John 1:1 (a God)

[scriptures]

</sup>

[Sketch]

<div align="center">http://test.diehardems.com/images/AwJeez.jpg
Aw Jeez... not this stuff again...
</div>

[Steadfast]

I am not a Greek scholar, but a friend who is made this compelling argument:

When the Apostle John wrote John 1:1, he used two forms of the Greek word for God. This is a very important point, when translating the verse into english. There&#39;s "θεον" (qeon) and there&#39;s also "θεος" (qeos).

Even to an untrained eye, it&#39;s clear that the final letter of the word is different. Yet, most modern english translations simply translate both forms as "God", even though there&#39;s a slightly different meaning. The only real linguistic difference between the two forms, is that &#39;qeos&#39; is accusative and is &#39;qeon&#39; nominative.

Curiously, the form &#39;qeos&#39; is also used at 2 Corinthians 4:4 in reference to Satan. Yet, that isn&#39;t translated into english as "God", but as "god". So that raises the question — why do they translate it with a capital G in John, and a lower case G in 2 Corinthians?

Shouldn&#39;t it be translated the same way in both cases, even though one refers to Satan and the other to Jesus? If Jesus gets a capital "G" with that word, then Satan should too. Yet, the world doesn&#39;t want to admit to this discrepancy because then they&#39;d be forced to acknowledge that there isn&#39;t a trinity, or forced to invent the idea that Satan is also God. What a mess that would make for their churches.

[littleone]

I am not a Greek scholar, but a friend who is made this compelling argument:

When the Apostle John wrote John 1:1, he used two forms of the Greek word for God. This is a very important point, when translating the verse into english. There&#39;s "θεον" (qeon) and there&#39;s also "θεος" (qeos).

Even to an untrained eye, it&#39;s clear that the final letter of the word is different. Yet, most modern english translations simply translate both forms as "God", even though there&#39;s a slightly different meaning. The only real linguistic difference between the two forms, is that &#39;qeos&#39; is accusative and is &#39;qeon&#39; nominative.

Curiously, the form &#39;qeos&#39; is also used at 2 Corinthians 4:4 in reference to Satan. Yet, that isn&#39;t translated into english as "God", but as "god". So that raises the question — why do they translate it with a capital G in John, and a lower case G in 2 Corinthians?

Shouldn&#39;t it be translated the same way in both cases, even though one refers to Satan and the other to Jesus? If Jesus gets a capital "G" with that word, then Satan should too. Yet, the world doesn&#39;t want to admit to this discrepancy because then they&#39;d be forced to acknowledge that there isn&#39;t a trinity, or forced to invent the idea that Satan is also God. What a mess that would make for their churches.[/b]θεός (Theos) is used in both instances according to the texts I&#39;ve read.

[scriptures]

<div align="center">http://test.diehardems.com/images/AwJeez.jpg
Aw Jeez... not this stuff again...
[/b][/quote]


Sorry, but I think this John 1:1 will go on until Christ returns. We have to defend our faith so long as we live.

[scriptures]

I am not a Greek scholar, but a friend who is made this compelling argument:

When the Apostle John wrote John 1:1, he used two forms of the Greek word for God. This is a very important point, when translating the verse into english. There&#39;s "θεον" (qeon) and there&#39;s also "θεος" (qeos).

Even to an untrained eye, it&#39;s clear that the final letter of the word is different. Yet, most modern english translations simply translate both forms as "God", even though there&#39;s a slightly different meaning. The only real linguistic difference between the two forms, is that &#39;qeos&#39; is accusative and is &#39;qeon&#39; nominative.

Curiously, the form &#39;qeos&#39; is also used at 2 Corinthians 4:4 in reference to Satan. Yet, that isn&#39;t translated into english as "God", but as "god". So that raises the question — why do they translate it with a capital G in John, and a lower case G in 2 Corinthians?

Shouldn&#39;t it be translated the same way in both cases, even though one refers to Satan and the other to Jesus? If Jesus gets a capital "G" with that word, then Satan should too. Yet, the world doesn&#39;t want to admit to this discrepancy because then they&#39;d be forced to acknowledge that there isn&#39;t a trinity, or forced to invent the idea that Satan is also God. What a mess that would make for their churches.[/b]

I think it&#39;s the reverse, theos is nominative case and theon is accusative case, we have to be careful in using grammar. thanks

[scriptures]

<div class='quotemain'>I am not a Greek scholar, but a friend who is made this compelling argument:

When the Apostle John wrote John 1:1, he used two forms of the Greek word for God. This is a very important point, when translating the verse into english. There&#39;s "θεον" (qeon) and there&#39;s also "θεος" (qeos).

Even to an untrained eye, it&#39;s clear that the final letter of the word is different. Yet, most modern english translations simply translate both forms as "God", even though there&#39;s a slightly different meaning. The only real linguistic difference between the two forms, is that &#39;qeos&#39; is accusative and is &#39;qeon&#39; nominative.

Curiously, the form &#39;qeos&#39; is also used at 2 Corinthians 4:4 in reference to Satan. Yet, that isn&#39;t translated into english as "God", but as "god". So that raises the question — why do they translate it with a capital G in John, and a lower case G in 2 Corinthians?

Shouldn&#39;t it be translated the same way in both cases, even though one refers to Satan and the other to Jesus? If Jesus gets a capital "G" with that word, then Satan should too. Yet, the world doesn&#39;t want to admit to this discrepancy because then they&#39;d be forced to acknowledge that there isn&#39;t a trinity, or forced to invent the idea that Satan is also God. What a mess that would make for their churches.[/b]θεός (Theos) is used in both instances according to the texts I&#39;ve read.
[/b][/quote]

Brother, what instances are you trying to say?

[Steadfast]

Dear Scriptures:

The two scriptures are the two mentioned in the post: John 1:1 and 2 Corinthians 4:4.

While I was interested in responding to your post, I am already fully convinced that the trinity doctrine is false, and pagan-sourced, so I am not interested in getting into a heated debate on the subject. :189:

Steadfast

[scriptures]

Dear Scriptures:

The two scriptures are the two mentioned in the post: John 1:1 and 2 Corinthians 4:4.

While I was interested in responding to your post, I am already fully convinced that the trinity doctrine is false, and pagan-sourced, so I am not interested in getting into a heated debate on the subject. :189:

Steadfast[/b]

Brother, like you I am fully convince the Jesus is distinct person and not part of trinity. That view will not change by any translation be it "a god" or "was God". But we are here not for us alone but for so many people asking for reason.

The reasoning I mentioned from my first posting was known to me for the past 20 yrs. I waited for the WTS to refute it but none came.

Now we have internet and we can easily communicate and share. I just want to know how our brothers answer such question. Thank you.

[Nambo]

</sup>[/b]
I havnt got the time to look it up for you, but the same critism they are using against the Witnesses for using the indefinate article "a" at one point and not another, can equaly be used against them as they leave it out at John 1.1 but add it in the scripture where (was it the corintians) accused Paul of being "A" god, not THE God like they do with the same word at John 1.1

Personally, I belive Jesus on this point, where he says he is the Son of God, I belive Jesus never once lied.

[scriptures]

Dear Nambo,

That is actually avoiding the question. Maybe you should analyze it carefully them share with us whatever finding you can make. Thank you

[Londoner]

</span>1:1 en archê ên o logos kai o logos ên pros ton theon kai theos ên o logos
</span></span>

Hi scriptures

Let&#39;s answer this with another translation. New English Translation. John 1:1

<span style="color:#000080">1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.

This translation I believe captures the thought John had in mind. "The Word was fully God." Or the Word was "divine", in another translation. In other words, Jesus is the full reflection of his heavenly father. "He that has seen me, has seen the Father, also."

Jehovah&#39;s Witnesses agree with that. Notice in 1:1, it says the Word "was with God". You cannot be "with someone", and be that "someone" at the same time. If I am with you, for example, "scriptures", I cannot also be you "scriptures", can I?

And notice that only two individuals are mentioned in 1:1, therefore refuting the Trinity which means "three".


Londoner

[SlaveForJah]

<div class='quotemain'></span>1:1 en archê ên o logos kai o logos ên pros ton theon kai theos ên o logos
</span></span>

Hi scriptures

Let&#39;s answer this with another translation. New English Translation. John 1:1

<span style="color:#000080">1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.

This translation I believe captures the thought John had in mind. "The Word was fully God." Or the Word was "divine", in another translation. In other words, Jesus is the full reflection of his heavenly father. "He that has seen me, has seen the Father, also."

Jehovah&#39;s Witnesses agree with that. Notice in 1:1, it says the Word "was with God". You cannot be "with someone", and be that "someone" at the same time. If I am with you, for example, "scriptures", I cannot also be you "scriptures", can I?

And notice that only two individuals are mentioned in 1:1, therefore refuting the Trinity which means "three".


Londoner
[/b][/quote]

Hello scriptures,

I must concur with Londoner here. (Good to see you again, Londoner!) I agree with the idea that John was not calling the Word Jehovah, but was making a statement about the QUALITY of the Word&#39;s being, in other words Divinity. Paul bears this out in what is often used by the Trinitarians to make their case for the Mystery God, although the chosen passage actually does the opposite, proving exactly John&#39;s point here in 1:1. Paul says the following: "8 Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; 9 because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily." - Colossians 2:8,9 I believe that the "philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men" is referring to the then-already-well-established pattern of TriUnity in the various pagan gods and pantheons of Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Babylonian and Assyrian cultures. I think it&#39;s quite obvious that if any of the inspired writers had believed Christ to be God Almighty, they WOULD HAVE SAID SO. How much sense does it make that if the commission was to preach Truth, that they would have left out the very nature of the Creator or failed to mention Christ as God if indeed that were the Truth? The simple fact is that they DID NOT believe Christ to be Jehovah.

Really, Jehovah has made it as simple as possible. Jehovah is our Father. Simple. Easy. Sufficiently descriptive. No fluff or filler. What more simple, universally understood relationship could describe the relationship between Jesus and Jehovah? On how much more of a fundamental plane can you represent that relationship? Everyone understands a father and son. No one mistakes themselves for their father. Actually, I personally feel like I&#39;VE already said too much about it. Why must the Trinitarians make these things so complex? Father and son. End of story.

Praise Jah this day and give Him thanks and Glory.

Come Lord Jesus

SlaveForJah

[scriptures]

Dear Londoner and SlaveofJah,

Thank very much for the reply, I am completely in agreement with you brothers as to YHWH as the only true God and Jesus as son of God, they are not part of Trinity.

But a book circulating in our country (Philippines) is using John 1:6,12,13 to refute the NWT rendering of Jh 1:1.

JH 1:1, the 2nd theos (Jesus) has no definite article, NWT rendered it as "and the word was a god".

JH 1:6,12 and 13 theos has no definite article so applying the same logic it should be translated as "representative of a god ", "children of a god" and "but from a god".

Of course we will object to it, but we did it in John 1:1!!!

How do we refute this kind of reasoning?

[scriptures]

May I request for Mr. Watchman to help us out here....

[watchman]

May I request for Mr. Watchman to help us out here....[/b]

In my opinion it is a complete waste of time to focus on one letter or lack of a letter in one verse in the Bible. The truth regarding the relationship between Jehovah and Jesus does not rest upon whether John 1:1 should be translated with an "a" or not. The truth is revealed in all of Scripture. The Devil, of course, wants to distract us from the spirit of the truth and get us to focus on inconsequential arguments regarding grammar and punctuation of ancient Greek. Don&#39;t fall for it.

Watchman

[Sketch]

The truth regarding the relationship between Jehovah and Jesus does not rest upon whether John 1:1 should be translated with an "a" or not. The truth is revealed in all of Scripture.[/b]
Can I get an "AMEN!!!"

[James]

<div class='quotemain'>The truth regarding the relationship between Jehovah and Jesus does not rest upon whether John 1:1 should be translated with an "a" or not. The truth is revealed in all of Scripture.[/b]
Can I get an "AMEN!!!"
[/b][/quote]

Well, since you asked.... James</span>

[Berean]

I agree 110% as well. Granted, people may ask you questions like these. But when they do, are they genuinely interested in knowing the truth? More often than not, they&#39;re just trying to start a debate, and that doesn&#39;t help anyone in the end.

[scriptures]

How could you know they are interested unless you give a valid answer? Especially if you are someone claiming to be anointed?

We can&#39;t even defend our NWT????

[Jeshurun]

How could you know they are interested unless you give a valid answer? Especially if you are someone claiming to be anointed?[/b]

Good point. I think the people we debate on this really believe it, not as a rule, but in general.


We can&#39;t even defend our NWT????[/b]

Well that&#39;s a whole other can of worms.

Anyone ever heard of "Hort&#39;s [33] Apostles"? Guess who was one of them?

Does the name "Arthur Balfour" ring a bell?

[Nash]

I&#39;ve never understood what the whole fuss over John 1:1 was ever about. The bible as a whole makes it crystal clear that Jehovah and Jesus are two different individuals.

For the sake of argument, let&#39;s say that John 1:1 mentions that "the word was God."

So what?

Nothing really changes. The rest of the bible still says that Jehovah is greater than Jesus. The bible also says that Jehovah resurrected Jesus. A dead person cannot resurrect himself, can he? If so, then he wasn&#39;t really dead. In addition, if Jehovah and Jesus were the same person, and Jesus resurrected himself, the ransom has no value.

Nash

[scriptures]

Let us go back to our question. How to refute evangelical reasoning for Jhn 1:1?

of course we all know that God is not trinity, but how do we answer this argument?

[Jeshurun]

Let us go back to our question. How to refute evangelical reasoning for Jhn 1:1?

[/b]

Hi Scriptures

I thought what Steadfast put up on post #3 of this thread was a slam dunk against the Trinity.

Actually, Sketch would like it better if I said it was a walkoff homer by the Red Sox in the bottom of the ninth.

Jesh

[Sketch]

How could you know they are interested unless you give a valid answer? Especially if you are someone claiming to be anointed?

We can&#39;t even defend our NWT????[/b]

The only people I know who have ever made a point of John 1:1 were not "just interested". They were trying to make their case. kinda like asking if Jesus is a god, and there is only 1 true God, then is Jesus a false God? all they want to do is debate.

Otherwise, if the person is "just interested", you could easily apply other scriptures to back up the translation of John 1:1. Someone is who "just interested", whether they know the bible or not, will be open to at least HEARING and considering how the other scriptures back up the translation. People who just want to debate will bring up the greek (technically, its Koine Greek) and only want to talk about that ONE scripture.... thats been MY experience anyway...

[scriptures]

<div class='quotemain'>Let us go back to our question. How to refute evangelical reasoning for Jhn 1:1?

[/b]

Hi Scriptures

I thought what Steadfast put up on post #3 of this thread was a slam dunk against the Trinity.

Actually, Sketch would like it better if I said it was a walkoff homer by the Red Sox in the bottom of the ninth.

Jesh
[/b][/quote]

Steadfast does not know his Greek, for example he said "theon is nominative and theos is accusative." Where did he get that????

[scriptures]

<div class='quotemain'>How could you know they are interested unless you give a valid answer? Especially if you are someone claiming to be anointed?

We can&#39;t even defend our NWT????[/b]

The only people I know who have ever made a point of John 1:1 were not "just interested". They were trying to make their case. kinda like asking if Jesus is a god, and there is only 1 true God, then is Jesus a false God? all they want to do is debate.

Otherwise, if the person is "just interested", you could easily apply other scriptures to back up the translation of John 1:1. Someone is who "just interested", whether they know the bible or not, will be open to at least HEARING and considering how the other scriptures back up the translation. People who just want to debate will bring up the greek (technically, its Koine Greek) and only want to talk about that ONE scripture.... thats been MY experience anyway...
[/b][/quote]

I disagree!!!!

[scriptures]

This argument from an anti JW book has been circulating in our country. I will quote it here for you to help us refute it. I am hoping someone has the answer.

"How can we answer the Jehovah&#39;s Witnesses argument that John 1:1 actually says that Jesus (the Word) was a god, instead of God? They base their claim on the fact that in the Greek the definite article (the) should precede the word god it it refers to Jehovah-God, the Father. Since the Greek does not say "the God", it must mean "a god," according to them.

But this claim is not true. In the same chapter, John 1, verses 6,12 and 13 all obviously refer to God the Father, as the Jehovah&#39;s Witnesses will admit. But none of those verses does "the" precede the word God. According to their argument, verses 6,12 and 13 should also be translated "a god". But such a translations would be nonsense, as even the Jehovah&#39;s Witnesses would admit."

[James]

Hi scriptures,

I am wondering how this anti-JW book is making their claim for the trinity regarding the holy spirit. I don&#39;t see where holy spirit in the original greek is translated as God or god.

agape,
James

[scriptures]

Hi scriptures,

I am wondering how this anti-JW book is making their claim for the trinity regarding the holy spirit. I don&#39;t see where holy spirit in the original greek is translated as God or god.

agape,
James[/b]

Hi brother,

It&#39;s in another topic, I&#39;ll post it once we are done with this. We have to answer them point by point. I know we have answer for this. I am researching too. I&#39;ll post it once I am done.

[Sketch]

I know we have answer for this. I am researching too. I&#39;ll post it once I am done.[/b]

Hello Scriptures....

while you&#39;re at it, can you also give me some physical proof (i.e. not faith based) that evolution is false?

thanks.

[scriptures]

<div class='quotemain'>I know we have answer for this. I am researching too. I&#39;ll post it once I am done.[/b]

Hello Scriptures....

while you&#39;re at it, can you also give me some physical proof (i.e. not faith based) that evolution is false?

thanks.
[/b][/quote]

Maybe we should make a new thread for that. So everybody can share.

[James]

<div class='quotemain'>I know we have answer for this. I am researching too. I&#39;ll post it once I am done.[/b]

Hello Scriptures....

while you&#39;re at it, can you also give me some physical proof (i.e. not faith based) that evolution is false?

thanks.
[/b][/quote]

Who says evolution is false?

[scriptures]

This is the real issue here, thanks

"How can we answer the Jehovah&#39;s Witnesses argument that John 1:1 actually says that Jesus (the Word) was a god, instead of God? They base their claim on the fact that in the Greek the definite article (the) should precede the word god it it refers to Jehovah-God, the Father. Since the Greek does not say "the God", it must mean "a god," according to them.

But this claim is not true. In the same chapter, John 1, verses 6,12 and 13 all obviously refer to God the Father, as the Jehovah&#39;s Witnesses will admit. But none of those verses does "the" precede the word God. According to their argument, verses 6,12 and 13 should also be translated "a god". But such a translations would be nonsense, as even the Jehovah&#39;s Witnesses would admit."

[Jeshurun]

<div class='quotemain'>I know we have answer for this. I am researching too. I&#39;ll post it once I am done.[/b]

Hello Scriptures....

while you&#39;re at it, can you also give me some physical proof (i.e. not faith based) that evolution is false?

thanks.
[/b][/quote]

"For in six days God created the Heaven and the earth."

[SlaveForJah]

This is the real issue here, thanks

"How can we answer the Jehovah&#39;s Witnesses argument that John 1:1 actually says that Jesus (the Word) was a god, instead of God? They base their claim on the fact that in the Greek the definite article (the) should precede the word god it it refers to Jehovah-God, the Father. Since the Greek does not say "the God", it must mean "a god," according to them.

But this claim is not true. In the same chapter, John 1, verses 6,12 and 13 all obviously refer to God the Father, as the Jehovah&#39;s Witnesses will admit. But none of those verses does "the" precede the word God. According to their argument, verses 6,12 and 13 should also be translated "a god". But such a translations would be nonsense, as even the Jehovah&#39;s Witnesses would admit."[/b]

Hello scriptures,

May Jehovah&#39;s rich blessings be with you.

I&#39;d like to address a point in your above post, which, as I understand it, comes from the book you are referencing. It says: "How can we answer the Jehovah&#39;s Witnesses argument that John 1:1 actually says that Jesus (the Word) was a god, instead of God?" Well, speaking only personally, that is not the argument that THIS Jehovah&#39;s Witness would use. It would be my argument that "a god" is an acceptable translation, not necessarily the only correct one. The NWT is in no need of defense specifically. There are several other translations that use the same or very similar terminology as does the NWT. There are, as well, several translations that use "God" in this instance. Really though, as Nash pointed out, this changes nothing.

If a person wishes to argue the very nature of God and of the Word based on the presence or absence of a single letter in a translation that is not event extant in the original text, then to me, that shows the extent of their wisdom. Especially in light of the fact that the ENTIRE body of Scripture tells us otherwise. Jehovah has made it painfully obvious that it is to Him, and Him alone that exclusive worship and devotion should go. Period. So, if a someone wants to make arguments without the NWT, and instead use the KJV or NIV or whatever bible translation is their particular favorite, so be it. The teachings of the Bible are not something that has remained hidden until the NWT committee got together. No, Jehovah&#39;s precious truths have always been contained in Scripture.

I think Londoner, Watchman, Sketch, James and Berean have all spoken truthfully. Let the WHOLE Word of God speak. The message is irrefutable. When once one understands the God that is revealed in ALL of Scripture, then "a god" or "God" becomes a non-issue.

Agape

SlaveForJah

[FaithfulJW]

<H1 style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">JOHN 1:1, 2;</H1><div align="center"> </div>


(A) (B) © (D) (E) (F) (D)

1722 746 2258 3588 3056 2532 3588

At[the] first,[came] to exist, the Utterance [of God], and so the

en arche en ho logos kai ho



(E) © (G) (H) (I) (F) (I)

3056 2258 4314 5120 2316 2532 2316

Utterance, [came] to exist there, by the side of His God, even godly

logos en pros tou theos kai theos



© (D) (F) (J) © (A) (B)

2258/3588 3056 3778 2258 1722 746

[came to] be the Utterance. He [came] to exist there, at [the] first,

en ho logos houtos en en arche



(G) (H) (I)

4314 5120/2316

by the side of His God.

Pros tou theos



(J) Note: The first line indicates the word references below.

The second line indicates the STRONG’S dictionary reference numbers.

The third line is my translation.

The fourth line is the Greek transliteration of the word.



From:

ABINGDON’S STRONG’S EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE OF THE BIBLE,

Greek Dictionary of The New Testament.



(A) {1722} “èn, en, en; a prim. Prep. Denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by impl.)instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between 1519 and 1537); “in,” at, (up-) on, by, etc.:-about, after, against, +almost, x altogether, among, X as, at, before, between, (here-)by (+ all means), for (...sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-) in (-to, -wardly), X mightily, (because) of, (up-) on, [open-] ly, X outwardly, one, X quickly, X shortly, [speedi-] ly, X that, X there (-in, -on), through (-out), (un-)to(-ward), under, when, where (-with), while, with (-in), Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import: raely with verbs of motion. And then not to indicate direction except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) prep.” (compare THAYER GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON of the NEW TESTAMENT pages 209-213, esp. part II.)



(B) {746} “arche, ar-khay’; from 756; (prop. Abstr.) a commencement, or (concr.) chief (in various applications of order, time, place or rank):-beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.”(compare THAYER GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON of the NEW TESTAMENT pages 74-76)



© {2258} “en, one; imperf. Of 1510; I (thou, etc.) was (wast or were):- + agree, be, X have (+charge of), hold, use, was (-t), were.”(compare THAYER GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON of the NEW TESTAMENT footnote at bottom of page 279 refers one to reference number 1510 on pages 175-180 esp. part I.)

{1510} “eimi, i-mee’; first pers. Sing. Pres. Indic.; a prol. Form of a prim. And defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic):-am, have been, X it is I, was.

*See also {1488} ei (art be), {1498} eien (might,could,would,should,mean, parish, should be, was, were), {1511} einai (to exist, am, are, come, is lust after, please well, there is to be, was), {1527} hice kath hice (severally, one by one),{2258} see above, {2071} esomai (will be, shall (should) be, (shall) come to pass,may have, fall, what would follow, live long, sojourn), {2070} nclu (we are, are, be, have our being, have hope, [the gospel] was [preached unto] us), {2075} este (ye are, be, have been, belong), {2076} esti (he is, she is, they are, are, belong, call, cannot come, consisteth, dure for awhile, follow, have, is, make, meaneth, must needs, profit, remaineth, wrestle), {2771} kerdos (gain, lucre), {2468} isthi (be thou, agree, be, give thyself wholly to), {5600} O (may, might, can, could, would, should, must, be, appear, are, (may,might,should) be, have, is, pass the flower of her age, should stand, were).”



(D) {3588} “ho, ho; nclude. The fem.

He, hay; and the neut.

To, to, in all their inflections; the def. article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted in English idiom):-the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc.”(compare THAYER GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON of the NEW TESTAMENT pages 433-437 esp. part II)

(E) {3056} “logos, log’os; from 3004; something said (including the thought): by impl. A topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extens. A computation; spec. (with the art. In John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ):-account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing) shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.” (compare THAYER GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON of the NEW TESTAMENT pages 380-382 esp. part I)



(F) {2532} “kai, kahee; appar. A prim. Particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so, then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words:-and, also, both, but, even, for, if, indeed, likewise, moreover, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yea, yet.”(compare THAYER GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON of the NEW TESTAMENT pages 315-317 esp. part I)

(G) {4314} “pros, pros; a strengthened form of 4253; a prep. Of direction; forward to, i.e. toward (with the genit, the side of, i.e. pertaining to; with the dat. By the side of, i.e. near to; usually with the accus. The place, time, occasion, or respect, which is the destination of the relation, i.e. whither or for which it is predicated):-about, according to, against, for, X at thy house, in, for intent, nigh unto, of, which pertain to, that, to (the end that), + together, to ([you]) –ward, unto, with (-in). In comp. it denotes essentially the same applications, namely, motion towards, accession to, or nearness at.”(compare THAYER GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON of the NEW TESTAMENT pages 541-543 all)



(H) {5120} “tou, too; prop. The gen. of 3588; sometimes used for 5127; of this person:-his.”(compare THAYER GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON of the NEW TESTAMENT the footnote at the bottom of page 629 refers one to reference number 3588 on pages 433-437 see above but esp. I, 3.)



(I) {2316} “theos, theh’-os; of uncert. Affin.; a deity, espec. (with 3588) the supreme Divinity; fig. a magistrate; by Heb. Very:- X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].”(compare THAYER GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON of the NEW TESTAMENT pages 287-288 esp. 1. & 3.)



(J) {3778} “houtos, hoo’-tos; nclude. Nom. Masc. plur.

Houtoi, hoo’-toy; nom. Fem. Sing.

Haute, how’-tay; and nom. Fem plur.

Hautai, how’-tahee; from the art. 3588 and 846; the he (she or it), i.e. this or that (often with art. Repeated):-he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.” (compare THAYER GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON of the NEW TESTAMENT pages 466-468 esp. part I, 1., a & b & c.)
:icon_rolleyes:

[stayawake]

Hi everyone
Hope this subjext is open to all , as I just wanted to share what really made good sense to me. when I was studing.

Col 1:15 brings out that Jesus was the FIRST born of all creation . To be created one must have a Creator .Rev 1:1......Rev 3:14

The Greek writtings never used the letter A so to be consistant and in harmony with all other scriptures the letter A had to be added, other wise we would read in Acts that Paul WAS GOD and NOT a god.
just my thoughts for the day. :Kat:

love stayawake

[Sketch]

you all are forgetting that for every answer you give, for every "expert" you cite, I can hand you 2 more that state the opposite. The argument is circular and you will chase your tails trying to convince someone of something they don&#39;t want to be convinced of.....

[stayawake]

How could you know they are interested unless you give a valid answer? Especially if you are someone claiming to be anointed?
We can&#39;t even defend our NWT????[/b]


WHAT !!!

I always read my magazines and newspapers from back to front. Just did that now with this post.
Nambo I&#39;m sorry I did a repeat on your very good point about Paul,

Scriptures
I must agree with watchman, if you must present more then what has already been
presented, your dealing with a NITPICKER
,
as far as defending OUR NWT. WHY !!!
We were made to believe that we have more then other Bibles in the NWT
when in reality we may have less.
I am open to all translations .
The THEME of all Bibles never changes. It&#39;s the Messianic Kingdom.

speaking only for myself
stayawake

[Nash]

Hi Scriptures,

Here&#39;s a way in which one can refute this argument.

Let&#39;s keep two things in mind.

First, it&#39;s important to understand the fact that English and Greek are languages in two different families. A word-for-word translation is not always possible. The thought patterns of expressing the same phrase/object could be totally different, and this is why many languages and many forms of grammar/syntax exist. Therefore, when translating, a word-for-word literal translation may not always convey the correct meaning.

Second, we have to remember that in English, we have capitals and lowercase, which, in many instances, negate the need for a reader to derive an ambiguous meaning from the surrounding context.

Let&#39;s do an experiment.

Utter the word "ELEPHANT."

What comes to your mind? Generally speaking, there should be no ambiguity. Your mind pictures a massive four-legged creature.

Next, utter the word "CHAIR."

What comes to your mind? Again, there is no ambiguity.

Next, utter the word "GOD."

Hmmm. Many objects can be described as such, could they not?

Keeping these points in mind, let&#39;s return to the text at John 1:1.

Now, I am completely ignorant of Greek. But, from what I have understood all these years when listening to these types of arguments based on John 1:1, capital and lowercase letters were not the issue in the Greek text; rather, it was the form of the word(s) employed. (Correct me if I am wrong on this.)

I would venture to say then, that the text, John 1:1, 2 when translated literally, should read like this:

"in the beginning the word was, and the word was with god, and the word was god. this one was in the beginning with god."

Sometimes it&#39;s kind of hard to understand what&#39;s going on here with all of the lowercase letters, but this is probably the literal translation, as many have attested to already when bashing the NWT.

Here&#39;s a side point. In ancient written Hebrew, there were no vowels. But readers employed vowels, and they knew the vowels to employ judging from the context of the passages.

Similarly, in this case, the context is paramount. Reading the context, it&#39;s clear that two different individuals are being spoken about. There is no translation issue with the word "with" is there?

To correct the translated verses above, we naturally have to make some changes so that the verses conform to proper English.

Most translations therefore, render the verses as follows (more or less): "In the beginning the word was, and the word was with God, and the word was God. This one was in the beginning with God."

Although critics of the NWT will often say that the translators took liberties to make the bible conform to our doctrines, the same can be said of most translators today of the bibles that they are producing. They have taken liberties to capitalize the "g" at the end of verse 1 to make it appear that there is only one entity being spoken about. They do not have to capitalize the "g." But they do. Why? The answer is obvious. They want to uphold what the Catholic, Orthodox, and other mainstream Christian churches have been teaching for centuries - the trinity and the deity of Christ. And since only a minority of Christians realize that the trinity is false, the minority is drowned in the voice of the majority, and the majority as we well know is often critical and unreasonable in this regard. So, the majority is often made to appear right when in fact they are not right. To suddenly change the translations at this point in time would crumble the churches.

The NWT translators also took liberties. They inserted an "a" before the final word in verse 1, simply to make the understanding more clear. Thus, the verse reads as follows: "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God."

When the Greek word has no definite article, we must judge from the context which "god" is being referred to. In John 1:1, 2 the context makes it clear that the second instance of the word "god" does NOT refer to Almighty God, while the first instance of the word "God" indicates Almighty God. This is why an "a" is inserted in the second instance. But even if the "a" in not inserted, the literal text can still be taken as is, and the second instance of the word "god" can be used with a lowercase "g": "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the word was god. This one was in the beginning with God."

This is not misleading. Jesus is a god, just as Satan is a god. I could even translate John 1:1, 2 like this: "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the word was like God. This one was in the beginning with God."

Nothing really changes here. Jesus is not Almighty God. In the first instance, he is portrayed as a god, subordinate to Almighty God as the scriptures will attest, while in the second instance he can be portrayed as being similar to Almighty God (whether it be in spirit, thought, attributes, etc); this can also be confirmed by other scriptures.

Consequently, the insertion of the word "a" simply assists the reader to understand the context. It is an optional insertion - not a mandatory one.

The same reasoning can be applied in verses 12 and 13. As stated, there is no definite article in verses 12 and 13. Therefore, again, we must determine whether or not the "a" should be applied before the word "god." In this case, judging from the context as the quoted book seems to admit, it is not necessary. This is why there is no indefinite article "a" and this is why the "g" is capitalized.

It is noteworthy to mention that the book you quote criticizes the NWT. We are not the only translation to translate John 1:1 in a manner other than the mainstream way. Do they criticize other translations, or just teh translation used by Jehovah&#39;s Witnesses?

Satan has done an excellent job of diverting people away from the real issues. He loves using the tool of confusion and sidesteps the complete picture. The bible is clear as to the roles and personnages of Jehovah and Jesus. Satan has confused it. When one reads the entire bible, it&#39;s clear that they are two beings - but Satan has misled millions of people by simply having people focus on one verse of the bible rather than all of it.

Hopefully, this should answer the question.

Nash

[scriptures]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

All the example given by the protestant book is in the "genitive case", while all the text given by our "interlinear" is in nominative case.

So far I think most scholars agree that John 1:1c is "qualitative". They agree that "what God was, the Word was", that "the Word was fully God" . The problem is we do not use the term "essence" or "substance". We consider them unbiblical.

I will not be dogmatic about my observations, I want to hear from someone else opinion, and thank you for reminding me that "context plays a big role in translation".





</span>