Is the NWT translation of John 1:1 correct?

[Justin108]

John 1:1 (NWT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

John 1:1 (MEV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:1 (KJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Why does the Jehovah's Witness translation of John 1:1 differ from virtually every other translation? Which is the correct translation of John 1:1? "The Word was a god" or "The Word was God"?

[Tcg]

I trust that 2 Tim 3:16, 17 to be true.

Then you trust that some unspecified group of Hebrew scriptures are trustworthy. This passage can't possible be referring to anything in the NT as none of those books would have been considered scripture when 2 Tim 3:16, 17 was written.

Some hadn't even been written yet. The book of John itself hadn't been written when the author of 2 Timothy wrote this passage so it certainly can't be used to support the reliability of the passage in question.

You are aware that the letters of the NT were considered God inspired even when the 1st century Christians first read them right? 1 Thessalonians 2:13 says, "Indeed, that is why we also thank God unceasingly, because when you received God’s word, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God, which is also at work in you believers."

In 2 Peter 3:15, 16, Peter refers to Paul's writing long with 'the other Scriptures'. So the letters were already being called scripture before the end of the 1st century. It says, "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." - 2 Pe 3:15, 16

Paul is not talking about just OT he is talking about the very letters from him and the other NT writers we are still reading today. It's not like those letters lost their 'God inspired' status over time. So therefore the idea that Paul was only talking about the OT is dismissed as 2 Peter 3:15, 16 disproves it.

Given that 2 Peter was written after 2 Timothy, it can't be used to support your claim.

By the way, I never claimed that 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 is referring only to the OT. That concept didn't exist then either. It refers to some unspecified group of Hebrew scriptures.

[Overcomer]

Jehovah's Witness wrote:

Someone that presents so-called trinity texts such as John 1:1, John 8:58, Phi 2:6 with a view to supporting the trinity is, in my experience, coming from a position where he has not made enough progress on the basics.

Are you saying that Greek scholars such as Dan Wallace (one of the world's leading textual critics), Bruce Metzger, Gordon Fee, William Mounce, F.F. Bruce, C.H. Dodd, D.A Carson and a host of others have "not made enough progress on the basics" of the Greek language?

Can you tell me who translated the New World Testament and their qualifications?

Have you "made enough progress on the basics" to be sure that the JW church has translated the Bible correctly?

Jehovah's Witness wrote:

As for the intellectuals and the so called "experts", I believe they have a vested interest in defending their position;

Could this not be true of Jehovah Witnesses? Could they not have done their own translation of the Bible to make it say what they want it to say?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 51 by Tcg]

Regardless when any NT letter was written, the instruction in them was considered to be from God by 1st century congregations. If they trusted them I have no problems trusting them. I also trust that the All Powerful can provide a book that is good for man of God to be completely equipped for every good work. like 2 Tim 3:16 says. If you don't then, ok.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 51 by Tcg]

Regardless when any NT letter was written, the instruction in them was considered to be from God by 1st century congregations.

This is a different claim than we have been discussing. It is also a claim you haven't supported. In any case, it is irrelevant to your claims about 2 Timothy.

[Overcomer]

tigger2 wrote:

NT Greek may be found in different word orders because the Greek identifies a word's position as it would be in English purely by its ending. So, when we see the -on ending on theon, for example, we understand that it is not being used as a subject (or p.n.) because of the word ending. Instead it is an object (direct object, object of preposition, etc.) When it is meant for 'God,' it will have the definite article (ton) modifying it.

It's true that the ending indicates the function of a word in a Greek sentence. That means that the difference in the spelling of "theos" vs. "theon" is due to the function of the word, not its meaning.

[William]

[Replying to post 50 by 2timothy316]

If Jesus is The Word of GOD then it should read like this;

1 Thessalonians 2:13 says, "Indeed, that is why we also thank God unceasingly, because when you received Jesus, who you heard about from us, you accepted him not as the word of men but, just he truthfully is, as the word of God, who is also at work in you believers."

That it of course says no such thing should - at the very least - cause one to question. Is it a wise thing to be carrying around a book and knocking on peoples doors claiming the book is 'The Word of GOD' when the book itself claims Jesus referred to himself as 'The word of GOD'? Not scripture or holy writ. Himself alone.

What would one say if in finally facing Jesus he asks one "Why did you say and believe those things?" and you reply 'because The Word of GOD told me so" and he replies "Depart from me..you do not know me"?

See? It is not about following Timothy or Paul or holding a book up and proclaiming it to be 'The Word of GOD'.