Holy Spirit"; the unforgivable sin. You also risk the chance of taking away YHVH God's Sovereignty from Him when you take away His title of being the "One and ONLY God Almighty". I would not risk that.

Answer 5

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh1.pdf

(This Interlinear is based off Westcott & Hort)

The sentence structure in the third clause is not an Identity but a qualification. It seems every translation render's "en arche" as "In the beginning", not just the NW.

Its true though, Koine is alot more complex when translating it and I'm no scholar of Koine. So, regarding the rule of grammar placing then thats where Im still lost.

If John wanted "ho theos" to be there he would of, but he didn't. They translate it in the natural sense.

Answer 6

I often see/hear Trinitarians focus on just one scripture to "prove" that Jesus is Jehovah and they have difficulty with the rest of the Bible where Jesus is shown to be subordinate to Jehovah, a Mighty God but not the Almighty God that Jehovah is (Exodus 6:3.)

At Exodus 7, Moses is told by Jehovah that "I will make you God to Pharaoh." This didn't mean that Moses was Jehovah himself but that he served as Jehovah's representative.

Jesus also served as Jehovah's representative and was given the title God, but neither Moses or Jesus were ever Almighty God Jehovah himself.

I won't go on ad infinitum because certain other people in this group have already made rather lengthy explanations of other non-Trinitarian scriptures.

In the Bible, the pagan king Nebuchadnezzar (rezzar) is given the title "king of kings and lord of lords" just as Jehovah and Jesus are. Just because Nebuchadnezzar has this title doesn't mean he is equal to Jehovah or is Jesus himself. It is just a title. There, can I use the word "just" one more time? Heh.

Answer 7

The question is not which translation is correct
The real question is who does John chapter one say Jesus is.

John 1:6 There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of God: his name was John.

What was John the Baptist testimony as to who Jesus is?

vs: 14 we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father;

vs 34 And I have seen [it], and I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.”

John the Baptist says Jesus is the only Begotten (only created Son from his Father.

vs: 35 Again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples, 36 and as he looked at Jesus walking he said: “See, the Lamb of God!”

John the Baptist also tell us Jesus is the Lamb of God.

1:49 Na·than´a·el answered him: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.”

two or more establish truth.

Both John the Baptist and Nathanael tell us Jesus is not God, but the Son of God.

Who does the apostle John believe Jesus to be?

Rev 1:6 and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father—yes, to him be the glory and the might forever. Amen.

John tells us about the God and Father of the resurrected Glorified Jesus Christ.

Who does the Glorified Jesus tell us he is?

(Revelation 2:18) 18 “And to the angel of the congregation in Thy·a·ti′ra write: These are the things that the Son of God says,. . .

As for me, I'm going to believe the simple truth.

.

Answer 8

In many Bibles, the first part of Jn 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word,"

The word "beginning" as used in Jn 1:1 indicates that the Word BEGAN at this time. Jehovah God, the Father alone has always existed. Therefore, the word "beginning" cannot be applied to Him, but only to His CREATIONS.

The second part of Jn 1:1 says,"...and the Word was WITH God,"

The word "with" as is used in Jn 1:1 indicates that the Word was near or by God at this time. God is phrased as a SEPERATE PERSON from the Word in Jn 1:1.

The third part (in many Bibles) of Jn 1:1 says, "...and the Word was God."

In New Testament Greek, the same word is used for "God" and "a god" which is theos (qeoV). Theos is the Greek word used in the third part of Jn 1:1. So how does one know if "God" or "a god" was meant here?

In New Testament Greek, the language does have a definite article ("the"), but it does not have an indefinite article ("a" or an"). At John 1:1, there are two occurrences of theos. The first one has the definite article ("the") but the second one in the third part of Jn 1:1 (the one in question) DOES NOT.

The first part of Jn 1:1 indicates that the Word began at this time. And if the third part of Jn 1:1 were interpreted to mean "the" God, then this would contradict the preceding clause of the second part which says that the Word was with God. Yet, the use of "God" for theos (qeoV) in John 1:1c is purposely mistranslated in most Trinitarian-produced Bibles as "God."


John 1:1c - English translation: "The Word was a god."
- NT Greek: qeoV hn o logoV

"god was the word."



Even the most knowledgeable of the early Christian Greek-speaking scholars, Origen (died 254 A.D.), tells us that John 1:1c actually means "the Word [logos] was a god"! - "Origen's Commentary on John," Book I, ch. 42 - Bk II, ch.3.

For much more on John 1:1, see:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions_and_answers_archives/message/128



For information clarifying John 20:28 ("My God"), see: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions_and_answers_archives/message/148



As for the NWT's usage of "Other" at Col. 1:16:

"For through [Jesus] all things were created in heaven and on earth" - MLB.

"by means of [Jesus] all [other] things were created" - NWT.

The use of the word "other" by the NWT at Col. 1:16 makes many trinitarian "scholars" very upset. The accusation by trinitarians is perfectly clear: Trinitarians claim that the NWT has dishonestly added to God’s Word. But what is the truth about words added to the original text?

Well, the KJV also adds words at many places in the scriptures and frequently signifies these additions by italicizing such added words. In fact ALL Bible translations add words to make the intended meaning of the original language clear to the readers of another language. The NWT usually indicates added words with brackets [ ] and does so at Col. 1:16, 17 with ["other"].

Yes, ALL Bible translators supply needed words IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR OWN UNDERSTANDING of what meaning the Bible writer actually intended. Any serious Bible student knows this elementary fact. You can see that the KJV translators (and NIV, NKJV, TEV/GNB, Beck, etc.) added the word "other" at Acts 5:29 (and rightly so) even though it is not actually written in the original text (also compare KJV at Job 24:24). Were they, then, dishonestly, blasphemously adding to God’s Word? Of course not!

The Bible writers very often excluded the subject (and others) when using the term "all" (and "every"). This is a common usage even today. For example, the police sergeant making an arrest of a criminal group might say: "EVERYONE in this room is under arrest!" Obviously the sergeant does not include himself (nor his captain who is with him) even though he says "EVERYONE". -RDB

Answer 9

Revelation 1:1 kills the trinitarian flavoured John 1:1

Answer 10

The Greek word that Paul used here for "one" (hen) is neuter, literally "one (thing)," indicating oneness in cooperation. It is the same word that Jesus used at John 10:30 to describe his relationship with his Father. It is also the same word that Jesus used at John 17:21, 22. So when he used the word "one" (hen) in these cases, he was talking about unity of thought and purpose.

Answer 11

EVERYONE KNOWS JOHN 1:1 IS WRITTEN MANY DIFFERANT WAYS BUT EVEN IF YOU THINK JESUS IS JEHOVAH WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF JOHN 1

JOHN 1:1 THE WORD WAS WITH GOD

HOW CAN YOU BE WITH SOMEONE AND ALSO BE THAT ONE?

JOHN 1:18 NO MAN HAS SEEN GOD

WE KNOW FOR A FACT THOUSANDS OF MEN HAVE SEEN JESUS. BUT NO MAN HAS SEEN GOD.

JOHN 1:14 THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER

MY SON IS MY ONLY BEGOTTEN HE IS NOT ME.

JOHN 1:18 JESUS IS IN THE BOSOM OF THE FATHER.

BASICALLY SITTING ON HIS LAP.

JOHN 1:18 THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON

DO YOU HAVE A SON? IS HE YOU?

(John 1:51) 51 He further said to him: “Most truly I say to YOU men, YOU will see heaven opened up and the angels of God ascending and descending to the Son of man.”

NOTICE THEY ARE NOT JESUS ANGELS BUT GODS


(John 1:48-49) 48 Na·than′a·el said to him: “How does it come that you know me?” Jesus in answer said to him: “Before Philip called you, while you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” 49 Na·than′a·el answered him: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.”

NOTICE YOUR ARE THE SON OF GOD, NOT GOD

YOU ARE KING OF ISRAEL NOT GOD OF ISRAEL

(John 1:35-36) 35 Again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples, 36 and as he looked at Jesus walking he said: “See, the Lamb of God!”

LAMB OF GOD, NOT GOD

(John 1:29) 29 The next day he beheld Jesus coming toward him, and he said: “See, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world!. . .

LAMB OF GOD, NOT GOD

(John 1:34) . . .And I have seen [it], and I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.”

SON OF GOD, NOT GOD

JUST A FEW COMMON SENSE QUESTIONS

ABOVE YOU TRY TO USE COL 1 16,17 IN YOUR REASONING. BUT GO BACK AND READ COL 1:1,3,13*** (Colossians 1:1-3) 1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through God’s will, and Timothy [our] brother 2 to the holy ones and faithful brothers in union with Christ at Co·los′sae: May YOU have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father. 3 We thank God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ always when we pray for YOU. . .

NOTICE ..GOD THE FATHER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST

(Colossians 1:13-20) 13 He delivered us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist, 18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things; 19 because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile again to himself all [other] things by making peace through the blood [he shed] on the torture stake, no matter whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens.


INTO THE KINGDOM OF HIS DEAR SON.

PLEASE USE THE WHOLE BIBLE WHEN YOU STUDY