How credible are NWT’s critiques?: R. H. COUNTESS and John 1:1, Part I.

by Wonderment 11 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  TheWonderofYou

  Jeff Vickens summed up at 19:35 in the above video

  The JW are correct that the missing article can be read as an A so that here it could be read as a god. However they are incorrect in this instance cause the missing article in front of theos -Because it is a subject noun and not an object noun - is actually put to point the reader to the nominative predicate rule and to read God as part of the predicate of the sentence while keeping the meaning "the god". So its the combination of rules that makes the orthodox translation correct.

  
  
• 

  Wonderment

  TheWonderofYou,

  Jeff Vickens is wrong. Other scholars disagree with him.

  "Would you translate a similar syntax at Act 28:4 (By all means murderer is the man) like so: Surely, the man is the murderer? Wait, all translations render it as :

  This man must be a murderer.” (New International Version)

  John 1:2 confirms that those who translate with an indefinite form are in the right. There is no way that we should understand clause c of verse one as definite as many suggest:

  The God Jesus was in the beginning with the God.
  But it is appropriate to understand it like so: "Jesus (a godlike one) was in the beginning with the God." This also fits better with John’s conclusion at 20.31:

  But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. If Jeff Vickens was correct, we would see instead at 20.31: "Jesus is the Son of God."
  

  Which of the two renderings agree better with John’s conclusion?

  
  Which of the two renderings (God, or a god) agree better with Jesus’ own words at John 20.17: ‘I am going back to my God’? Jesus being the reflection of God’s glory was able to explain the Father God to us. (Hebrews 1:3; John 1.18)