Nark and Onscruse:
Nark:
The translation of John 1:1, imo, cannot be settled by syntax alone. It cannot be validly discussed apart from the question of what is exactly meant by "theos" in the Fourth Gospel in general and the Prologue in particular. If we don't step out of the anachronistic 4th-century dichotomy -- either Arius or Athanasius -- to look into the more fluid notion of the divine in proto-Gnostic circles of the late first or early second centuries, we simply cannot get it.
I have no intention of settling anything on John 1:1. This post was and is about what numerous well known scholars in Greek have to say about the topic and in particular John 1:1. As I stated, I selected this verse because I can find the most scholarly comments regarding it. Look at the opening number of comments of scholars. The first one is not a Christian and not a Trinitarian, and even he cannot agree with the "a god" used in the NWT.
As for getting our of a box, I am not in one. The scriptures are not abundantly clear on God's exact nature ... though they do lend themselves to trinitarian thinking, especially when one begins to read what the defenders of the faith wrote from the early second century onward. The Trinity itself was defined in great detail by the year 160, long before the Council of Nicaea in 325. Its roots and concepts were taught bace to the late first century or early second century by disciples of the Apostles.
What is meant by Theos? It would mean what the language of Koine' Greek meant when it was written ... and when reading the writings of the early Christians, one comes to understand that it means the same thing to Christians today. At least I have yet to find anything that reveals another meaning over a covered period of 200 years that I read of early Christian writings.
There are certainly thousands of debatable renderings in the NWT, as in any other version. Undisputable falsifications, otoh, are rare. The most obvious case to me is not John 1:1 but the introduction of "Jehovah" into the NT. That makes one case or hundreds, depending on how you count.
Undisputable falsifications ... well, this is going to be interesting. I doubt that any NWT committee member would ever admit to making a knowing falsification. But then they are all dead that I know. The next generation of NWT revisionists will only claim to build on the earlier work. So they will admit no deliberate falsifications. So, what we have left is secondary evidence, that is, by examination of the NWT, we can find clear wording patterns that strongly suggest deliberate rewording to obscure and confuse the original meaning of the text.
Example: 1 Timothy 4:1: The KJV rendering: "the Spirit expressly says" which shows that a person is speaking something clear from his own will. An examination of any good concordance, even Strong's, shows that this rendering is accurate. The NWT rendering: "inspired utterances says" which critically alters the text. Instead of a person speaking, now we have some unidentified "utterance" giving some message to or though some one or something. It is a butcher job to hide the possibility of the verse leading the Jws to think that the Holy Spirit is a person. It has to be deliberate, but since the NWT committee men are all dead that I know of, then they cannot be questioned to see if they will admit deliberate intention. If you check other translations, you will find that they agree with the KJV in the way the verse reads, even though they may use other language.
The NWT says: " However, the inspired utterance says ... "
The NIV: "The Spirit clearly says ...",
Young's Literal Translation: "And the Spirit expressly speaketh, ..."
Wicliffe New Testament: "But the Spirit saith openly, ..."
Darby's Translation: " But the Spirit speaks expressly, ..."
I have not found any that agree with the NWT. I have reviewed many, but the above are just examples. If there is no deliberate intention to obfuscate the text, then why not simply render the verse as it is written. The Greek word pneuma was used, and there is no provision in say, Strong's concordance to suggest otherwise.
Onscruse:
I don't do e-mail, or any of the messaging services (burned out on that a long time ago, when I was a mod), but I know that anyone who has the will can find out my cell-phone #, etc, anyway...so here it is: 503-317-2972.
I was not looking to get into a lengthy e-mail exchange, I simply thought that you may want to release your number privately. Anyway, I will call you, and set up a time to visit if we can. The first few days will be spent sending off my son-in-law to Iraq, then the rest with the family.
Thus, as Narkissos mentions, this matter of translation cannot be definitively decided merely on the basis of grammar.
I never claimed anything about grammar controlling translation. But, the scholars, including a non-Christian, non-Trinitarian agrees with Mantey and others, and does not aupport the NWT. Still, your quote of Mantey's manual does not address or support for the NWT rendering. It discusses the definite article, but does not say that is should be used at John 1:1.
And of course you do not have to contact any scholar, as you say, simply because you don't care. My objective is to say that I have no intention of debating John 1:1, and point you to scholars if you wish to debate ... but then, you do respond here with some measure of concern. My objective is not to debate Greek ... my objective was, and is, to show what many scholars say. An above poster calls one scholar a "hack" which is ad hominem, because it it irrelevant to the topic ... and he picks one scholar ... but ignores the strength of the rest of the scholars who also disagree with the NWT.
Thanks for your number,
Jim Whitney