"The word was a god"?

[Jane_Doe22]

Christ is the Son of God.

A title that JW define different than every other denomination. Other denominations have that very much being a divine title while also acknowledging that God the Son and God the Father are two different persons.

 

[ChristisGod]

Please help me to understand what is meant here. If Jesus was "a god" then He could be THE God or a false god. What else could this mean? How can Jesus be "a god"?

In the beginning was the Word.
en arche en ho logos
εν αρχη ην ο λογος

the phrase "in the beginning" is "en arche". Now if you look in the Septuagint at Genesis 1:1 we find this:

εν αρχη εποιησεν ο θεος

Now the question we need to ask ourselves is what does in the beginning mean ? One must always remember that context always determines the meaning of words and phrases. If we compare Genesis with John which is exactly what John is doing in his opening to his gospel we can clearly see his point. Moses and John both are discussing the creation of "all things". That makes the passages parallel. Here a some parallels to consider:

1- in the beginning
2- Theos( God) appears in both opening verses
3- Both talk about the creation of all things
4- both use egeneto εγενετο, came into being or existence
5- both use and contrast light and darkness

εν αρχη refers to the beginning of time. Now if John didn't mean the beginning of time he could of easily used another word that he often used which would be the word from"apo" instead of en. He could of also used the phrase came into being(egeneto) to refer to the Word in 1a but he did not. John made it very clear that the Word in his gospel is equal to the God in Genesis.

Now lets look at the verb was"en". This is in the imperfect tense of eimi meaning continuous existence. By its very definition it has the meaning of eternal, without beginning. Therefor the Words existence transcends time and is eternal. From Robertsons Words from the GNT:

In the beginning (en arch). Arch is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Genesis 1:1 . But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed.

From here we can now look to see who the Word is in John 1:1.

Now that we have established the meaning of the beginning in John 1:1a we can move on to the identity of the Word.

Whoever the Word is , He was alongside God (with Him) and was God. But how can the Word be with God and also be God? Lets examine 1b The Word was with God. John here is making a distinction between the Word and God. Though existing eternally with God the Word (logos)‎was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros ‎with the accusative shows equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. This clearly reveals a relationship between the logos and theon in 1b. In (Moulton and Milligan Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament)"the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" is used to speak of the relationship between the logos and God.

The Word was God- και θεος ην ο λογος . Theos here is without the article. It is predicative and describes the nature of the Word. The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God. If “o theos” had been written then it would mean that no divine being existed outside of the Word. Johns whole gospel comes forth from this verse. The Word is who his gospel is written about and as we will see the words and deeds of Jesus are the words and deeds of God.

John 1:14 and the Word became flesh- και ο λογος σαρξ εγενετο. Second aorist middle indicative of ginomai which means came into existence, He became flesh. The Word in one single event is history became man as opposed to “eimi” being or always existed. So we can clearly see the Word who is eternal came into existence in the flesh at a single point in time .

Now if we read further in John we can see that the Word dwelt among us (tabernacled).The Word entering a new mode of existence, became flesh, and lived in a tent (His physical body-a tabernacle) among us. And we beheld His glory. And we must remember YHWH numerous times in the O.T. declared that He will not share His Glory with anyone. But Jesus declared that He shared His Glory together with the Father before creation, before the world came into existence. And we know there was only God prior to creation.

This Word John the Baptist identifies as Jesus.
15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.

John 1:29-31
29The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30"This is He on behalf of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.

The Word was God, the Word who was God became flesh, a man this is known as the Incarnation. God manifest in the flesh as scripture says. Colossians 1:19; Colossians 2:9.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Enoch111]

How can Jesus be "a god"?

He can in the warped theology of the Jehovah's Witnesses. But according to the Bible, Jesus is simply GOD (THEOS) who was "manifest in the flesh" (or took on a human body).

 

[Matthias]

For those recommending the “a god” phrase as the correct translation in John 1:1, is there an OT example, an OT precedent, you would direct our attention to where you believe the phrase “the word” means “a god”?

 

[Webers_Home]

.
FAQ: Why does the Watchtower Society translate the Word in John 1:1 as
god in lower case instead of God in upper case?

REPLY: The Watchtower Society's translation is based upon an imaginary
grammatical technicality.

The common Greek word for "god" is theós (theh'-os). When it's modified by
the little Greek definite article "ho" the Society translates theós in upper
case, viz: in the Society's theological thinking; ho theós pertains to the one
true God, while theós by itself is somewhat flexible, for example John 1:18
and John 20:17 where the Society translates theós in upper case though it
be not modified by ho.

However, according to Dr. Archibald T. Robertson's "Grammar Of The Greek
New Testament", page 767: in regards to nouns in the predicate; the article
is not essential to speech. In other words: when theόs is in the predicate, ho
can be either used, or not used, without making any real difference.

So then; a translator's decision whether to capitalize either of the two theόs
in John 1:1 or not to capitalize them, is entirely arbitrary rather than
dictated by a strict rule of Greek grammar.

Of course the Society prefers that The Word be a lower case god because that
spelling is agreeable with their version of his status; whereas regular Christians
prefer the upper case because that spelling is agreeable with their version of The
Word's status; while in reality, either spelling is acceptable.
_

 

[Windmillcharge]

This is where you are wrong they do not teach Jesus is a God, but the Son of God Jehovah. Please do not make false accusations, that would be bearing false witness against thy neighbor.

I quoted from the New World translation the watch tower and tract bible societies own bible which as I have three times now posted say that Jesus is a god. the small 'g' is there type setting and is there teaching.

 

[Dropship]

Is the word 'Jehovah/ Yahweh' really God's name?
After all, when Moses asked him his name at the burning bush, God replied "I am that I am", implying he's too BIG and AWESOME to have a name disrespectfully slapped on him..

 

[JohnPaul]

I quoted from the New World translation the watch tower and tract bible societies own bible which as I have three times now posted say that Jesus is a god. the small 'g' is there type setting and is there teaching.

Why don't you ask a Jehovah's Witness on here to explain it to you?

 

[Windmillcharge]

Why don't you ask a Jehovah's Witness on here to explain it to you?

Explain what? That there mistranslation of the bible says that dispite there believing there is only One God, they believe that Jesus is a god with the One true God.
I doubt very much that anyone can explain this illogicality.

 

[Aunty Jane]

I am seeing a lot of accusations being thrown around here that with a little research into the Greek word "theos" could be explained quite easily.

According to Strongs, "theos" means...."a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities". So it is not a word that is used exclusively for Yahweh.
In 2 Corinthians 4:4 satan is called "theos".....is he Yahweh?

Jesus used this word in John 10:34-36 where the Jews were going to stone him for blasphemy for 'claiming to God', which is something he never once did. He answered the Jews with these words....
"Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law: ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be nullified), 36 are you saying of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?"

Quoting from the Hebrew scriptures (Psalm 82:6) Jesus alluded to the fact that Israel's judges were called "gods" (theos) because of their divine authority. The word "theos" itself allows for this definition. So all those on their high horses who think that John 1:1 is proof that Jesus is "God", are just denying the truth.
If human judges can be called "gods" by Yahweh himself, why can't Jesus be called a "god" for the same reason.....his divine appointment as "the Son of God"...which is what he called himself, so it fits the definition of that word in Greek....but not necessarily in English......which is why it pays to do original language word studies.

Read the way it was written by an apostle, (who like all the rest) definitely did not believe that Jesus was Yahweh, (1 Corinthians 8:6-6)
In John 1:1, said in Greek....
"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos. He houtos was eimi in en the beginning archē with pros · ho God theos."

Why translate "ho" as "the" in every other instance but those that refer to Yahweh?
There are two separate "gods" in that verse. One is "ho theos" (THE GOD, Yahweh) and the other is just "theos", meaning that Jesus was "with" his Father as "the firstborn of all creation", (Colossians 1:15) and as verse 2 reiterates.....if Jesus was "with the God"...how can he BE "the God"?

John went on to say in verse 18...."No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." Again there are two who are called "theos" in that verse. No one has ever seen Yahweh but "the only begotten god has explained him." Jesus is again called theos, but he is not Yahweh in that verse either.

 

[RedFan]

Question for JWs: If Christ is not Jehovah, why does the New World Translation render the word Χριστόν in 1 Cor. 10:9 as Jehovah ("Neither let us put Jehovah to the test")?

 

[Aunty Jane]

Question for JWs: If Christ is not Jehovah, why does the New World Translation render the word Χριστόν in 1 Cor. 10:9 as Jehovah ("Neither let us put Jehovah to the test")?

1 Corinthians 10:9 is quoting Deuteronomy 6:16 where the Tetragrammaton is found in the Hebrew text. It is speaking about the Israelites putting Yahweh/Jehovah to the test. See Exodus 17:2, 7.

 

[RedFan]

1 Corinthians 10:9 is quoting Deuteronomy 6:16 where the Tetragrammaton is found in the Hebrew text. It is speaking about the Israelites putting Yahweh/Jehovah to the test. See Exodus 17:2, 7.

So, some JW scholar felt free to translate the word Paul actually USED (Χριστόν) in the way the translator concluded Paul must have MEANT? Wow! No thanks. I can't speak for others, but from my Bible translations I do not care to be told what the author meant. I care to be told what the author SAID. Otherwise, the risk of the translator's agenda creeping in will just be too great.

 

[Aunty Jane]

So, some JW scholar felt free to translate the word Paul actually USED (Χριστόν) in the way the translator concluded Paul must have MEANT? Wow! No thanks. I can't speak for others, but from my Bible translations I do not care to be told what the author meant. I care to be told what the author SAID. Otherwise, the risk of the translator's agenda creeping in will just be too great.

No, Paul was quoting Hebrew scripture.....so all that happened was that when Hebrew texts are quoted by Christian writers, and the divine name is in the original Hebrew text, that is what the Bible writer was quoting, so God’s name belongs in his own word. He never told the Jews to take it out or to stop saying it.

 

[RedFan]

No, Paul was quoting Hebrew scripture.....so all that happened was that when Hebrew texts are quoted by Christian writers, and the divine name is in the original Hebrew text, that is what the Bible writer was quoting, so God’s name belongs in his own word.

But Paul wrote Χριστόν in 1 Cor. 10:9, and Χριστόν does not appear in the Hebrew scripture. Here is Deut. 6:16 in the Septuagint:

οὐκ ἐκπειράσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ὃν τρόπον ἐξεπειράσασθε ἐν τῷ Πειρασμῷ.

And even if Paul was translating directly from the Hebrew rather than simply quoting from the Septuagint (a rare event for Paul when citing to the OT), the fact remains that of all the words Paul could have used to render the divine name in the original Hebrew text differently from the way the Septuagint rendered it, the one he chose was Χριστόν. Christos. Christ.

I'm sorry, but the NWT has some big balls translating that word any other way.

 

[ChristisGod]

Why don't you ask a Jehovah's Witness on here to explain it to you?

Why ask someone who is wrong about the truth ?

 

[ChristisGod]

Please help me to understand what is meant here. If Jesus was "a god" then He could be THE God or a false god. What else could this mean? How can Jesus be "a god"?

Omission of the article with "Theos" does not mean the word is "a god." If we examine the passages where the article is not used with "Theos" we see the rendering "a god" makes no sense (Mt 5:9, 6:24; Lk 1:35, 78; 2:40; Jn 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Ro 1:7, 17, 18; 1 Co 1:30; 15:10; Phil 2:11, 13; Titus 1:1). The "a god" position would have the Jehovah's Witnesses translate every instance where the article is absent. As "a god (nominative), of a god (genitive), to or for a god (dative)." But they do not! "Theou" is the genitive case of the SAME noun "Theos" which they translate as "a god" in John 1:1. But they do not change "Theou" "of God" (Jehovah), in Matthew 5:9, Luke 1:35, 78; and John 1:6. The J.W.’s are not consistent in their biblical hermeneutics they have a bias which is clearly seen throughout their bible.

Other examples-In Jn.4:24 "God is Spirit, not a spirit. In 1 Jn .4:16 "God is love, we don’t translate this a love. In 1 Jn.1:5 "God is light" he is not a light or a lesser light.

WHAT DO GREEK SCHOLARS THINK ABOUT JEHOVAH'S WITNESS TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?

Dr. J. J. Griesback: "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage John 1:1 is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."

Dr. Eugene A. Nida (Head of the Translation Department of the American Bible Society Translators of the GOOD NEWS BIBLE): "With regard to John 1:1 there is, of course, a complication simply because the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek". ( Bill and Joan Cetnar Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses "who love the truth" p..55

Dr. William Barclay (University of Glasgow, Scotland): "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 translated:'. . . the Word was a god'.a translation which is grammatically impossible. it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest. THE EXPOSITORY TIMES Nov, 1985

Dr. B. F. Westcott (Whose Greek text is used in JW KINGDOM INTERLINEAR): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. It is necessarily without the article . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true Deity of the Word . . . in the third clause `the Word' is declared to be `God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead." The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans,1953- reprint) p. 3, (The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12.)

Dr. Anthony Hoekema, commented: Their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into Modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself (The Four Major Cults, pp. 238, 239].

Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (University of Chicago): "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb; . . .this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. `My Lord and my God.' " John 20:28

Dr. F. F. Bruce (University of Manchester, England): "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with `God' in the phrase `And the Word was God'. Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicate construction. `a god' would be totally indefensible."

Dr. Paul L. Kaufman (Portland OR.): "The Jehovah's Witness people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."

Dr. Charles L. Feinberg (La Mirada CA.): "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."

Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World Translation, concluded that the The Christ of the New World Translation "has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation .... It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly "78 No wonder British scholar H.H. Rowley asserted, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."79 Indeed, Rowley said, this translation is "an insult to the Word of God."

Dr. Harry A. Sturz: (Dr. Sturz is Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College) "Therefore, the NWT rendering: "the Word was a god" is not a "literal" but an ungrammatical and tendential translation. A literal translation in English can be nothing other than: "the word was God." THE BIBLE COLLECTOR July - December, 1971 p. 12

Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach. When asked to comment on the Greek, said, "No justification whatsoever for translating theos en ho logos as 'the Word was a god'. There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse. Jn.1:1 is direct.. I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian.

DO ANY REPUTABLE GREEK SCHOLARS AGREE WITH THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?

A. T. Robertson: "So in John 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, -not God was the Logos." A New short Grammar of the Greek Testament, AT. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, p. 279.

E. M. Sidebottom:"...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for theos en ho Iogos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to john. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S.P.C.K., 1961), p. 461.

C. K. Barrett: "The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity." The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p. 76.

C. H. Dodd: "On this analogy, the meaning of _theos en ho logos will be that the ousia of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos... That is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham,) the Father goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase." "New Testament Translation Problems the bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), P. 104.

Randolph 0. Yeager: "Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate ..and the Word was a God.' The article with logos, shows that to logos is thesubject of the verb en and the fact that theos is without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of theos demands that we translate '...and the Word was God.' John is not saying as Jehovah's Witnesses are fond of teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely the opposite." The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), P. 4.

 

[ChristisGod]

continued :

Henry Alford: "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,--not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It noes not = theios; nor is it to be rendered a God--but, as in sarx engeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a-definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:--that He was very God . So that this first verse must be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the Father),--and was Himself God." (Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II Guardian 'press 1976 ; originally published 1871). p. 681.

Donald Guthrie: "The absence of the article with Theos has misled some into t inking teat the correct understanding of the statement would be that 'the word was a God' (or divine), but this is grammatically indefensible since Theos is a predicate." New Testament Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 327.

Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and literature at Princeton Theological Seminary said: "Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering, . . . `and the Word was a god,' with the following footnotes: " `A god,' In contrast with `the God' ". It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall. As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation." "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today (April 1953), p. 75.

James Moffatt: "'The Word was God . . .And the Word became flesh,' simply means he Word was divine . . . . And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man ...." Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p. 61.

E. C. Colwell: "...predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite -or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context,and in the case of John l:l this is not so." A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20.

Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.' This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it,"that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.""(Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973), p. 87.

Philip Harner states in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973) on Jn.1:1 "In vs. 1c the Johannine hymn is bordering on the usage of 'God' for the Son, but by omitting the article it avoids any suggestion of personal identification of the Word with the Father. And for Gentile readers the line also avoids any suggestion that the Word was a second God in any Hellenistic sense." (pg. 86. Harner notes the source of this quote: Brown, John I-XII, 24)

Julius R. Mantey; "Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.' Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering .... In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years." Letter from Mantey to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. "A Grossly Misleading Translation .... John 1:1, which reads 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God,' is shockingly mistranslated, 'Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,' in a New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published under the auspices o Jehovah's Witnesses." Statement JR Mantey, published in various sources.

Many of these Greek scholars are world-renowned whose works the Jehovah's Witnesses have quoted in their publications to help them look reputable. Westcott is the Greek scholar who with Hort edited the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Yeager is a professor of Greek and the star pupil of Julius Mantey. Metzger is the world's leading scholar on the-textual criticism of the Greek New Testament. It is scholars of this quality who insist that John l: l cannot be taken to mean anything less than that the Word is the one true Almighty God.

I do want to say that there are some scholars that translate the word was a God or divine but they are in the very low percentages. If they were ever in a discussion with the scholars afore mentioned it would be clear they would not be able to hold a candle to their understanding. Yet JWs and a few other groups do run to these men's opinions to prop up their teaching.Scholars on Jn.1:1

hope this helps !!!

 

[JohnPaul]

Why ask someone who is wrong about the truth ?

Perhaps it’s you who are wrong.

 

[ChristisGod]

Perhaps it’s you who are wrong.

Absolutely not a doubt I'm 100 % correct on the identity of the Son who is God ( Theos, YHWH ).

I would bet my eternity on that fact and eternal torment on it, would you ?

hope this helps !!!