New World Translation Errors

by ClassAvenger 75 Replies latest watchtower bible

Earnest

drwtsn32,
Maybe you should ask your friend why, if the NWT is such a top notch translation, it is not viewed as such by any experts outside of the WTS?
(If it *is* viewed as excellent by some experts, please let me know, but as far as I know there aren't any.)
One name that springs to mind is Jason BeDuhn, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University. His cv can be checked at http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jdb8/jason-cv1.htm. He describes the NWT as "one of the most accurate translations currently available" and particularly speaks highly of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation. If you want to read what he has to say, he has recently completed a book Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament (University Press of America, May 2003, ISBN: 076182555X ) which compares nine translations, including NWT, with the original Greek.
Earnest
onacruse

Earnest:
I did write to the WTS about this, in the late 70s...I was DFd for apostasy shortly thereafter.
Were these directly related?
Only insofar as I was already struggling to continue to accept the credibility of the WTS, in view of my disappointment with their 1975 eschatology, the increasingly common practice of implementing the "new" elder arrangement as a brown-nosing popularity contest (another matter about which I wrote to the WTS), and what I was beginning to see as less-than-honest Biblical exegesis (e.g. their interpretation of pharmakeia to apply to the use of tobacco).
Like Lazarus, I await the crumbs dropping from your table
roflmao...man, you're looking at a really serious diet plan! LOL
One name that springs to mind is Jason BeDuhn,
I've not researched DeBuhn's work, but I've seen some less-than-complimentary evaluations about his objectivity. I'll see what I can find...I think some of it was posted on this board.
Craig

UnDisfellowshipped

Some info about DeBuhn taken from http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm#BeDuhn :

Jason BeDuhn

"The bottom line is that "The Word was a god" is exactly what the Greek says. "The Word was divine" is a possible meaning of this Greek phrasing. "The Word was God" is almost certainly ruled out by the phrasing John uses, and it is not equivalent to "The Word was divine" because without any justification in the original Greek it narrows the meaning from a quality or category (god/divine) to an individual (God)."

- from a prominent Jehovah's Witness website

Unlike most of the scholars used by Jehovah's Witnesses, DeBuhn has not been quoted out of context. He does, indeed, believe the NWT and KIT to be generally accurate, and uses the latter when teaching Greek at Northern Arizona University.

BeDuhn received his Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School. This degree requires an intermediate level of competence in Greek. BeDuhn's PhD from the University of Indiana is in Comparative Religious Studies, not in Biblical languages. He is not recognized in the scholarly community as an expert in Biblical Greek.

This is not to say that BeDuhn is to be dismissed lightly. He is certainly knowledgeable in Greek, and says that he is doing work on untranslated Greek texts. He says that he is "not a theologian," by which he means, I suppose, that he is not biased in favor of one theological viewpoint, but rather approaches the text purely from a grammatical standpoint. However, it is questionable whether one approaching the text from a professed "non-theological" standpoint is any less free from bias than one professing a theological commitment; nor that a theological commitment necessarily precludes an objective analysis. Further, Dr. BeDuhn as a "non-theologian" may limit his familiarity with much relevant scholarship (see, for example, Dr. BeDuhn's statement that he is unaware of who Murray J. Harris is, below).

BeDuhn argues that the traditional translation is extremely "unlikely" from a grammatical standpoint. To my knowledge, however, Dr. DeBuhn has not interacted publicly with the majority of scholarship on this topic (a summary of which you may find here) which his views contradict. Further, his statement that the traditional rendering "narrows the meaning from a quality or category (god/divine) to an individual (God)" seems a strawman argument: Those who argue that theos has a qualitative force in John 1:1c do not argue that Jesus is the individual, God, but rather that he possesses all the qualities or attributes of God. Trinitarians could even accept Dr. BeDuhn's substitution of "categorical" for Harner's "qualitative," so long was we understand that for John, the category that includes the true God is a category containing only one Being (see Harris, Jesus as God, p. 298, n93).

BeDuhn attempted to defend the NWT to Catholic apologist John Pacheco. You'll find their discussion of John 1:1 here. You will notice that a necessary presupposition of BeDuhn's argument is that John's beliefs about God were not consistent with those professed in Deuteronomy. John is not "concerned" with the radical monotheistic commitment of Deuteronomy, BeDuhn suggests. He tells us that Paul does not "control" what John meant and vice versa. However, those who hold to the harmony of Scripture - as do Jehovah's Witnesses - do not accept this necessary presupposition. Therefore both Trinitarians and Witnesses should reject his conclusions, for they are based on presuppositions with which we cannot agree.

Finally, BeDuhn prefers the translation "and the Word was divine." Dr. BeDuhn has stated in a private email that this rendering "leaves open" a Trinitarian solution (BeDuhn to Steven S. 12/26/2001). In this same email, he states that he does not know who Murray J. Harris is. It would seem that any cogent defense of Dr. BeDuhn's views would require interaction with Harris' thorough survey and analysis in his book, Jesus as God (see particularly Harris' comments regarding "the Word was divine," p. 63ff).

BeDuhn sees "divine" as merely meaning a non-physical being, which may be the true God or lesser spirit beings, such as angels. We may ask, however, if John's intended meaning was "divine" simply in the sense of a non-physical being, why he did not use the Greek word theios ("divine"), which would have expressed this sense in unambiguous terms?

You may find a lengthy dialog between Dr. BeDuhn and me here.

onacruse

UD, thanks for that info!
One thing I looked for in the comments:
BeDuhn sees "divine" as merely meaning a non-physical being, which may be the true God or lesser spirit beings, such as angels. We may ask, however, if John's intended meaning was "divine" simply in the sense of a non-physical being, why he did not use the Greek word theios ("divine"), which would have expressed this sense in unambiguous terms?
That is absolutely positively correct, even within the language of the NT text. That BeDuhn apparently (and again, I've not personally read his works, and am only responding to this reviewer's comments) fails to see this obvious distinction (clearly discussed in the readily obtainable 120-yr old work of Trench), indicates that he has "not done his homework" on the NWT.
Craig
Earnest

Craig,
I find Robert Hommel's summary of Jason BeDuhn to be quite prejudiced on a number of points.
For example, he suggests that both Trinitarians and Witnesses should reject JB's conclusions because he presupposes John is not dependent on the theology of other Bible writers. It would be less prejudicial to use JB's own words, namely that he "argues on the basis of language and literary context, not theology". As he says in their dialogue:
My position is simply to let John present the material in the way and order it has been formulated in his mind by remaining true to the language he uses and translating it as directly as possible into corresponding English sentences. I don't consider that the Bible needs my help, or the help of any translator, to fill in what it somehow fails to say or to artificially restrict or qualify what it does say.
Hommel also asks: "if John's intended meaning was 'divine' simply in the sense of a non-physical being, why did he not use the Greek word theios ('divine'), which would have expressed this sense in unambiguous terms", as if JB fails to see this distinction. Yet in their dialogue he addressed that very matter:
Yes, it is useful to compare what John wrote to what he could have written. Such a comparison clearly shows that John didn't mean "the Word was God" because there are at least two other ways to write John 1:1c that could only be read that way, and John didn't use them. It is also true that there is at least one other way John could have written 1:1c that could only be read as "the Word was a god," and he didn't use it either. There are also several ways John could have written 1:1c with an adjective, that could only be read as "the Word was divine," but he didn't. So what we are left with is phrasing that could be adjectival or nominal, and we have no way to prove it one way or the other. I agree that the chiasmic repetition of "theos" and "logos" is deliberate and significant, as well as poetic. But what you seem to gloss over in mentioning that pattern is that it is slightly broken, in that John drops the article with second "theos." Now in ancient Greek when you set up a parallelism and break the parallel in one place, you are drawing attention to that break (Paul does this all the time). So John is being very careful here to mark the nuance he is trying to convey in John 1:1c: the Word was with HO THEOS, and the Word was THEOS. What is the significance of that distinction? What is John getting at? The answer is open to interpretation, and the translator's job is not to foreclose and predetermine interpretation, but to convey John's phrasing as openly as John left it.
To Hommel's credit he does apparently provide a full transcript of their dialogue which allows us to assess the measure of the man. Hommel's own impressions are "I found Dr. BeDuhn to be cordial, knowledgeable, and challenging. On the whole, this is one of the most productive and informative theological dialogs I've ever engaged in".
In an earlier thread, Prof. Jason BeDuhn letter on the NWT/KIT (part 1)
, GinnyTosken shared some correspondence she had with Dr. BeDuhn which should be read by any who doubt his credentials. It says quite a lot for Ginny too. I miss her.
Earnest
onacruse

Earnest, thanks for your last and (as is typical of you), well-researched post.
This evening I had a brief discussion with a mutual acquaintance, and he also suggested that BeDuhn has been given short-shrift. BeDuhn appears to have no hidden agenda behind his generally (though not unequivocal) positive opinion about the NWT.
In particular, reviewing Ginny's post, two things caught my eye (not quotes):
1) The NWT NT does not have any clearly demonstrable grammatical mistranslations. I agree.
2) Virtually every translation is, in some way or other, influenced (perhaps even subconsciously) by the theological predisposition of the translators. I agree.
Ohh, I absolutely love discussions like this! Any day I learn something (like I just did) is a day well spent.
Craig

UnDisfellowshipped

Below I am posting some very interesting information about what different people say about the New World Translation's version of John 1:1 (all of the following information is Copyrighted by the Web Page and/or the author of the information. I am providing Links to each Web Page that the info was taken from. These Web Pages have been very helpful to me in the past):

http://www.equip.org/free/DJ520.htm

STATEMENT DJ520

john 1:1 and the new world translation:

what do the greek scholars really say?

A. T. Robertson : "So in Jo. 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, not God was the Logos." A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, by A. T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, 1977), p. 279.

E. M. Sidebottom : "...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for theos en ho logos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to John." The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S. P. C. K., 1961), p. 461.

E. C. Colwell : "...predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context and in the case of John 1:1c this is not so." "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20.

C. K. Barrett : "The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity." The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p.76.

C. H. Dodd : "On this analogy, the meaning of theos en ho logos will be that the ousia of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos...That this is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham, the Father) goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase. "New Testament Translation Problems II," The Bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), p. 104.

Randolph O. Yeager : "Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate '...and the Word was a God.' The article with logos, shows that logos is the subject of the verb en and the fact that theos is without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of theos demands that we translate '...and the Word was God.' John is not saying as Jehovah's Witnesses are fond of teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely the opposite." The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), p.4.

James Moffatt : "'The Word was God...And the Word became flesh,' simply means "The word was divine...And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man..." Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p.61.

Philip B. Harner : "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos." "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973, p. 87.

Henry Alford : "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,--not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It does not = theios, nor is it to be rendered a God--but, as in sarx egeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:--that He was very God. So that this first verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the Father),--and was Himself God." Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II (Guardian Press, 1975; originally published 1871), p. 681.

Donald Guthrie : "The absence of the article with Theos has misled some into thinking that the correct understanding of the statement would be that 'the word was a God' (or divine), but this is grammatically indefensible since Theos is a predicate." New Testament Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 327.

Bruce Metzger : "It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists... As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation." "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today (April 1953), p. 75.

Julius R. Mantey : "Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering... In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years." Letter from Mantey to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. "A Grossly Misleading Translation... John 1:1, which reads 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.' is shockingly mistranslated, "Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,' in a New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published under the auspices of Jehovah's Witnesses." Statement by J. R. Mantey, published in various sources.

B. F. Westcott : "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in v.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person... No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word." The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans, 1958 reprint), p. 3.

Who are these scholars? Many of them are world-renowned Greek scholars whose works the Jehovah's Witnesses themselves have quoted in their publications, notably Robertson, Harner, and Mantey, in defense of their "a god" translation of John 1:1! Westcott is the Greek scholar who with Hort edited the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Yeager is a professor of Greek and the star pupil of Julius Mantey. Metzger is the world's leading scholar on the textual criticism of the Greek New Testament. It is scholars of this caliber who insist that the words of John 1:1 cannot be taken to mean anything less than that the Word is the one true Almighty God.

_____________________________________________________________________________

http://www.carm.org/jw/john1_1.htm

John 1:1 in a literal translation reads thus: "In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word." Notice that it says "God was the word." This is the actual word for word translation. It is not saying that "a god was the word." That wouldn't make sense. Let me break it down into three statements.

"In beginning was the word..."
(en arche en ho logos)
- A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.
"and the word was with the God..."
(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)
- This same Word was with God.
"and God was the word." -- Properly translated as "and the Word was God."
(kai theos en ho logos)
- This same Word was God.

Regarding statement 3 above, the correct English translation is "...and the Word was God," not "and God was the word." This is because if there is only one definite article ("ho"="the") in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative ("subject") form ("theos" and "logos"), then the noun with the definite article ("ho"="the") is the subject. In this case "ho logos" means that "the word" is the subject of the clause. Therefore, "...the Word was God" is the correct translation, not "God was the Word."1 But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Jesus is "a god," or the "mighty god" as was addressed above.
Is there suddenly a new god in the text of John 1:1? It is the same God that is being spoken of in part 2 as in part 3. How do the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that the word had somehow become a god in this context, since there is only one God mentioned? Remember, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus was Michael the Archangel. Therefore, is there any place in the Bible where an angel is called "a god," besides Satan being called the god of this world in 2 Cor. 4:3-4?
______________________________________________________

http://www.watchman.org/jw/highlght.htm

Vol. 6, No. 8, 1989

Articles on Jehovah's Witnesses

John 1:1 and Watchtower Dishonesty

David Henke

(The following are highlights from the tract, "John 1:1 and Watchtower Dishonesty".)

"Accuracy of statement. Jehovah's Witnesses are an organization of truth. We should want to speak the truth and be absolutely accurate in every detail at all times. This should be so not only as regards doctrine, but also in our quotations, what we say about others or how we represent them, also in matters involving scientific data or news events," (Theocratic Ministry School Guidebook, p. 110).

The Watchtower Society does not agree with the historic Christian faith on any doctrine of fundamental importance. In their efforts to strengthen their position they have published their own translation of the Bible called the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT). They made the claim that it was free of the sectarian bias found in translations made by "Christendom's" scholars.

However, in their renderings, and especially at John 1:1, they have taken a position that is at great odds with the accepted understanding of the text. Consequently, they have resorted to quoting non-Witness scholars in such a way as to justify themselves. When asked, or shown the quote, many of the scholars have been outraged that their statements have been so abused.

The first point that should be made is that none of the "translators" of the NWT had degrees in the Biblical languages of Greek and Hebrew. Only Fred Franz had any "knowledge" of these languages, but under oath in Scotland in 1954 he refused to attempt a translation of Genesis 2:4. The translation committee would not publish their names saying they did not want the "honor." However, the writers of the New Testament books signed their names and we know they were not seeking honor. But it is not always honor that one receives for his work!

When Jehovah's Witnesses are told that none of the translators had any scholarly credentials the reply might be that Jesus didn't have any scholarly credentials either. However, if the translation committee were to do the kind of works Jesus did they would not need credentials. But, because of the kind of work they have done, we need to see some credentials to back it up!

The following are some of the clearest examples of dishonest quotation. There are more, but for the sake of space these four are cited....

Watchtower letter to David Henke, October 24, 1975, quoting Dr. Phillip Harner, of Heidelberg College, Tiffin, Ohio.

The Watchtower said: "Note what Mr. Harner writes as to John 1:1, `In John 1:1, I think that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.' Therefore, the Greek at John 1:1 is not overwhelmingly `definite' as Colwell and others maintained so that the text should be rendered in the definite `the God.' Rather, as Harner shows there is the qualitative force possible, hence, warranting `a god', meaning quality of Godlikeness or a mighty one."

Dr. Harner actually wrote: "As an aid in understanding the verse, it will be helpful to ask what John might have written as well as what he did write. In terms of the types of word-order and vocabulary available to him, it would appear that John could have written any of the following:

A. ho Logos en ho theos (The Word was the God);

B. Theos en ho Logos (God was the Word);

C. ho Logos Theos en (the Word God was);

D. ho Logos en Theos (the Word was a god);

E. ho Logos en Theios (the Word was divine);

...Clause D with the verb preceding an anarthrous (without the article `the') 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... John evidently wished to say something about the logos that was other than A and more than D and E... But in all these cases the English reader might not understand exactly what John was trying to express. Perhaps the clause could be translated, `the Word had the same nature as God.' This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos (the Word), no less than ho theos (the God), had the nature of theos (God)." (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, 1973, pp. 84, 85, 87; parenthesis added for clarity, emphasis mine).

In this example the Watchtower has Dr. Harner saying that Jesus is "a god" when Dr. Harner actually said Jesus is "more than" a god. They have him also saying that "theos" in John 1:1c should be viewed as "qualitative" so that, again, Jesus is only "a god" whereas Dr. Harner said that Jesus had the nature of God no less than God Himself. Yes, John 1:1c is qualitative as Dr. Harner says, but they have perverted the force, or degree, of that quality. John is saying that Jesus is as much deity, divinity, God, as God the Father is deity, divinity or God.

The Watchtower, January 15, 1975, page 63, quoting "The Gospel According to St. John" page 3, by Dr. B.F. Westcott

The Watchtower said: "Then, too, in the phrase rendered `the Word was a god', the term `god' is a predicate noun that describes `the Word'. Says the noted scholar Westcott, coproducer of the famous Westcott and Hort Greek text of the Christian scriptures: `It describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person'."

The Watchtower has started their quote in the middle of Dr. Westcott's statement. The full statement, before and after the quoted text says, "the word was God. The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in iv. 24. It is necessarily without the article (Theos not ho Theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person. It would be pure Sabelianism to say `the Word has ho theos.' No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word."

Again, the Watchtower has quoted a scholar as saying the opposite of what he believes and has actually said.

Conclusion

The Watchtower Society said it best, "Inaccuracies that are recognized by an audience raise questions as to the authority of the speaker on other points, perhaps even calling in question the truth of the message itself," (Theocratic Ministry School Guidebook, p. 110).

_____________________________________________________________________

http://www.cornerstonechurchonline.com/biblestudies/john_11pt2.htm "...and the Word was a god." A Christian Apologetic Answers the Jehovah's Witnesses by David Smart

QUESTION: "Doesn't the lack of the Greek article before theos of John 1:1 mean that it must be translated as "a god"?

John 1:1 -- [en arche en ho logos] [kai ho logos en pros ho theos] [kai theos en ho logos] John 1:1 -- [In the beginning was the Word] [and the Word was with God] [and the Word was God] The first thing that must be realized and understood is that the Greek and English languages construct their sentences very differently, and I am not talking about the fact that Greek sentences lack punctuation. In a typical English sentence, the subject is followed by the predicate. However, in a Greek sentence this structure is not necessarily followed. Sometimes the subject, or its main verb, is found further down the sentence. Quite opposed to English sentence construction, the fact that one Greek word precedes a following word does not necessarily have any significance. The third clause of John 1:1 (theos en ho logos) is known as a preverbal anarthrous predicate nominative construction:

we have a noun, which is the subject of the clause - logos
we have an equating copulative verb - en
and we have a nominative noun, which is the predicate - theos.

As I had said previously, in Greek construction sometimes the subject, or its main verb, is found further down the sentence. In the English language we put the subject first and the predicate nominative later. Not always so in the Greek language. Greek and English grammatical construction is not the same. The first noun in this clause is not the subject, as it would be in typical English usage. All right, well then how is it that we know logos is the subject? Because the subject is identified by the existence of an article in front of it (Greek: ho). Whichever noun has the article, it is the subject. In this case (theos en ho logos) logos is the subject because the article comes before it. This is why we translate it as "the Word was God" rather than "God was the Word."

"The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in John 4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean 'God is spirit,' not 'spirit is God'" (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament).

Stay with me now, because there is another extremely important point to be made concerning this text: if both of the nouns in a predicate nominative construction have the article, or if both lack the article, the two nouns become interchangeable. You see, a big fuss is made especially by the Jehovah's Witnesses that the word theos in the last clause of John 1:1 is "anarthrous" (i.e. without the article). For this reason, they assure us, it should be translated as "a god." This completely misses the point as to why theos does not have the article. If there had have been an article in front of theos, then John would have been telling us that "God was the Word" as well as "the Word was God." You see? This is why there is no article in front of theos. John was quite intentionally avoiding "modalism" (or sometimes "Sabellianism"). There is no article in front of theos because John did not think or teach that Jesus Christ and the Father were both the same person. For very sound and rational reasons this teaching was considered heretical centuries ago, and not even Jehovah's Witnesses teach modalism.

"The structure of the third clause in verse 1, theos en ho logos, demands the translation 'The Word was God.' Since logos has the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also 'with God.' . . . The NEB paraphrase 'what God was, the Word was' brings out the meaning of the clause as successfully as a paraphrase can" (Bruce, The Gospel of John).

"And the Word was God (kai theos en ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos en ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article" (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament).

But how does John wish us to take the word theos in the last clause? Does he want us to understand it as indefinite, so that no particular "god" is in mind? Or, in correct Greek translation, does the preverbal position of theos (adding emphasis), and coupled with the lack of the article, indicate that John is describing the nature of the Word, saying that the Word is God? It can be easily demonstrated that the anarthrous theos is quite in fact qualitive, not indefinite. If the anarthrous theos is to be taken as indefinite, and hence translated into English with an indefinite article ("a god"), then we must do the same to the other 282 times that theos appears without the article. In fact, there are four more instances in chapter 1 of John alone where theos appears anarthrously, and yet the Jehovah's Witnesses inconsistently translate only verse 1 as indefinite, while in the remaining four instances in the first chapter where theos appears anarthrously they don't translate them as "a god." In 2 Corinthians 5:19 the word theos appears anarthrously, but the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation (NWT) does not translate it as "For a god was in Christ..." Nor do they translate John 1:6 as indefinite either ("There was a man sent from a god, whose name was John"). John 1:12 would not mean the same if they translated it as indefinite ("...to them gave he power to become the sons of a god..."). Same with verse 13 ("Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of a god") and verse 18 ("No man hath seen a god at any time..."). Even though in every one of these we see theos appearing without the article, Jehovah's Witnesses do not translate them in the indefinite as "a god." They only do it to the third clause of verse 1. Rather inconsistent, this author notes, not to mention a clear demonstration that the authors of the NWT had no grasp of the Greek language.

"The Word is distinguishable from God and yet theos en ho logos, the Word was God, of Divine nature; not "a god," which to a Jewish ear would have been abominable; nor yet identical with all that can be called God (modalism), for then the article would have been inserted..." (Nicoll, The Expositor's Greek Testament).

"The uses of the Greek article, the functions of Greek prepositions, and the fine distinctions between Greek tenses are confidently expounded in public at times by men who find considerable difficulty in using these parts of speech in their native tongue" (Bruce, The Books and the Parchments).

----- Bibliography Kolln, Martha; Understanding English Grammar (4th Edition. MacMillan Publishing Company: New York. 1994) Klammer, Thomas and M. R. Shultz; Analyzing English Grammar (2nd Edition, Allyn & Bacon: Boston. 1996) A.T. Robertson; Word Pictures in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1932) F. F. Bruce; The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) F.F. Bruce; The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1963) Nicoll, W. Robertson; The Expositor's Greek Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) White, James R.; The Forgotten Trinity (Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1998)
__________________________________________________ Also be sure to check out: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-r001.html
__________________________________________________ http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/cults/rajwd/rajwd24.html

The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: The Jehovah's Witness Bible is known as the New World Translation. The Society believes that this version is a most accurate translation of the Bible and is the one they use in their teaching and Bible reading, and they consistently quote it in their literature.

Many scholars refer to the New World Translation as a commentary on the Bible instead of a translation in light of the way the text has been altered to fit the various Society doctrines. These changes are particularly evident when the subjects of hell, the Trinity, or the immortality of the soul are discussed. The following is a representative list of passages altered in the Society's Bible:

Hbr 1:8	Luk 23:43	1Jo 5:20
1Cr 11:30	Phl 2:5	1Cr 14:14
Jhn 1:1	2Cr 5:1	Col 1:15-18
Gal 5:15	Tts 2:13	Gal 6:18
Act 2:17	Hbr 10:39	1Pe 3:18, 19
Hbr 12:9	Jud 19	Hbr 12:28
1Jo 4:1-6	Rev 5:10	Rev 8:9
Act 20:7	Mar 1:4	Col 2:12

Observations, Evaluations, And Criticisms of the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION By Noted Greek And New Testament Scholars:

[NOTE: These comments are particularly directed toward the NWT translation of John 1:1, but are indicative of the tone of their observations about the NWT translation in general.]

DR. J.R. MANTEY (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159, of the Society's 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 University (Professor New Testament Language and Literature): "A frightful mistranslation...", "erroneous...", "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. PAUL L. KAUFFMAN of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses [translators] 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 agree to the interpretation of this [John 1:1] verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses... I have never encountered one of them [Society member] who had any knowledge of the Greek language."

DR. WALTER 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, many of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention."

DR. WILLIAN 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."

(The late Dr. Barclay and Dr. Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Each 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. PHILIP 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 a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form the John actually uses, the word THEOS is placed at the beginning for emphasis [thus ruling out the 'a god' translation]."

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 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct... I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian."

DR. EUGENE A. NIDA, head of Translation Department, American Bible Society: "With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." (Responsible for the Good News Bible -- the committee worked under him.)

DR. B.F. WESTCOTT (whose Greek New Testament text -- not the English part -- is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in John 4:24. It is necessarily without the article... No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by [this] form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word... in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God', and so included in the unity of the Godhead."

DR. J.J. GRIESBACH (whose Greek New Testament text -- not the English part -- is used in the Society's publication The Emphatic Diaglott): "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."
_________________________________________________________________________
http://www.macgregorministries.org/jehovahs_witnesses/new_world_translation.html THE WORLDS MOST DANGEROUS BOOK
AND WHAT GREEK SCHOLARS
REALLY THINK OF IT !
Research by W. I CETNAR
Would you place your trust in a surgeon who was about to perform a major operation on you, if he refused to give you his name or credentials?
OR . . .Would you place your faith in an attorney, who was defending you against false accusations of felony charges, if he also refused to give you his name or credentials?
We can see how important it is that we rely on the names and credentials of those who serve us in the important aspects of our life. As in the case of the lawyer , it is essential to know these things, for without this knowledge, we would have no assurance that he would truly and honestly represent you. It is therefore of the utmost importance to know the men, the credentials and the qualifications of those to whom we entrust our spiritual lives!
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has failed the public at this most crucial point, as they refuse to give to their followers the names and credentials of the Translating Committee of their Bible, The New World Translation of The Holy Scriptures ( see pg. 258 of Jehovah' s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose) .
This is more important than the Watchtower Society will admit since the New World Translation Committee has deceived many in their translation of the Bible in the following ways:
1 . They have invented non-existent rules of Greek grammar and then proceeded to follow these rules only when necessary to support their peculiar theology . A clear example of this is John 1: 1 , where the Translation Committee has rendered the Greek , " and the Word was a god".
We cite the appendix of another Watchtower publication The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, (page 1158) for their footnote concerning John 1:1. " The reason for their rendering the Greek word Divine and not God is that it is the Greek noun , Theos' without the definite article . . . .
May we call the Watchtower Society's attention to verses 6 , 12 and 13 ( also found in the first chapter of the Gospel of John) . Here the Greek noun Theos appears without the definite article (as in John 1:.1 ) and yet the Translating Committee has translated each verse as (Jehovah) God.
Another example of non-existent rules followed only when needed to support their theology is found in the forward of the afore mentioned Kingdom Interlinear Translation ( pg. 1 8) . Here we are taught how to restore the Divine name.
We are instructed that we can render the Greek words , "Kyrios",( Lord) and "Theos" , ( God) into the Divine name by determining if the Christian ( Greek) writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). If so, we can render , " Kyrios" , ( Lord) and " Theos" , (God) as Jehovah God.
Once again, the Watchtower , "rule" , is avoided by the Translation Committee as they translated Philippians 2:11 The Apostle Paul quotes Isaiah 45 :23 as he states that,
" every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Jehovah God (Kyrios) to the glory of God the Father.
2. The Translation Committee has made up a Greek tense that is non-existent. We cite the 1950 edition of their New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures rendering of John 8 :58 where they have translated " ego eimi" as " I have been" and state that it is " properly rendered in the "perfect indefinite tense", in the Greek language.
There is NO " perfect indefinite tense" in any language! After the Watchtower Society was informed of this fact, they made the change to the "perfect tense indicative" but as the Greek student knows, it is present tense and is correctly translated " I AM" ( see Exodus 3 :l 4).
3. They have added words to Scripture which changes the meaning of the texts to agree with their theology. Notice the Watchtower' s rendering of Colossians 1: 16, 17, where the word "other" , has been added four times to the text, completely changing its meaning. When Paul wrote those passages that the Son created all things, it is obvious that the Son was not himself-created. The Watchtower however, believes that the Son is also a created being and has therefore added, "other", not found in the Greek Biblical text at all -to make it appear that the Son is also a creature .
As mentioned before the Translation Committee has added the word " a", to John 1:1. to make the Son a creature rather than God Himself. Take note also of the same deceitfulness displayed in Philippians 2 :9 where the word " other" is again added, when it is not found or even suggested in the original. Greek.
4. The men who comprised the Translation Committee had no adequate schooling or background to function as critical Bible translators. The self-appointed "scholars" who made up this Translation Committee were:
N. H.Knorr , F.W. Franz, A.D. Schroeder, G.D. Gangas and M. Henschel. Aside from F.W. Franz (who later became the President,) none of the Translation Committee members knew Biblical Greek or Hebrew and Franz' s ability is open to serious question .
This came out in the Scottish Court Sessions in November, 1954 ( just four years after the release of the Watchtower Scriptures) . The following exchange of questions and answers between the attorney and Franz is taken from the trial transcript :
Q. Have you also made yourself familiar with Hebrew?
A. Yes . . .
Q. So that you have a substantial linguistic apparatus at your command?
A. Yes, for use in my Biblical work.
Q. I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German and French?
A. Y es . . . ( Pursuer' s Proof, Page 7)
Q. You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?
A. I do not speak Hebrew.
Q . Y ou do . not?
A. No.
Q. Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?
A. Which?
Q. That fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis.
A. You mean here?
Q. Yes.
A. No. I wouldn't attempt to do that.
( Pursuer' s Proof, Pages 102, 103).
What Franz failed to do was a simple exercise with which an average first or second year Hebrew student in any seminary would have no difficulty.
It is also interesting to note that no Greek scholar with any credentials will endorse the New World Translation. The late Bill Cetnar, in 1954 (while still a Jehovah's Witness working at Bethel) , was assigned to interview a well known Bible translator, Dr . Edgar J . Goodspeed , asking him for his evaluation and recommendation of the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Dr. Goodspeed replied :
No, I'm afraid that I could not do that. The grammar is regrettable . . . .
We agree with Dr. Goodspeed and go a step further and state that the theology brought forth in this translation is a fatal distortion of Biblical truth.
We ask you not to put your trust in such a bias translation of Holy Scripture or in the Society that has deceived many in the writing of it ; we ask that your faith and trust be placed in the Lord Jesus Christ who said that unless you believe that HE IS THE ETERNAL GOD ( Ego Eimi - I AM ) you will die in your sins (John 8 :24) .
It is because of the danger of the perversion of the New World Translation of Holy Scriptures that this warning has been written. Our concern is for you to come to know the TRUE LORD Jesus Christ. . .
What do the real scholars think of the Watchtower Society's Translation ?
Following are comments by some of the experts in the field of Biblical languages:
Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own Kingdom Interlinear TransIation): "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" "Irepre-hensible" , " 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. 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 rend-ering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1 :l 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 agree 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 Martin (late) (who did not teach Greek but had 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 many of whom are not even Christ-ians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention." ..
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 generaIIy regarded as Great Britain's Ieading 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. Philip B. Harner of Heidelberg College: "The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the Iogos 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 placed 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 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1: l is direct. . . I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian."
Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society: "With regard to John. 1 .1 , there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." (Responsible for the Good News Bible- The committee worked under him.)
Dr. B. F. Westcott (whose Greek text not the English part is used in the Kingdom InterIinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in iv. 24. It is necessarily without the article. . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word. . . . in the third clause "the Word" is declared to be "GOD." and so included in the unity of the Godhead."
Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text, not the English parts used in the Emphatic Diaglott ):
"So numerous, and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1: 1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth".
_____________________________________________________

Earnest

Craig, thanks for your thanks. My support for the NWT is also not unequivocal although I think its "errors" in translation are more often "theological predisposition" than mistranslation.
KGB:
I'll share a little story, my mother a JW told me that there bible was a litteral translation and that all others were a lie. I asked her by whos saying is this? she proceeded to tell me that there was a group or a society that approved they're translation the nwt...Someone wrote me and said. There is no such group or society that does this that religions approve they're own translations...after reading that e-mail I went and tossed the NWT she had given me right in the garbony
Your mother was possibly thinking of a QFR in the Watchtower of 1 February, 1963 which answered the question : " I understand that a group of Bible scholars made a comparison of various Bible translations. Was the New World Translation included in this study?" It said (page 95):
It appears that what your letter inquires about is a book written by Professor Ernest Cadman Colwell, entitled "What Is the Best New Testament?" This book is published by the Chicago University Press and was first printed in 1952. In 1947 Professor Colwell made a study of a number of translations and put them to the test as to sixty-four citations in the book of John. The book contains what Professor Colwell considers the correct rendering of each of those sixty-four citations. The New World Translation was not released until 1950, hence Professor Colwell could not include this translation in his list of tested ones.
However, if any reader will look up what Professor Colwell has to say about these sixty-four citations and will compare these with the New World Translation he will see that the New World Translation merits a score of sixty-four along with Dr. Goodspeed’s translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, which the book gives a perfect score of sixty-four. Colwell’s book being first published in 1952, it was not available until two years after the release of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, which occurred in 1950 at Yankee Stadium. Consequently the New World Bible Translation Committee did not have Colwell’s book for reference when work on the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was being done.
If you are interested in the sixty-four citations for comparison they are listed at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/colwell.htm.
Earnest
UnDisfellowshipped

I noticed this quote from Professor Colwell:
"No scholar today employs this text for any scholarly purpose except as he may use it in writing the history of the Greek New Testament. The King James version is undoubtably the most inaccurate English New Testament in common use today...
Those statements are 100% false according to all of the research I have done so far into which Translations are the most accurate.
I personally believe the exact opposite: I believe that the King James Version is probably the most accurate English New Testament.
From my research, I have found out that Westcott and Hort were Occultists, and that their Translation was not very accurate to the majority of the Manuscripts.
Here is some interesting information about Westcott and Hort:
http://cuttingedge.org/news/n1506ch2.html
All Christians should realize the very essence of our faith is found in the Word of God. Without an inerrant Scripture, no basis for faith would exist. Therefore, it stands to reason that Lucifer would assault true Christianity at its very foundation, and moved to implement that strategy in 1853. A secret committee was formed to introduce a new English translation of the Bible. This committee relied on B.F. Wescott and F.J.A. Hort to furnish a Greek New Testament for the new Revised Version of the Bible. Wescott and Hort began in 1853 and worked in secret for 20 years to produce the Greek New Testament. The interesting aspect of this work was the fact that they were not revising the text used by Tyndale or Coverdale in the earlier English translations, but they gave precedence to two completely different manuscripts from the Alexandrian texts corrupted with Arian and Gnostic philosophies. Their goal seemed only to discredit the Byzantine Text (textus receptus) that represented 98% of the manuscript evidence of the New Testament manuscripts in favor of the 1% in the Alexandrian documents. Textual scholar Dean John William Burgon refuted the claims of the Westcott-Hort Theory as:

"the latest outcome of that violent recoil from the Traditional Greek Text, -- that strange impatience of its authority, or rather denial that it possesses any authority at all, (emphasis added -ed.)-- which began with Lachmann just 50 years ago (viz. in 1831), and has prevailed ever since; its most conspicuous promoters being Tregelles (1857-72) and Tischendorf (1865-72) . . . Drs. Westcott and Hort have in fact outstripped their predecessors in this singular race. Their absolute contempt for the Traditional Text, -- their superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents; (which documents however they freely confess are not more ancient than the 'Traditional Text' which they despise;) -- knows no bounds." (7)
The Greek New Testament of Wescott and Hort was a malicious attempt to destroy the integrity and infallibility of the Word of God, and particularly the deity of Jesus Christ. Though the Revised Version of 1881 was soundly rejected, Wescott and Hort's Greek New Testament has been used for every subsequent translation of the English Bible with the exception of the New King James Version. This attack on the infallible Word of God was an overt attempt by Lucifer to destroy the true Church. Those who have turned from the faith have discarded the King James Version of the Scriptures, and many in even Fundamentalist circles refuse to take a stand for the truth in this matter. However, the King James Version has survived the attacks of its enemies, and remains as the infallible proof of the promise of preservation by Jesus Christ that God's Word will not pass away.
Though some would not categorize the Wescott and Hort Greek New Testament as a contributing factor to the origins of modern apostasy, the principles and methods of Wescott and Hort were specifically aimed at the destruction of the Byzantine Text.
AlanF

Hi Undisfellowshipped,
You have an amazing ability to find stuff on the Net that I've only seen in print for many years. How do you do it?
I don't normally post on John 1:1 issues any more, but I want to point out a couple of logical errors in the material you posted from David Smart. Smart's discussion is fairly good overall, but misses some subtle points. I'm taking a lot of what I'm posting here from memory, largely based on the fine book Jesus As God by Murray J. Harris (Baker, 1992). Harris solidly comes down on the side of a trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1, and explains in great detail why. He examines all reasonably possible renderings of the Greek to English, and explains why he thinks one is better than another. For the most part I agree with his reasoning.
To summarize Harris' comments on the NWT rendering of John 1:1c, he agrees with a number of other Greek scholars that "the Word was a god" is grammatically possible. However, he argues that this rendering is theologically impossible, since John himself was not a polytheist. However, Harris, like David Smart, misses the important point that the Greek theos does not necessarily refer only to God, but is an extremely general term that refers to an entire class of (mostly imaginary) beings. Thus, Zeus was a god; certain human rulers were gods; Satan is a god; etc. Where Harris, Smart and many others make a logical error is in assuming that the qualitative use of theos in John 1:1c refers to the nature of the Christian God (note the capital G) himself, rather than to the nature of a generic theos. That error is called "begging the question" because neither Harris nor Smart nor any other writer I've read argues cogently that "the nature of theos" in John 1:1c means "the nature of God" rather than "the nature of a god". They merely state it as an assumption, and that is their logical error.
English and koine Greek have severe limitations with respect to one another, both grammatically and culturally. Saying "kai theos en ho logos" in Greek is somewhat like saying "and human was the messenger" in English (obviously I'm changing the specific words to illustrate my point). In English, "human" has several distinct meanings. It can refer to the category "human" or to a specific person, but sometimes the distinction is irrelevant, or even impossible to decipher. Thus, in most cases the phrases "human was the messenger" and "a human was the messenger" are indistinguishable in meaning. So it is in the Greek with "and god was the word". Grammatically, "and god was the word" is indistinguishable from "and a god was the word", especially because both meanings are consistent with "kai theos en ho logos". Therefore, to render "god" as "God" here is a theological interpretation, just as it would be an interpretation to render "human was the messenger" as "Human was the messenger". I'll leave you to figure out the difference between "god" and "God", and "human" and "Human", but I know you'll understand my point.
AlanF

New World Translation Errors

John 1:1 and Watchtower Dishonesty

Conclusion

Share this