Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 71478 | ||
John 1:1 What basis in the greek is there for "and the word was a god.” Joh 1:1—“and the Word was a god (godlike; divine)” Gr.(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. Some translations render John 1:1 as saying: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Literally the Greek text reads: “In beginning was the word, and the word was toward the god, and god was the word.” The translator must supply capitals as needed in the language into which he translates the text. It is clearly proper to capitalize “God” in translating the phrase “the god,” since this must identify the Almighty God with whom the Word was. But the capitalizing of the word “god” in the second case does not have the same justification. The New World Translation renders this text: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” True, there is no indefinite article (corresponding to “a” or “an”) in the original Greek text. But this does not mean one should not be used in translation, for Koine, or common Greek, had no indefinite article. Hence, throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures, translators are obliged to use the indefinite article or not according to their understanding of the meaning of the text. All English translations of those Scriptures do contain the indefinite article hundreds of times; yet most do not use it at John 1:1. Nevertheless, its use in the rendering of this text has sound basis. (continued) |
||||||
2 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Radioman2 | 76133 | ||
New World Mis-Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses) The following quotes are taken from language scholars who study the Greek language of the New Testament and are offering their opinions as to the validity of John 1:1. "...the Word was a god." John 1:1 (New World Translation) Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1." Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar." Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language." Dr. Walter R. Martin (who does not teach Greek but has studied the language): "The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention." Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation): "A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'" Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature): "A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'" Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god, ' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest." Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!] Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28" Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College: "The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word "THEOS" is places at the beginning for emphasis." Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian." (http://www.soulright.com/nwt.html ) |
||||||
3 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90776 | ||
Hmmmmmmm, then why did Origen (185 CE - 251 CE) who is called "one of the most learned teachers and prolific authors of the early church." (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)say what he did? Though coming well after the apostolic period, it is interesting to peruse his Commentary on John, as found in volume 9 of Menzies' "Ante-Nicene Fathers." [Quote] We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences [John 1:1]. He does not write without care in this respect nor is he unfamiliar with the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some cases he omits it...He uses the article when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God...The God who is over all is God with the article, not without it. God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father. [Unquote] For Origen, John 1:1c is the logical outcome of John 1:1b, i.e., the Word is "God" or a divine being *because* he was "with" The God in the beginning, "not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father." What I found interesting was so early a recognition of the relevance of the difference between QEOS and hO QEOS in John 1:1. As Origen explains it, the meaning would be similar to modern translators who render John 1:1 as "the Word was Divine" or "the Word was a divine being" or even -- yes -- "the Word was a god." Truthfinder |
||||||
4 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Radioman2 | 90815 | ||
Part 1 JWs and John 1:1 ____________________ No one uses the NWT except the JW's. JW's on the other hand will use nothing else! ____________________ The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1 'In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." The New World Translation ' This is one of the most common verses of contention between the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians. Their false assumption is that Jesus is not God in flesh, but Michael the archangel who became a man. Therefore, since they deny that Jesus is divine, they have altered the Bible in John 1:1 so that Jesus is not divine in nature. The New World Translation has added the word "a" to the verse so it says, "...and the Word was a god." The correct translation for this verse is "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." This is how it is rendered in the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, etc. ' The New World translation is incorrect in its translation of this verse for several reasons. First of all, the Bible teaches a strict monotheism. To say that Jesus is "a god" is to suggest that there is another god besides YHWH, which is contrary to scripture (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8, etc.). Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses will respond that Jesus is not the Almighty God, but a "lesser" kind of God. He is the "mighty God" as is referenced in Isaiah 9:6, "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, and the government will rest on His shoulders, and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Therefore, they say that Jesus is the mighty god, but not the Almighty God. ' The immediate problem with this explanation is that YHWH is also called the Mighty God in Jeremiah 21:18 and Isaiah 10:20. In all three verses, including Isaiah 9:6, the Hebrew word for "mighty" (gibbor) is used. 'Isaiah 10:20-21, "Now it will come about in that day that the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel. 21A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God." 'Jer. 32:18, "who showest lovingkindness to thousands, but repayest the iniquity of fathers into the bosom of their children after them, O great and mighty God. the LORD of hosts is His name." ' We can see that the Jehovah's Witness explanation is not valid. Both the Son and God are called the Mighty God. ' Furthermore, how many actual gods are there in scripture? The obvious answer is that there is only one God in existence. Though there are others who have been falsely called gods (1 Cor. 8:5-6) or even said to be "as God" like Moses (Ex. 4:16; 7:1), there is only one real God (Gal. 4:8-9; Isaiah 44:6,8). If Jesus is "a god" that was "with God" in the beginning, then is Jesus a true god or a false god? ' But, the Jehovah's Witnesses often claim that Jesus is a god in the sense that Moses was called a god. But, Moses was not called a god. Rather, he would be "as God." '"Moreover, he shall speak for you to the people; and it shall come about that he shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be as God to him, (Exodus 4:16). '"Then the Lord said to Moses, 'See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet,'" (Exodus 7:1).' (continues in Part 2) (http://www.carm.org/jw/john1_1.htm) 87716 |
||||||
5 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90870 | ||
Hi Radioman, You wrote: No one uses the NWT except the JW's. JW's on the other hand will use nothing else! You error in these assertions. Millions, including myself, use the NWT. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society have the copy rights to, publish, and distribute the following Bible translations in numerous languages: King James Version 1611, The Bible in Living English 1972 by Steven T. Byington, Diaglott of the No. 1209 Vatican Manuscript 1942 by Benjamin Wilson, and the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures 1969 texts of Brooke Foss Westcott D. D. and Fenton John Anthony Hort D. D. 1881 edition. You also wrote: The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1 'In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." The New World Translation You are correct since this is the most accurate translation. Notice the following translations of John 1:1 The Greek Diaglott,1864 Benjamin Wilson. The three different translations by Moffatt, Schonfield and Goodspeed (An American Translation) have: "...and the Word was divine." Todays English Version reads:"...and he was the same as God." The Revised English Bible reads:"...and what God was, the Word was." Reflecting an understanding of John 1:1 with the New World Translation's: "and the Word was a god." we have: The Emphatic Diaglott (1864), Benjamin Wilson London and New York. The New Testament in an Improved Version(1808) The New Testament in Greek and English (A.Kneeland, 1822.) A Literal Translation Of The New Testament. (H.Heinfetter, 1863) Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible (R.Young, 1885) The Coptic Version of the N.T.(G.W.Horner, 1911) Das Evangelium nach Johannes(J.Becker, 1979) The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed(J.L.Tomanec, 1958) The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists(J.S.Thompson, 1829) Das Evangelium nach Johannes(S.Schulz, 1975) These translations use such words as “a god,” “divine” or “godlike” because the Greek word (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 ho theos, 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. You also wrote: This is one of the most common verses of contention between the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians. Their false assumption is that Jesus is not God in flesh, These other Greek Scholars, Bible translators (of John 1:1) would most certainly take offense in this comment since they consider themselves Christians. The fact that God sent his “only-begotten” Son to the earth is not an assumption. The Holy Scriptures teach it. Justice required satisfaction. Man, though created perfect, fell from that state through sin and thus Adam and his offspring came under God’s condemnation. Justice and fidelity to principles of righteousness necessitated that God execute the sentence of his law against disobedient Adam. But love moved God to purpose a substitutional arrangement whereby justice would be satisfied, and yet without any violation of justice, repentant offspring of sinner Adam could be forgiven and could achieve peace with God. (Col 1:19-23) Therefore, Jehovah “sent forth his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins.” (1Jo 4:10) Notice in verse 10 that God sent. It does not say God came. (Heb 2:17) Propitiation is that which makes propitious, or favorable. Jesus’ propitiatory sacrifice removes the reason for God to condemn a human creature and makes possible the extending to him of God’s favor and mercy. This propitiation removes the charge of sin and the resulting condemnation to death in the case of spiritual Israel and all others availing themselves of it. 1Jo 2:1, 2. Romans 6:23 reads, “For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord.” Here a clear distinction is made between God and Jesus. If Jesus were the Almighty God of this verse then the ransom does not fulfill its purpose of this substitutional arrangement. Truthfinder |
||||||