Curtains. You asked a friend and you went through the verses and found that you disagree with my information, right? Tell me, is your friend an ancient languages scholar?
Instead of asking your friend, why not look into the vast resources that you have at your finger tips. I am not a scholar [by any stretch], I do however have access to scholarly material....just like you. Search for 'online bible comparisons' and you will find the scholarly resources that will give you true interpretations of the scriptures in Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Hebrew, etc. You can see exactly how each word is translated and compare them to other translations.
Wonderment- ditto. Of course these arguements hold up. Look it up yourself. Whether it is an old arguement or not doesn't matter. What matters is what's true. The Watchtower wil assert that the NWT is the most accurate translation in the world and will tell of scholars who support their positions, right?
In the KIT, the Watchtower uses the work of biblical scholar Julius Mantey to support it's translation of John 1;1. When Mantey found out he wrote a letter to the Watchtower [letter dated July 11, 1974] goes as follows.
You quoted me out of context...{I}t 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. Your quotations of Colwells's rule [of Greek grammar] is inadequate because it quotes only part of his findings. You did not write this strong assertion: "A predicate nominative which procedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun soley because the absence of the article." Colwell and Harner have stated that theos in John 1;1 is not indefinite and should not be translated as 'a god'. Watchtower writers appear to be the only ones advocating such a translation now. The evidence appears to be 99% against them.
respectfully,
dc