Understanding Jesus Christ <GOD> the Word

[Zorn]

To understand the Scriptures, we must understand …
what is said, who (or what) it was said about,
when it was said, and the time period it was referring to.
The Lord wants us to believe …
NOT what someone taught us, but what the Scriptures say!

BEFORE the Incarnation

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (the Father),
and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God (the Father).” (John 1:1-2)
In the beginning … God the Word was actually the Second Person of the Trinity.

DURING the Incarnation

First: God the Holy Spirit performed a miracle in the virgin Mary’s womb …
producing the fetus who would be Jesus Christ/Messiah (Matthew 1:18,20; Luke 1:35).
IMO, Jesus inherited Mary’s sin nature … so He was “fully man”,
but because He also was “fully God” He was able to overcome His sin nature.

Next: God the Word came down from heaven and became flesh-human-Jesus.
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us …” (John 1:14)
The Word “became” Jesus (when?) … so, Jesus actually was God the Word.

AFTER the Incarnation

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard … seen …
concerning the Word of life –- the life was manifested … that eternal life
which was with (God) the Father (in the beginning) and was manifested to us …” (1 John 1:1-2)
The Word (God) was manifested to the world as the God-Man, Jesus Christ.
And so, “… His (Jesus’) name is called The Word of God.” (Revelation 19:13)

“And now, O Father, glorify Me (Jesus) together with Yourself,
with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” (John 17:5)
Jesus is speaking here as the One who He knew He really was (God the Word).

“… that they may know You, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ whom You have sent …” (John 17:3)
Yes, Jesus Christ was sent, but NOT sent from heaven …
He was sent into the world as the God-man.

“Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God.” (John 4:2)
“For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not
confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.” (2 John 7)
Here John is equating Jesus with God the Word …
who came in the flesh as the God-Man, Jesus Christ.

[Zorn]

People can choose to insert an "a" wherever they desire.
They can even do it to change the meaning of a verse.
E.G. Even when the context does not demand an "a", it can be added
... just like all kinds of false translations of words/verses can be written.

[onewithhim]

The criticism against the Witnesses regarding the use of the indefinite article in "a god" in John 1:1 is illogical.

In Acts 28:6, the same article appears with the same noun in all the major English translations I've reviewed. Some of them here:

ESV
They were waiting for him to swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But when they had waited a long time and saw no misfortune come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.

DARBY
But they expected that he would have swollen or fallen down suddenly dead. But when they had expected a long time and saw nothing unusual happen to him, changing their opinion, they said he was a god.

KJV
Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

ASV
But they expected that he would have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but when they were long in expectation and beheld nothing amiss came to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

So the "a" appears where there is no article in the Greek. This is the proper way to translate from Greek to English. All those other Versions are mistaken, and they follow after the King James translation, mistaking it for an authoritative translating example. If "a" can be inserted in the verse above, then why not at John 1:1?

[Capbook]

The criticism against the Witnesses regarding the use of the indefinite article in "a god" in John 1:1 is illogical.

In Acts 28:6, the same article appears with the same noun in all the major English translations I've reviewed. Some of them here:

ESV
They were waiting for him to swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But when they had waited a long time and saw no misfortune come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.

DARBY
But they expected that he would have swollen or fallen down suddenly dead. But when they had expected a long time and saw nothing unusual happen to him, changing their opinion, they said he was a god.

KJV
Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

ASV
But they expected that he would have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but when they were long in expectation and beheld nothing amiss came to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

So the "a" appears where there is no article in the Greek. This is the proper way to translate from Greek to English. All those other Versions are mistaken, and they follow after the King James translation, mistaking it for an authoritative translating example. If "a" can be inserted in the verse above, then why not at John 1:1?

Your interpretation is out of context, it talks about Paul and not about Jesus the word.
And you believe the words of the barbarians?
Didn't you find any translations that used "a" in John 1:1?

Act 28:3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and put them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened on his hand.
Act 28:4 When the barbarians saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, "No doubt this man is a murderer. Though he has escaped from the sea, Justice   has not allowed him to live."
Act 28:5 However he shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no harm.
Act 28:6 But they were expecting that he was going to swell up or suddenly to fall down dead. So after they had waited for a long time and saw nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and began saying that he was a god.

[Capbook]

The criticism against the Witnesses regarding the use of the indefinite article in "a god" in John 1:1 is illogical.

Do the word of God below illogical to you? None suits your "a" translation of John 1:1.
You quote Acts 28:6 whom talked about Paul not of Jesus.
Use context please.

John 1:1

(ABP+) In G1722  the beginning G746  was G1510.7.3  the G3588  word, G3056  and G2532  the G3588  word G3056  was G1510.7.3  with G4314 G3588  God, G2316  and G2532  [4God G2316  3was G1510.7.3  1the G3588  2word]. G3056 

(ASV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(BBE) From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.

(CEV) In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.

(ERV) Before the world began, the Word was there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(ESV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(ESV+)  R0 R1 In the beginning was  R2 the Word, and  R3 the Word was with God, and  R4 the Word was God.

(GNB) In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(Greek ABP+) εν G1722  αρχη G746  ην G1510.7.3  ο G3588  λογος G3056  και G2532  ο G3588  λογος G3056  ην G1510.7.3  προς G4314  τον G3588  θεον G2316  και G2532  θεος G2316  ην G1510.7.3  ο G3588  λογος G3056 

(Greek NT) ᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

(Greek NT BYZ+) εν G1722 PREP  αρχη G746 N-DSF  ην G1510 V-IAI-3S  ο G3588 T-NSM  λογος G3056 N-NSM  και G2532 CONJ  ο G3588 T-NSM  λογος G3056 N-NSM  ην G1510 V-IAI-3S  προς G4314 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  θεον G2316 N-ASM  και G2532 CONJ  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ην G1510 V-IAI-3S  ο G3588 T-NSM  λογος G3056 N-NSM 

(Greek NT TR) εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

(Greek NT TR+) εν G1722 PREP  αρχη G746 N-DSF  ην G1510 V-IAI-3S  ο G3588 T-NSM  λογος G3056 N-NSM  και G2532 CONJ  ο G3588 T-NSM  λογος G3056 N-NSM  ην G1510 V-IAI-3S  προς G4314 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  θεον G2316 N-ASM  και G2532 CONJ  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ην G1510 V-IAI-3S  ο G3588 T-NSM  λογος G3056 N-NSM 

(Greek NT WH+) εν G1722 PREP  αρχη G746 N-DSF  ην G1510 V-IAI-3S  ο G3588 T-NSM  λογος G3056 N-NSM  και G2532 CONJ  ο G3588 T-NSM  λογος G3056 N-NSM  ην G1510 V-IAI-3S  προς G4314 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  θεον G2316 N-ASM  και G2532 CONJ  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ην G1510 V-IAI-3S  ο G3588 T-NSM  λογος G3056 N-NSM 

(GW) In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(Hebrew OLNT) בראשית היה הדבר, והדבר היה עם האלוהים, ואלוהים היה הדבר.

(ISV) In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

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

(KJV+) In G1722  the beginning G746  was G2258  the G3588  Word, G3056  and G2532  the G3588  Word G3056  was G2258  with G4314  God, G2316  and G2532  the G3588  Word G3056  was G2258  God. G2316 

(LITV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(LSV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

(MKJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(UASV+) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. N1 

(YLT) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

[Capbook]

People can choose to insert an "a" wherever they desire.
They can even do it to change the meaning of a verse.
E.G. Even when the context does not demand an "a", it can be added
... just like all kinds of false translations of words/verses can be written.

Then why many high credentialed translators did not?
Even text critical translations does not do what the NWT did.

[Bible_Student]

The criticism against the Witnesses regarding the use of the indefinite article in "a god" in John 1:1 is illogical.

In Acts 28:6, the same article appears with the same noun in all the major English translations I've reviewed. Some of them here:

ESV
They were waiting for him to swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But when they had waited a long time and saw no misfortune come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.

DARBY
But they expected that he would have swollen or fallen down suddenly dead. But when they had expected a long time and saw nothing unusual happen to him, changing their opinion, they said he was a god.

KJV
Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

ASV
But they expected that he would have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but when they were long in expectation and beheld nothing amiss came to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

Your interpretation is out of context...

Certainly not. This is a matter of grammar, and as illustrated, the rule is consistently applied in Acts 28:6. This matter has nothing to do with theological position.

Why is it that the grammatical rule for using indefinite articles isn't applied in John 1:1? Is it possible that the logical implications, which might challenge certain theological perspectives, lead some to apply the rules inconsistently during translation?

[onewithhim]

The criticism against the Witnesses regarding the use of the indefinite article in "a god" in John 1:1 is illogical.

In Acts 28:6, the same article appears with the same noun in all the major English translations I've reviewed. Some of them here:

ESV
They were waiting for him to swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But when they had waited a long time and saw no misfortune come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.

DARBY
But they expected that he would have swollen or fallen down suddenly dead. But when they had expected a long time and saw nothing unusual happen to him, changing their opinion, they said he was a god.

KJV
Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

ASV
But they expected that he would have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but when they were long in expectation and beheld nothing amiss came to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

So the "a" appears where there is no article in the Greek. This is the proper way to translate from Greek to English. All those other Versions are mistaken, and they follow after the King James translation, mistaking it for an authoritative translating example. If "a" can be inserted in the verse above, then why not at John 1:1?

Your interpretation is out of context, it talks about Paul and not about Jesus the word.
And you believe the words of the barbarians?
Didn't you find any translations that used "a" in John 1:1?

It is an example of translating "a god" which is just like "a god" at John 1:1. It shows you that it was translated correctly in the verse about Paul, so why not correctly at John 1:1?

I told you there are versions that translate John 1:1 as "a god." Did you check out The Emphatic Diaglott by Wilson?

[Capbook]

The criticism against the Witnesses regarding the use of the indefinite article in "a god" in John 1:1 is illogical.

In Acts 28:6, the same article appears with the same noun in all the major English translations I've reviewed. Some of them here:

ESV
They were waiting for him to swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But when they had waited a long time and saw no misfortune come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.

DARBY
But they expected that he would have swollen or fallen down suddenly dead. But when they had expected a long time and saw nothing unusual happen to him, changing their opinion, they said he was a god.

KJV
Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

ASV
But they expected that he would have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but when they were long in expectation and beheld nothing amiss came to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

Your interpretation is out of context...

Certainly not. This is a matter of grammar, and as illustrated, the rule is consistently applied in Acts 28:6. This matter has nothing to do with theological position.

Why is it that the grammatical rule for using indefinite articles isn't applied in John 1:1? Is it possible that the logical implications, which might challenge certain theological perspectives, lead some to apply the rules inconsistently during translation?

Yes, grammar.
Who is the subject of the topic.

[Capbook]

The criticism against the Witnesses regarding the use of the indefinite article in "a god" in John 1:1 is illogical.

In Acts 28:6, the same article appears with the same noun in all the major English translations I've reviewed. Some of them here:

ESV
They were waiting for him to swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But when they had waited a long time and saw no misfortune come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.

DARBY
But they expected that he would have swollen or fallen down suddenly dead. But when they had expected a long time and saw nothing unusual happen to him, changing their opinion, they said he was a god.

KJV
Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

ASV
But they expected that he would have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but when they were long in expectation and beheld nothing amiss came to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

So the "a" appears where there is no article in the Greek. This is the proper way to translate from Greek to English. All those other Versions are mistaken, and they follow after the King James translation, mistaking it for an authoritative translating example. If "a" can be inserted in the verse above, then why not at John 1:1?

Your interpretation is out of context, it talks about Paul and not about Jesus the word.
And you believe the words of the barbarians?
Didn't you find any translations that used "a" in John 1:1?

It is an example of translating "a god" which is just like "a god" at John 1:1. It shows you that it was translated correctly in the verse about Paul, so why not correctly at John 1:1?

I told you there are versions that translate John 1:1 as "a god." Did you check out The Emphatic Diaglott by Wilson?

Nowhere is the comparison.
Original Greek text of Act 28:6 does have an "a" while the original Greek text of John 1:1 does not have.
In short in Acts 28:6 there is no insert of "a", original Greek have it.
While in John 1:1 NWT insert "a".

Act 28:6 And the ones G3588 G1161  expecting G4328  him G1473  to be about G3195  to become inflamed, G4092  or G2228  to fall down G2667  suddenly G869  dead, G3498  [2for G1909  3a long time  G4183  1and] G1161  of their G1473  expecting G4328  and G2532  viewing G2334  nothing G3367  out of place G824  [2to G1519  3him G1473  1was happening], G1096  changing their minds, G3328  they said G3004  [3a god G2316  1him G1473  2to be]. G1510.1

[JehovahsWitness]

Original Greek text of Act 28:6 does have an "a" while the original Greek text of John 1:1 does not have.

Ancient Greek does not have an indefinite article (a/an)