jw John1
Why have the Jehovah Witnesses altered the Bible?
John 1:1 Word examination:
Is God
John 1:1, was translated "and the word was God" not "the word was a god", heres why:
Colwell’s Rule states that definite predicate nouns that come before the verb will usually lack the article. In other words, because the Greek literally reads “God was the word” - God being the predicate noun. Because “God” comes before the verb “was”, we can understand “God” to be definite rather than indefinite. But since it’s not Smooth English to say “the God”, we just say “God” - bottom line being that it is definitely not “a god” because the grammar doesn’t allow for it
Predicate nominative. The clause is in a predicate nominative construct.
A second year Greek course should explain this to you.
Daniel Wallace GGBB:
c. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Qualitative?
The most likely candidate for θεός is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word’s deity, which was already present in the beginning (ἐν ἀρχῇ … θεὸς ἦν [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later (σὰρξ ἐγένετο [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two statements mirrors each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity. But θεός was his nature from eternity (hence, εἰμί is used), while σάρξ was added at the incarnation (hence, γίνομαι is used).
Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus “divine” could be misleading in an English translation. The idea of a qualitative θεός here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.31
31 Although I believe that θεός in 1:1c is qualitative, I think the simplest and most straightforward translation is, “and the Word was God.” It may be better to clearly affirm the NT teaching of the deity of Christ and then explain that he is not the Father, than to sound ambiguous on his deity and explain that he is God but is not the Father.
Other Greek grammarians will give answers similar to Daniel Wallace.
Also, in a first-century Jewish context, the natural inferences any reader would make would be that there is only one God anyway, so in an ambiguous text that would be the natural reading. For John to have effectively communicated the point that the Word was “a god” he would have to have made it explicit and so written something like “one of the gods.”
Look into this further here
If you have understood this, if God has opened your eyes, I praise God. Next, you must run from the false religion of Jehovah Witnesses... and run to Jesus and true Christianity today.
Related Resources
More about Jesus
Count the cost of being a true Christian
Comments
Post a Comment