"The word was a god"?

[Johann]

Who was "the Lord your God" to the Jews? Yahweh is there in the Hebrew text....right?

Since you read the complete Tanack online, do you read Rashi's "commentaries?" @Aunty Jane, or are you an ardent studier of the Zohar, Talmud's, ancient rabbinical writings?
Just curious.

 

[Johann]

Hello Jack, Good questions, Can we start with who is Jesus Christ?

Jesus Christ Is The Saviour Of The World

What Does the Bible Say About Jesus Christ Is The Saviour Of The World? (openbible.info)

Saturday 5-7-22 7th. Day Of The Weekly Cycle, Iyar 5, 5782 49th. Spring Day

You know, after reading this entire article, I can understand better:

Part 1 of 4

Is Jesus Christ Really "GOD"? An ancient theological theory has been resurrected in recent years and is being strongly promulgated by a small number who are successfully confusing many with their esoteric doctrine. They claim Jesus Christ had no pre-existence, was merely a human being, and was not and is not truly "GOD."

Yet the Jews who lived in Jesus' own time thought that He proclaimed He was divine and sought to kill Him for this "blasphemy"! What is the real truth? Many today are forsaking the faith of the Word of God -- they are having their true faith shattered -- by false doctrines and modern theologies of demons. Sincere as they may be, they have stumbled off the true path of the true faith, and are in grave danger of causing great shipwreck to themselves and their congregations or followers! The wife of one elder in God's Church wrote to me, and castigated me for several things she found fault with, including the several articles I have written in answer to the new doctrine being preached by Anthony Buzzard and others claiming Jesus Christ was not and is not "God," and did not exist prior to His human birth in the womb of Mary his mother. This no-doubt well-intentioned woman accused me of not respecting the "scholarship" of Buzzard, although, she pointed out, I often quote respected "scholars" in my own writings. This she seemed to think was hypocritical.

She and her husband seem to want to justify Buzzard's message that Jesus was not God and never existed prior to being born as a human being. In my opinion, they seem to have become "buzzard bait" for the great "buzzard" or vulture of this world -- Satan the devil! When I received her letter, I was dismayed -- but not altogether surprised. The saddest thing is that her husband, who is supposed to be the "leader" in the family, had not communicated to me any of his feelings on these matters.

He had only sent me articles written by Buzzard for my reading, without any comments. But when his wife wrote to me, he just penned a little footnote at the end of her lengthy letter saying he agreed with her. 137 Over the past year, I have written SEVEN articles proving that Christ is very GOD, showing His true origin long before His human birth, proving He is often referred to as YHVH in the Old Testament, explaining the "Mystery of God," and showing the proof that God is actually "reproducing Himself" in character and traits in His divine children. I have carefully analyzed and refuted Buzzard's esoteric religious nonsense, showing even how he twists and perverts Scripture, but seemingly all to no avail. At least insofar as this woman and her husband are concerned, it has been apparently to no avail. They still have not finally declared themselves one way or the other, but seem to be leaning toward believing Christ was merely human and never divine.

I wondered as I read her letter, how it was that they came to be led astray. Truly, Satan the devil is subtle and cunning -- more than a match for any of us, humanly speaking. Jesus Christ warned us long ago that in the end times deception would be so powerful that "if it were possible, they shall deceive the VERY ELECT" (Matt.24:24). Paul warned that God would "send them strong DELUSION, that they should believe a LIE: That they all might be damned who believed not the TRUTH, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (II Thess.2:11-12). Apparently, like Eve in the garden of Eden, this dear lady became offended over little things, and allowed her own feelings to be hurt, and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good AND EVIL, and has begun to eat the poisonous fruit -- and her husband, just like Adam of old, has followed her in her transgression.

I say this because thus far SHE is the one who wrote me the letter, and he in effect just wrote a footnote declaring, "I agree." It seems to me that she is the leader in that family, just like Eve -- she seems to be the one who "wears the pants." My heart goes out to them -- yet they must make their own decision, even if it takes them away from the truth and Satan gains an advantage over them. Like Paul, my heart cries out, and I exclaim, "But I fear, lest by any means, as the SERPENT BEGUILED EVE through his subtilty, so your minds should be CORRUPTED from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus . . ." (II Cor.11:3-4). If you have not read my in-depth articles on this subject of the divinity of Christ, then I urge you to write for them right away. They are entitled: "The Pre-Existence of Christ -- Fact? Or Superstition?", "Is Jesus God?", "Who was the YHVH of the OLD TESTAMENT?", "Who or What Was JESUS CHRIST Before His Human Birth?", "The Mystery of GOD," "What Is God Like?", and "Is God Reproducing Himself?" "Beware of False Prophets" How some people can so easily be led astray by every wind of false doctrine truly puzzles and intrigues me. Paul the apostle indeed prophesied that it would happen.

And it can happen to truly sincere and well-meaning people! Truly God's warning is 138 serious business when He says to us, "TAKE HEED THAT NO MAN DECEIVE YOU" (Matt.24:4), and, "Many false prophets shall arise, and shall DECEIVE MANY"(verse 11), "Behold, I have told you before" (v.25). Jesus warned all of us, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matt.7:15-16). Paul warned us deliberately and urgently: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the LATTER TIMES some shall DEPART FROM THE FAITH, giving heed to seducing spirits, and DOCTRINES OF DEVILS"(I Tim.4:1). Paul warned of some of these pseudo-scholars and make-believe "saints," saying they have "a form of godliness" but deny the power thereof, and commands us, "from such TURN AWAY" (II Tim.3:5). He says they are "ever learning, and NEVER able to come to the knowledge of the TRUTH" (verse 7). We are living in the days prophesied by Jude, the brother of Christ, who wrote, "Beloved . . . it was needful for me to write unto you, and EXHORT you that ye should EARNESTLY CONTENT for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). It is very sad to see some jettison the true faith which was "once delivered," and exchange it for a new model "faith" which is guaranteed to poison the mind and destroy godly, righteous character! And when I become angry when I see these horrible things happening, the people involved accuse me of my "anger," not realizing that God Himself is FURIOUS and VERY ANGRY with their foolishness and their wicked departure from the TRUTH into hideous and Satanic ERROR! Did Jesus Exist Before His Human Birth? There are, of course, as any really devoted student of the Bible knows, many Scriptures which tell us in plain language that Jesus did exist BEFORE His human birth.

He was the Logos, or Word of God, "which was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth" (John 1:14). John tells us, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the WORD WAS GOD. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was LIFE; and the life was the light of men" (John 1:1-4). This Word, or "Logos" in the Greek language, was a being who was a member of the very Godhead -- a God being just like the Father! No matter how some men attempt to reason around this plain and simple verse, it says just what it says! Now notice what became of this Logos, or member of the Godhead, in due passage of time! John tells us: ". . . And the WORD WAS MADE FLESH, and dwelt among us . . ." (John 1:1, 14). This Word, therefore, which pre-existed with the Father from some point in eternity, was GOD -- and this "Word" IS THE ONE WHO BECAME CHRIST! 139 Jesus Came Down from Heaven That truth is so plain a child can understand it -- yet some have become befuddled and baffled and confused. Furthermore, in John chapter 6, Jesus plainly says, "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me" (John 6:38). He said further, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven"(verse 51). Read this whole chapter. But unfortunately, those who have been bamboozled by Satan's dirty tricks campaign, cannot see this plain truth any more at all. They have become strung out on pseudo-scholarship and false, deadly mis-reasoning.

To be continued:

Love, Walter

Can't wait for the second part Walter.

 

[Johann]

Oh a KJV team member....? No wonder thou dost not understandeth scripture.

Do you do study and research? Or do you just swallow the party line that has been fed to Christendom's disunited members for centuries without questioning anything? Do you know why they cannot agree?

Did it ever occur to you that the KJV is a translation...it was not actually written by God, but by men who were mostly trinitarians, and the bias in translation is so obvious when you know what you're looking at...hidden in plain sight. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

I question everything....because I was raised in Christendom.....I once believed what you believe, but it never sat well with me...so researched it all thoroughly and I know what I believe now, and why I believe it.

First of all we do NOT "deny that Jesus is the Christ". Who said that we did? We "deny that Jesus is God" because he never once said he was. Being the "Christ" doesn't make him God. It was his God who "anointed" him because that is what "Christ" means.
God did not anoint himself. He did not pray to himself, and he did not worship himself. If Jesus was God, he did all those things.

We believe that he is the "son of God" because that is what he called himself.....its really that simple. Ask Jesus who he is....

You are no scholar, and I have yet to find any scholar here or proper apologetics, I am no scholar, that's for sure...

A Jewish scholar

Feel free to share your opinions.

 

[tigger 2]

Johann wrote #515:

"You are no scholar, so leave John 1:1 and lean not unto your own understanding.
I know the urge to sound to sound [sic] sophomoric and highly intellectual and to know all the answers in the scriptures is fleshly driven, mere intellectual, stoical knowledge, acquired gnosis, so please, down with th [sic] pride and just believe what you read, and Christ Jesus IS Theos, Theos pros ho Theos.."
............................................
Why would anyone want to sound "sophomoric"?

Do you mean that I must follow the teachings of trinitarian scholars and overlook any errors they make?

I have quoted/cited a number of recognized trinitarian scholars in my study of John 1:1. If you are as educated in NT Greek as you claim, you should be able to do a scholarly examination (not just personal attack) of every aspect of my study. I expect that, instead, you will refuse with the usual excuses.

Examining the Trinity OR Examining the Trinity: John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity.

Please point out the 'errors' one by one and explain why they are wrong.

Let me help you. Here is the first point in the Jn 1:1c Primer study:

"The NT Greek word for "God" and "god" is theos (θεὸς). In the writings of the Gospel writers (including John) when an unmodified theos (the form used for subjects and predicate nouns) is accompanied by the article, "the" (ὁ [pronounced ho] in Greek), and has no added phrases (e.g., "the god of this world"), then it always refers to the only true God. - See DEF study."

Johann posted frequently on this discussion (16 times since July 19 I believe), but it suddenly ended when I first posted the above on July 26.

I really want to discuss my study of the grammar of John 1:1c and its parallel constructions in John’s writing. Perhaps if I post the next part of my study…

“But Jn 1:1c has an unmodified "theos" without the article. Therefore, even some trinitarian scholars are forced to admit that this passage may be literally translated as "the Word was a god"!

This includes W. E. Vine (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words);
Dr. C. H. Dodd (director of the New English Bible project);
Murray J. Harris (Jesus as God);
Dr. Robert Young (Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary);
Rev. J. W. Wenham, (The Elements of New Testament Greek).

Of course, being trinitarians, they often insist that the correct interpretation of such a literal translation must be, somehow, trinitarian.

The usual trinitarian interpretation for John 1:1c ("the Word was God") is supposedly based on the fact that an unmodified theos is used as a predicate noun (predicate nominative) without a definite article (anarthrous) and comes before the verb in the New Testament (NT) Greek text. When you find an anarthrous predicate noun in that position, some trinitarians will say, it is to be interpreted differently ("qualitative" or "definite": i.e., as though it actually had the definite article with it or is understood as an adjective) from a predicate noun which normally comes after the verb.

Although such a "reversed" word order is extremely rare in English, it is common in NT Greek. And even a number of respected trinitarian scholars translate such constructions as having an indefinite predicate noun (“The Apostle is a man”; “He is a murderer”; “The man is a prophet”; ““He was a prophet”; “And the place was a market,”; “John Smith is a teacher”; etc.

So I decided to examine all the usages of a predicate noun found before its verb in all of John’s writings that are as close to the example of John 1:1c as we can find.

Here is what I found. Notice how many have the definite article "understood" with the predicate noun (as trinitarians imagine at John 1:1c.):

H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”)

H,W 2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”)

H,W 3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”)

H,W 4. John 8:44 - indefinite (“a murderer”/“a manslayer”)

H,W 5. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”)

H,W 6. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”)

H,W 7. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer”)

H,W 8. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”)

H,W 9. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”)

H,W 10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”)

[H,W 11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]

………………………………................................

H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - “a liar”

H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - “a beggar”

H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - “a prophet”

H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - “a sinner”

H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - “a hireling”

H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - “a thief”

18. 1 Jn 4:20 - “a liar “

And, possibly,

H,W 19. 1 John 2:4 - “a liar”

….………………………………………

H: Also found in Harner’s list of “Colwell Constructions”(end note #16, JBL)

W: Also found in Wallace’s list of “Colwell Constructions”(Greek Grammar & Syntax)

These uses by John show that John 1:1c should also be translated into English with the English indefinite article: “And the word was a god.”

Trinitarian scholars who explain the scriptural use of "a god" for some of those who represent God: - Examining the Trinity: God and gods (from BOWGOD study)

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

You just proved you're not fit to teach scripture.
When does the new school season start? Maybe then child trolls will be in class and not here.

Try posting some meat... how much baby milk can you hold??? Your like a breast feeding man! Man up... Even Jesus spanked the money exchangers in the temple. Take off you diaper and teach something!!!
PAUL

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Can't wait for the second part Walter.

Hi Johann, The other parts are on:
Christian Debate Forum titled: "The Word Was A God"? but by WalterandDebbie
thanks.

Love, Walter

 

[Johann]

Hi Johann, The other parts are on:
Christian Debate Forum titled: "The Word Was A God"? but by WalterandDebbie
thanks.

Love, Walter

Thank you Walter.
Shalom to you and family.

 

[Johann]

Do you mean that I must follow the teachings of trinitarian scholars and overlook any errors they make?

Nope, but you are in a all out attempt to debunk the Deity of Christ, on Google, YouTube, everywhere, our blessed Lord and great God is under attack.
Are you familiar with Hebrew and Koine Greek?
And would you consider yourself a scholar?
I just might take the bait [de-baite]

 

[Johann]

Do you mean that I must follow the teachings of trinitarian scholars and overlook any errors they make?

Interesting....
Robertson’s Word Pictures (trinitarian): Heb. 2:7: “than the angels.... The Hebrew here [Ps. 8:5] has Elohim ['gods'] which word is applied to judges in Psa. 82:1, 6 (John 10:34f.). Here it is certainly not ‘God’ in our sense. In Psa. 29:1 the LXX translates Elohim [‘God’ or ‘gods’] by huoi theou (sons of God).” - p. 345, Vol. 5.

...I really don't care what Philo wrote,

“[theos ‘god’] is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God, or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically i.q. God’s representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges, Jn x. 34 sq. after Ps [82:6]...” - Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 288, Baker Book House (trinitarian).


Juan said...
I can see that a lot of study and work went into this website. I am currently seriously considering becoming a JW and this website is answering a lot of important theological questions I have.

...You a JW? I have noticed you did not consulted any Jewish sources and scholars, even the Shema is under attack on this website of yours...interesting...

You consider yourself a "scholar?"

 

[The Learner]

Are you a IT employee trying to speak English....??? Your post reads like My conversation from work trying to get my computer password back working again...

Paul

I am A.I. friend.

 

[The Learner]

Are you a IT employee trying to speak English....??? Your post reads like My conversation from work trying to get my computer password back working again...

Paul

Please, apply the Scholars letter about dishonestly of the watchtower.

 

[Jack]

JW's constantly try to rewrite our Bible. The only credentials they have are brainwashing by the WatchTower.

 

[The Learner]

Johann wrote #515:

"You are no scholar, so leave John 1:1 and lean not unto your own understanding.
I know the urge to sound to sound [sic] sophomoric and highly intellectual and to know all the answers in the scriptures is fleshly driven, mere intellectual, stoical knowledge, acquired gnosis, so please, down with th [sic] pride and just believe what you read, and Christ Jesus IS Theos, Theos pros ho Theos.."
............................................
Why would anyone want to sound "sophomoric"?

Do you mean that I must follow the teachings of trinitarian scholars and overlook any errors they make?

I have quoted/cited a number of recognized trinitarian scholars in my study of John 1:1. If you are as educated in NT Greek as you claim, you should be able to do a scholarly examination (not just personal attack) of every aspect of my study. I expect that, instead, you will refuse with the usual excuses.

Examining the Trinity OR Examining the Trinity: John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity.

Please point out the 'errors' one by one and explain why they are wrong.

Let me help you. Here is the first point in the Jn 1:1c Primer study:

"The NT Greek word for "God" and "god" is theos (θεὸς). In the writings of the Gospel writers (including John) when an unmodified theos (the form used for subjects and predicate nouns) is accompanied by the article, "the" (ὁ [pronounced ho] in Greek), and has no added phrases (e.g., "the god of this world"), then it always refers to the only true God. - See DEF study."

Johann posted frequently on this discussion (16 times since July 19 I believe), but it suddenly ended when I first posted the above on July 26.

I really want to discuss my study of the grammar of John 1:1c and its parallel constructions in John’s writing. Perhaps if I post the next part of my study…

“But Jn 1:1c has an unmodified "theos" without the article. Therefore, even some trinitarian scholars are forced to admit that this passage may be literally translated as "the Word was a god"!

This includes W. E. Vine (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words);
Dr. C. H. Dodd (director of the New English Bible project);
Murray J. Harris (Jesus as God);
Dr. Robert Young (Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary);
Rev. J. W. Wenham, (The Elements of New Testament Greek).

Of course, being trinitarians, they often insist that the correct interpretation of such a literal translation must be, somehow, trinitarian.

The usual trinitarian interpretation for John 1:1c ("the Word was God") is supposedly based on the fact that an unmodified theos is used as a predicate noun (predicate nominative) without a definite article (anarthrous) and comes before the verb in the New Testament (NT) Greek text. When you find an anarthrous predicate noun in that position, some trinitarians will say, it is to be interpreted differently ("qualitative" or "definite": i.e., as though it actually had the definite article with it or is understood as an adjective) from a predicate noun which normally comes after the verb.

Although such a "reversed" word order is extremely rare in English, it is common in NT Greek. And even a number of respected trinitarian scholars translate such constructions as having an indefinite predicate noun (“The Apostle is a man”; “He is a murderer”; “The man is a prophet”; ““He was a prophet”; “And the place was a market,”; “John Smith is a teacher”; etc.

So I decided to examine all the usages of a predicate noun found before its verb in all of John’s writings that are as close to the example of John 1:1c as we can find.

Here is what I found. Notice how many have the definite article "understood" with the predicate noun (as trinitarians imagine at John 1:1c.):

H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”)

H,W 2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”)

H,W 3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”)

H,W 4. John 8:44 - indefinite (“a murderer”/“a manslayer”)

H,W 5. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”)

H,W 6. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”)

H,W 7. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer”)

H,W 8. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”)

H,W 9. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”)

H,W 10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”)

[H,W 11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]

………………………………................................

H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - “a liar”

H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - “a beggar”

H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - “a prophet”

H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - “a sinner”

H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - “a hireling”

H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - “a thief”

18. 1 Jn 4:20 - “a liar “

And, possibly,

H,W 19. 1 John 2:4 - “a liar”

….………………………………………

H: Also found in Harner’s list of “Colwell Constructions”(end note #16, JBL)

W: Also found in Wallace’s list of “Colwell Constructions”(Greek Grammar & Syntax)

These uses by John show that John 1:1c should also be translated into English with the English indefinite article: “And the word was a god.”

Trinitarian scholars who explain the scriptural use of "a god" for some of those who represent God: - Examining the Trinity: God and gods (from BOWGOD study)

Friend, your source does not understand Greek Grammar.
" My Th.M. thesis (Dallas Seminary, '75), entitled "The
Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John," prompted by
an abuse of Colwell's Rule (where the inverse or negative of his rule was
invalidly inferred both by Colwell and many others, including those who
would attempt to use his rule to argue against the JW interpretation in
Jn 1:1), totally supports your assertions. I found that the anarthrous
predicative nominative in John's Gospel was qualitative 65 out of 74
occurrences, or 88% probability.
If you would like the conclusion of my thesis, I would be happy
to forward it on to you via the net.
Paul Dixon"

"John is right to say that the anarthrous predicate nominative is
> used to qualify or describe the subject. Theos does give the
> qualitative nature of logos, as to his nature he was theos, i.e.
> deity. The article by Harner in JBL is accurate but it does not
> support the JW translation, and I don't think that he would like
> being quoted in support of the NWT.
>
> B. F. Westcott has a good comment on why there is no article before
> Theos in John 1:1.
>
> The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in iv.24. It
> is necessarily without the article inasmuch as it describes the]
> nature of the Word and does not identify His Person. It would be
> pure Sabellianism to say "the Word as ho theos." No idea of
> inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression,
> simply affirms the true deity of the Word. (Comm. on John, p. 3)"

 

[The Learner]

"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, εἰμὶ 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."

 

[The Learner]

"
(Philip B. Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973) p. 76. The essay is pp. 75-87). In other words, Harner did an empirical study to determine usage. JPA can of course disagree and cite contrary evidence. But it is being dishonest or badly informed when it claims the rule is made up, since Wallace provides plenty of evidence."

 

[The Learner]

Barclay also makes his position clear in a response to the Watchtower's citation:

"The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say. What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is not the same as God, to put it more crudely, that is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves. If they missed from their answer the translation of Kenneth Wuest and the N.E.B., they missed the whole point" (A letter to Donald P. Shoemaker, 8/26/1977. A photocopy of this letter can be found in Watters, Thus saith ... the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 74).

 

[The Learner]

The question, then, is what did John mean by the anarthrous theos? The overwhelming majority of scholars who've addressed the subject understand John to be emphasizing the qualities or character of the Logos, particularly given that the noun is not only anarthrous, but preverbal as well. The Watchtower, too, recognizes the qualitative aspects of theos in John 1:1c, though it differs from what most scholars mean by the term.

A larger issue, however, is the accusation that Green's analysis is "an unintended admission that 'the Word' is not the same god as the God." Such a statement indicates that the Watchtower really doesn't understand Green's comments at all. Green is demonstrating a rather elementary point of Greek grammar - that when two nouns are joined by a form of the verb 'to be,' if they both have the article, the clause may be termed a "convertible proposition." In a convertible proposition, the two nouns are equivalent. For example, "Jesus is the Son of God" is convertible - Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of God is Jesus. The two terms are exactly equivalent.

Green's point is that John 1:1c is not convertible - if it were (that is, if theos were articular), John would have been asserting an exact equivalence between the God and the Word. As Green puts it would mean that "the Word was the entire Godhead." All of God would have been the Word, and the Word would have been the totality of God (to the exclusion of the Father and the Spirit). To argue that this statement is a tacit admission that the Word is "not the same god as the God" is both a strawman (because it fails to address the Trinitarian view of the Word's relationship to the Godhead) and a circular argument. For only by assuming that the "Godhead" is one Person can one conclude that the Word cannot be the God He is with.

The Watchtower's confusion about what constitutes a convertible proposition may be seen in this same appendix, where we find on the one hand, "We agree with Dr. A. T. Robertson when he says: 'God and love are not convertible terms any more than God and Logos" (NWT, 1971, p. 1362); and on the other, "The proposition 'And the Word was a god' is a convertible one" (IBID, p. 1363). Theos ên ho logos either is or is not a convertible proposition; it cannot be both.

 

[The Learner]

Harris demonstrates that grammatical possibilities do not yield accurate translations. He goes on to say, "it would not be impossible, from the point of view of grammar alone, to translate 1:1c as 'God was the Word'" (Harris, p. 61). Anyone reading Harris' chapter on John 1:1 will see that he favors the traditional translation ("The Word was God") not merely on theological grounds (John's monotheism, by the way; not Harris'), but on strong grammatical and contextual grounds as well.

 

[The Learner]

Michael Van Buskirk of the Christian Apologetics: Research and Information Service (CARIS) wrote to Dr. Mantey (Dr. Dana had died), asking him if he had been quoted accurately by the Watchtower. Dr. Mantey replied in a letter dated February 25, 1974. It read:

In response to your request, I give you the following facts: In Jehovah's Witnesses' Translation of the New Testament, where I am quoted in a footnote on John 1:1 (cf., D-M Gk. Gram. Pg. 148 (3)), I was writing on how the article "distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence," not on the significance of the absence of the article before THEOS. My closing statement in the paragraph was: "As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in THEOS." My interpretation of John 1:1 in that same paragraph was "The Word was Deity," i.e., that Christ is of the same essence as the Father, of the same family. So I was quoted out of context. Is that honest scholarship?

Thus, one of the authors of the Grammar the Watchtower used in defense of its translation says that he was quoted out of context and was not even discussing what it quoted him as affirming. Read in context, Dr. Mantey's comments about the "parallel" cases refer to two specific points about copulative sentences:

1. If one noun has the article, it is the subject of the sentence or clause (the place and the word).

2. If only one noun has the article, the sentence is not a "convertible proposition" (that is, the two nouns are not interchangeable, as they would be if both nouns have the article). Thus, place is not interchangeable with market; word is not interchangeable with Deity.

Dr. Mantey's comments have nothing to do with the semantic force of the predicate (whether indefinite, as in Xenophon, or qualitative, as in John 1:1).

Dr. Mantey spoke out forcefully against the Watchtower's misuse of his Grammar on several occasions, including a famous letter to the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society itself. For more information on Dr. Mantey and the Watchtower, click here.

 

[The Learner]

This citation is actually not from Newcome's translation. Instead, it appears in a version that was "corrected" by Thomas Belsham and an unnamed Unitarian Committee using unknown translation principles. Newcome's New Testament was published in 1796 (click here to see the title page and Newcome's original translation of John 1:1); the "corrected" version appeared in 1808.
It is misleading, to say the least, to imply that Newcome himself (a bona fide Greek scholar) is responsible for the rendering of a Unitarian Committee whose credentials we are not able to verify.