How the New Word Translation Contradicts Itself: The Word was a god

[robert derrick]

The NWT contradicts itself by translating John 1:1 as the Word was a god, because it does accurately translate several other Scripture, that declare there is no such thing as any god, really being a god:

Can a man make gods for himself, When they are not really gods?

Nevertheless, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those who are not really gods.

By their own translation, they make a god of the Word, and so a god unto themselves, which they also declare cannot really be a god at all.

 

[robert derrick]

This contradiction of their own book, is set up by their natural theology about man being mortal souls only. And so they believe that becoming immortal in the flesh makes them gods, which is the lie of Lucifer, that he first told himself, and then tempts man with.

Being gods or as gods is a lie, because Scripture condemns all gods as being no gods at all.

Angels and men are called sons of God, not gods.

The only gods are false gods of idolatry, when angels and men make themselves gods by doing both good and evil according to their own will, and so think to act like God the most High, who does all things according to the counsel of His own will and good pleasure:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

 

[robert derrick]

The NWT also forbids worshipping Jesus Christ, whether as God or a god:

Worship no god but me.

But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them.

And go not after other gods to serve them, and to worship them, and provoke me not to anger with the works of your hands; and I will do you no hurt.

 

[Robert Gwin]

The NWT contradicts itself by translating John 1:1 as the Word was a god, because it does accurately translate several other Scripture, that declare there is no such thing as any god, really being a god:

Can a man make gods for himself, When they are not really gods?

Nevertheless, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those who are not really gods.

By their own translation, they make a god of the Word, and so a god unto themselves, which they also declare cannot really be a god at all.

Who actually translates consistently and accurately sir?
6A Jesus—A Godlike One; Divine
Joh 1:1—“and the Word was a god (godlike; divine)”
Gr., καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (kai the·osʹ en ho loʹgos)
1808
“and the word was a god”
The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
1864
“and a god was the Word”
The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
1935
“and the Word was divine”
The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
1950
“and the Word was a god”
New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.
1975
“and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word”
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany.
1978
“and godlike sort was the Logos”
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.
1979
“and a god was the Logos”
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany.
These translations use such words as “a god,” “divine” or “godlike” because the Greek word θεός (the·osʹ) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·osʹ. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ὁ θεός, that is, the·osʹ preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·osʹ. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god” or “divine” or “godlike” does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself.
In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article “a” before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article “a” is inserted before the anarthrous θεός in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read “a god.” The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering.
In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in Joh 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite.” On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.”
Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns:
Scripture Text
New World Translation
King James Version
An American Translation
New International Version
Revised Standard Version
Today’s English Version
Mark 6:49
an apparition
a spirit
a ghost
a ghost
a ghost
a ghost
Mark 11:32
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a real prophet
a prophet
John 4:19
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
John 6:70
a slanderer
a devil
an informer
a devil
a devil
a devil
John 8:44
a manslayer
a murderer
a murderer
a murderer
a murderer
a murderer
John 8:44
a liar
a liar
a liar
a liar
a liar
a liar
John 9:17
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
John 10:1
a thief
a thief
a thief
a thief
a thief
a thief
John 10:13
a hired man
an hireling
a hired man
a hired hand
a hireling
a hired man
John 10:33
a man
a man
a mere man
a mere man
a man
a man
John 12:6
a thief
a thief
a thief
a thief
a thief
a thief
[Footnotes]
Translated from German.
Translated from German.
Translated from German.

It is not like the translators of your favorite version did not know what they were doing Ron, it was deliberately altered to promote Jesus as being God, which has convinced you by the way.

 

[robert derrick]

Who actually translates consistently and accurately sir?
6A Jesus—A Godlike One; Divine
Joh 1:1—“and the Word was a god (godlike; divine)”
Gr., καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (kai the·osʹ en ho loʹgos)
1808
“and the word was a god”
The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
1864
“and a god was the Word”
The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
1935
“and the Word was divine”
The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
1950
“and the Word was a god”
New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.
1975
“and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word”
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany.
1978
“and godlike sort was the Logos”
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.
1979
“and a god was the Logos”
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany.
These translations use such words as “a god,” “divine” or “godlike” because the Greek word θεός (the·osʹ) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·osʹ. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ὁ θεός, that is, the·osʹ preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·osʹ. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god” or “divine” or “godlike” does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself.
In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article “a” before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article “a” is inserted before the anarthrous θεός in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read “a god.” The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering.
In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in Joh 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite.” On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.”
Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns:
Scripture Text
New World Translation
King James Version
An American Translation
New International Version
Revised Standard Version
Today’s English Version
Mark 6:49
an apparition
a spirit
a ghost
a ghost
a ghost
a ghost
Mark 11:32
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a real prophet
a prophet
John 4:19
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
John 6:70
a slanderer
a devil
an informer
a devil
a devil
a devil
John 8:44
a manslayer
a murderer
a murderer
a murderer
a murderer
a murderer
John 8:44
a liar
a liar
a liar
a liar
a liar
a liar
John 9:17
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
John 10:1
a thief
a thief
a thief
a thief
a thief
a thief
John 10:13
a hired man
an hireling
a hired man
a hired hand
a hireling
a hired man
John 10:33
a man
a man
a mere man
a mere man
a man
a man
John 12:6
a thief
a thief
a thief
a thief
a thief
a thief
[Footnotes]
Translated from German.
Translated from German.
Translated from German.

It is not like the translators of your favorite version did not know what they were doing Ron, it was deliberately altered to promote Jesus as being God, which has convinced you by the way.

As I said. You people have abundance of scholarship that is good for nothing.

Nothing in all of these multitude of words, does anything to correct the fact that the NWT contradicts itself.

It has nothing to do with what other translators say.

It shows that making the Word a god is not only bogus Greek, but cannot be sustained with the rest of Scripture.

If you say the Word was a god, then other Scripture says that god is no god at all.

The NWT says both, and so contradicts itself.

 

[farouk]

As I said. You people have abundance of scholarship that is good for nothing.

Nothing in all of these multitude of words, does anything to correct the fact that the NWT contradicts itself.

It has nothing to do with what other translators say.

It shows that making the Word a god is not only bogus Greek, but cannot be sustained with the rest of Scripture.

If you say the Word was a god, then other Scripture says that god is no god at all.

The NWT says both, and so contradicts itself.

@robert derrick Since bogus elements have clearly been introduced into the NWT, then to call it a translation is inaccurate, strictly speaking........

 

[robert derrick]

@robert derrick Since bogus elements have clearly been introduced into the NWT, then to call it a translation is inaccurate, strictly speaking........

New World Indoctrination?

 

[farouk]

As I said. You people have abundance of scholarship that is good for nothing.

Nothing in all of these multitude of words, does anything to correct the fact that the NWT contradicts itself.

It has nothing to do with what other translators say.

It shows that making the Word a god is not only bogus Greek, but cannot be sustained with the rest of Scripture.

If you say the Word was a god, then other Scripture says that god is no god at all.

The NWT says both, and so contradicts itself.

@robert derrick Since bogus elements have clearly been introduced into the NWT, then to call it a translation is inaccurate, strictly speaking........

New World Indoctrination?

Sounds about right to me......and indoctrination that is not honest.

 

[Jim B]

Who actually translates consistently and accurately sir?
6A Jesus—A Godlike One; Divine
Joh 1:1—“and the Word was a god (godlike; divine)”
Gr., καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (kai the·osʹ en ho loʹgos)
1808
“and the word was a god”
The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
1864
“and a god was the Word”
The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
1935
“and the Word was divine”
The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
1950
“and the Word was a god”
New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.
1975
“and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word”
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany.
1978
“and godlike sort was the Logos”
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.
1979
“and a god was the Logos”
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany.
These translations use such words as “a god,” “divine” or “godlike” because the Greek word θεός (the·osʹ) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·osʹ. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ὁ θεός, that is, the·osʹ preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·osʹ. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god” or “divine” or “godlike” does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself.
In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article “a” before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article “a” is inserted before the anarthrous θεός in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read “a god.” The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering.
In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in Joh 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite.” On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.”
Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns:
Scripture Text
New World Translation
King James Version
An American Translation
New International Version
Revised Standard Version
Today’s English Version
Mark 6:49
an apparition
a spirit
a ghost
a ghost
a ghost
a ghost
Mark 11:32
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a real prophet
a prophet
John 4:19
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
John 6:70
a slanderer
a devil
an informer
a devil
a devil
a devil
John 8:44
a manslayer
a murderer
a murderer
a murderer
a murderer
a murderer
John 8:44
a liar
a liar
a liar
a liar
a liar
a liar
John 9:17
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
a prophet
John 10:1
a thief
a thief
a thief
a thief
a thief
a thief
John 10:13
a hired man
an hireling
a hired man
a hired hand
a hireling
a hired man
John 10:33
a man
a man
a mere man
a mere man
a man
a man
John 12:6
a thief
a thief
a thief
a thief
a thief
a thief
[Footnotes]
Translated from German.
Translated from German.
Translated from German.

It is not like the translators of your favorite version did not know what they were doing Ron, it was deliberately altered to promote Jesus as being God, which has convinced you by the way.

Jesus is God, or more specifically, one-third of the Godhead.

There are 1) God the Father, 2) God the Son, and 3) God the Holy Spirit. They are all God, but in different forms.

Similarly, I am a human, a male, and a parent -- three different aspects of the same person. Also, I have died spiritually and been reborn into the body of Christ. These are not easy concepts to grasp, but denying that Jesus is God shows your inability to understand.

 

[Robert Gwin]

As I said. You people have abundance of scholarship that is good for nothing.

Nothing in all of these multitude of words, does anything to correct the fact that the NWT contradicts itself.

It has nothing to do with what other translators say.

It shows that making the Word a god is not only bogus Greek, but cannot be sustained with the rest of Scripture.

If you say the Word was a god, then other Scripture says that god is no god at all.

The NWT says both, and so contradicts itself.

Really, why did your preferred version translate Acts 28:6 as a god? That sir is inconsistency in translation, and proves they knew how to translate it properly. It was a deliberate manipulation of Scripture. The NWT does not say Jesus is God and at the same time say Jehovah is God now does it?

 

[Robert Gwin]

Jesus is God, or more specifically, one-third of the Godhead.

There are 1) God the Father, 2) God the Son, and 3) God the Holy Spirit. They are all God, but in different forms.

Similarly, I am a human, a male, and a parent -- three different aspects of the same person. Also, I have died spiritually and been reborn into the body of Christ. These are not easy concepts to grasp, but denying that Jesus is God shows your inability to understand.

Not at all Jim, Jesus' God is Jehovah, the very one whom he said had to be worshipped and served exclusively Mat 4:10.

 

[Jim B]

Not at all Jim, Jesus' God is Jehovah, the very one whom he said had to be worshipped and served exclusively Mat 4:10.

Matthew 4:10, "Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! for it is written,

‘Worship the Lord your God,
and serve only him.’ ”

Jesus was talking to Satan, so what does that prove? There is nothing there that says that Jesus' God was Jehovah. He was telling the devil to "get lost".

Further (and on topic!), Jesus became fully human, giving up His deity for a time, so He worshiped God the Father. However, before He lived as a human He was God, and after He was resurrected He was God again.

Genesis 1:1 says, "When God began to create the heavens and the earth". John 1:3a says "All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being." These two verses clearly identify Jesus as God, the Creator of all things.

Even if the meaning of John 1:1 is distorted, these two verses together prove that Jesus is God.

 

[Davy]

The NWT contradicts itself by translating John 1:1 as the Word was a god, because it does accurately translate several other Scripture, that declare there is no such thing as any god, really being a god:

Can a man make gods for himself, When they are not really gods?

Nevertheless, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those who are not really gods.

By their own translation, they make a god of the Word, and so a god unto themselves, which they also declare cannot really be a god at all.

Check what Greek texts were used for the translation. Most all later NT Bible versions after the 1880s used Westcott and Hort's corrupt new Greek translation from Alexandrian manuscripts, and not using the Textus Receptus 'traditional' Greek texts previously used by the Christian Church in earlier history. Hort per his personal letters stated he hated the Textus Receptus.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Matthew 4:10, "Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! for it is written,

‘Worship the Lord your God,
and serve only him.’ ”

Jesus was talking to Satan, so what does that prove? There is nothing there that says that Jesus' God was Jehovah. He was telling the devil to "get lost".

Further (and on topic!), Jesus became fully human, giving up His deity for a time, so He worshiped God the Father. However, before He lived as a human He was God, and after He was resurrected He was God again.

Genesis 1:1 says, "When God began to create the heavens and the earth". John 1:3a says "All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being." These two verses clearly identify Jesus as God, the Creator of all things.

Even if the meaning of John 1:1 is distorted, these two verses together prove that Jesus is God.

You answered by what you know Jim, now research what Jesus said in reality? Jesus said it was written, so where was it written, and what did the writing say originally sir? We will discuss Jesus' being God a bit later.

 

[Jim B]

You answered by what you know Jim, now research what Jesus said in reality? Jesus said it was written, so where was it written, and what did the writing say originally sir? We will discuss Jesus' being God a bit later.

And you answered by what you know. (How is is possible to answer what you do not know?)

When Jesus said "it is written" He was clearly referring to the Torah. Deuteronomy 8:3, "He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord."

 

[robert derrick]

Really, why did your preferred version translate Acts 28:6 as a god? That sir is inconsistency in translation, and proves they knew how to translate it properly. It was a deliberate manipulation of Scripture. The NWT does not say Jesus is God and at the same time say Jehovah is God now does it?

Seriously?

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.

Scripture is not saying either Jesus nor Paul was a god, but that the simple pagans thought so. The same with the Ephesians calling the apostles Jupiter and Mars.

What's the matter with you people? I once again try to engage you, because you bring up something, without including everyone else in it, and you descend into this kind of foolishness?

First you say nothing to object to NWT contradicting itself, and then you grasp at insults to intelligence.

 

[robert derrick]

The NWT does not say Jesus is God and at the same time say Jehovah is God now does it?

Once again, this is meaningless.

The truth remains, that the NWT, or any other translation, contradicts itself, by saying the Word was a god, while also confirming that all such made gods are not really gods at all.

 

[robert derrick]

Check what Greek texts were used for the translation. Most all later NT Bible versions after the 1880s used Westcott and Hort's corrupt new Greek translation from Alexandrian manuscripts, and not using the Textus Receptus 'traditional' Greek texts previously used by the Christian Church in earlier history. Hort per his personal letters stated he hated the Textus Receptus.

That's because he hates the Lord and God Jesus Christ, and anyone that loves Him as such.

But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?

The reason they had Jesus crucified then and today, is because they rejected Him as the Son of the most blessed, which was to be equal with God.

The accusation that He agreed He was Christ and God, was not a false one.

The false accusation was that He would personally tear down the temple and rebuild it with His own hands.

 

[Jim B]

You answered by what you know Jim, now research what Jesus said in reality? Jesus said it was written, so where was it written, and what did the writing say originally sir? We will discuss Jesus' being God a bit later.

Of course I answered by what I know, as does everyone. Do you answer from what you don't know?

I already showed you where it was/is written: Deuteronomy 8:3, "He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord."

If you can't have a reasonable discussion I have no interest in continuing.

 

[Angel Faith]

The NWT contradicts itself by translating John 1:1 as the Word was a god, because it does accurately translate several other Scripture, that declare there is no such thing as any god, really being a god:

Can a man make gods for himself, When they are not really gods?

Nevertheless, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those who are not really gods.

By their own translation, they make a god of the Word, and so a god unto themselves, which they also declare cannot really be a god at all.

Just my guess. Maybe they were thinking it fits given Eloheim is plural.
Therefore, in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was [a] God is a unique identifier for the only El.