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"?

[polonius]

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"?

Settling for God or god is not the biggest difficulty. How is human understanding to make sense of the "WORD" being in the beginning? What is meant by beginning? What is meant by "logos" being "with" God?

It would seem that the balance of the sentence, with God and was God, requires both to be capitalised. If questions of grammar arise it would be a brave person who based a theology on a grammatical nicety. I recall that we would spend an entire lecture debating why Virgil used an indicative rather than a subjunctive when describing an oak tree. But were the outcome to determine Christ's deity, I think we would want more evidence than grammatical.

RESPONSE: The phrase "In the Beginning" indicates that Jesus was not eternal. The beginning refers to the start of creation. It cannot pertain to eternity as in the case of God.

[onewithhim]

The simple way to look it is this way.

Constructing deep theology from a grammatical consideration is unwise. The point being made is about grammatical usage, but there are exceptions to every rule. When we translate from an ancient language we always encounter singularities, and this place in the text, where the "WORD" is being generated from first principles is a good place for an exception in the use of a word!

That is what might be called a cop-out of convenience. Just because an exception to the rule might support someone's cherished, though possibly misdirected, belief, there is no real reason to consider it acceptable.

[2timothy316]

The simple way to look it is this way.

Constructing deep theology from a grammatical consideration is unwise. The point being made is about grammatical usage, but there are exceptions to every rule. When we translate from an ancient language we always encounter singularities, and this place in the text, where the "WORD" is being generated from first principles is a good place for an exception in the use of a word!

That is what might be called a cop-out of convenience. Just because an exception to the rule might support someone's cherished, though possibly misdirected, belief, there is no real reason to consider it acceptable.

What I have found is that people look too much into something that is just, it is what it is. Why make things overly complex?

What I have seen is that 'interpretation' [not translation] is guided by the heart. Yet the heart is more treacherous than anything else. (Jer 17:9) Which is why I don't trust those that let their heart guide them when interpreting the Bible.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to Justin108]

Virtually every scholar of Koine Greek who is not a Jehovah’s Witness says that it should be translated “the Word was God� and not “the Word was a god.�

William Mounce, Dan Wallace, A. T. Robertson, Robert Funk, Stanley Porter, and Rodney Decker are among the many notable experts in the field who insist that this is the correction translation.

The lack of the definitive article before God (theon) in Greek opens the door for us to use the indefinite article in English, but the overall grammar and context make this a forced eisegesis.

I disagree. Please read JW's clear, concise, excellent posts #2 & #3. It's all in there.


.

Note the term 'virtually' every scholar. How does he know who is a JW Greek scholar and who isn't. Is there a list somewhere? LOL

So I like to see this list.

Meanwhile no scholar who agrees it should be 'a god' dare not say anything from fear of being beaten into the world's mold. Those with courage don't mind. They get labeled' "JWs"....good for them!!

[marco]

The phrase "In the Beginning" indicates that Jesus was not eternal. The beginning refers to the start of creation. It cannot pertain to eternity as in the case of God.

Hello Polonius - in the beginning is probably - and I would avoid a firm assertion because we are not inhabitants of John's mind - a simple parallel with Genesis. It could indicate the miraculous springing into life of Jesus through the issuing of God's word. So the word refers to the incarnation, which is a rather good word.

It could refer to the start of creation and that would involve scratching our heads as to what Jesus was doing with Adam and Eve.

It could refer to the swirling chaos before God, by his word, introduced order, to a "time" before time.

It could simply be a piece of poetry, where God's word echoed through silent space.

And were Marco a lot cleverer than he is, he could introduce a host of other possibilities. Or we could go by learned opinion and just settle on the word of folk who have done much study in theology. Had Einstein used this tactic, we would not have the theory of relativity, since the majority view of learned individuals was wrong.

[marco]

That is what might be called a cop-out of convenience. Just because an exception to the rule might support someone's cherished, though possibly misdirected, belief, there is no real reason to consider it acceptable.

Dear onewithhim, it is normally Marco who is saying this sort of thing to you. Like you, I see no great reason for taking Jesus as Yahweh. It makes little sense.

But to be fair to the opposition I am saying that it is not good enough to bring grammar in as concrete proof; for the method here is to make a statistical survey of how certain words are used and go by frequency. That's fine on a minor point. On a major pronouncement, it is a weak argument and the reason is simply this: that if John is going to use a word in a special way, in an exceptional way, this passage is the very one that would be the best time to do it.

Cop-outs and convenience are not my thing.

[onewithhim]

That is what might be called a cop-out of convenience. Just because an exception to the rule might support someone's cherished, though possibly misdirected, belief, there is no real reason to consider it acceptable.

Dear onewithhim, it is normally Marco who is saying this sort of thing to you. Like you, I see no great reason for taking Jesus as Yahweh. It makes little sense.

Thank you for that.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 16 by marco]

"Dear onewithhim, it is normally Marco who is saying this sort of thing to you. Like you, I see no great reason for taking Jesus as Yahweh. It makes little sense. "

It is not what we think but what doctine is saying or not saying.

Jehovah of the OT was a Saviour to come and he did not have the human nature untill his descent into the world as the Word - the divine wisdom: the Word was with God and the Word was God.
Jesus was not Jehovah but his soul was while his human body provided by Mary.
After the ressurection the glorified humanity that Christ took upon himself is the direct path to God. That is why we pray, in Jesus name.

[marco]

It is not what we think but what doctine is saying or not saying.

And to understand what the doctrine teaches we have to think, Monta.

Jesus was not Jehovah but his soul was while his human body provided by Mary.
After the ressurection the glorified humanity that Christ took upon himself is the direct path to God. That is why we pray, in Jesus name.

As I said, it makes no sense to call Jesus Jehovah for the simple reason that Jesus directed people away from him to his Father. Had this complicated union been true, then Jesus would somehow have explained it to his followers. He didn't.

At no point in Scripture does Christ ask people to pray to him. He does say that he is the way to the Father, which is quite different from saying that he IS the Father, in any possible sense. In fact, going by how Jesus spoke, we would imagine he would be horrified at being regarded as Jehovah in any shape or form. He accepted that the Father sent him; and works through him. His prayer to the Father to remove his chalice would be an absurdity were Jesus God.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

Semantics (where we place words) plays a different role in Greek than English.

If John had wished to make the Word simply a god, the greek would have run like this: kai ha logos hv theos. In which case, John would've been the first Arian.

If John had wished to conflate the two, the greek wouldve run "kai ha logos hv ha theos", making him a proponent of Sabellianism.

What we have however is "kai theos hv ha logos", which makes him Trinitarian.