Why Do Jehovah's Witnesses Understand John 1:1 to Read, "...and the Word Was a god"?

Why Do Jehovah's Witnesses Understand John 1:1 to Read, "...and the Word Was a god"?

This Bible verse is often misused. In the King James Version, this Scripture reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [Greek, ton the·on′], and the Word was God [the·os′].” This verse contains two forms of the Greek noun the·os′ (god). The first is preceded by ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article, and in this case the word the·on′ refers to Almighty God. In the second instance, however, the·os′ has no definite article.

In the New World Translation Bible (produced by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society - a legal organization in use by Jehovah’s Witnesses), John 1:1 reads: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” Some other translations render the last part of the verse to convey the thought that the Word was “divine,” or something similar. (A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt; The New English Bible) Many translations, however, render the last part of John 1:1: “And the Word was God.”—The Holy Bible—New International Version; The Jerusalem Bible. So which is the correct translation of this verse?

Greek Grammar and Context Provide the Answer

Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that the New World Translation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. (See John 1:1c Primer (Examining the Trinity). Also see the w09 4/1 pp. 18-19 article: A Text That Teaches the Trinity?)

Bible verses in the Greek language that have a construction similar to that of John 1:1 use the expression “a god.” For example, when referring to Herod Agrippa I, the crowds shouted: ‘It is a god speaking.’ And when Paul survived a bite by a poisonous snake, the people said: “He is a god.” (Acts 12:22; 28:3-6) It is in harmony with both Greek grammar and Bible teaching to speak of the Word as, not God, but “a god.”—John 1:1.

For instance, consider that John states that the Word was “with God.” But how can an individual be with someone and at the same time be that person? John 1:1 clearly phrases God as a separate person from the Word (Jesus). And since Jesus is written and identified in John 1:1 as a separate person from God (not just the Father), then that would positively exclude him as being God!

Commenting on this, Count Leo Tolstoy, the famous Russian novelist and religious philosopher, said:

"If it says that in the beginning was the...Word, and that the Word was...WITH God, it is impossible to go on and say that it was God. If it was God, it could stand in no relation to God." - The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated, p. 30.

Moreover, as recorded at John 17:3, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and his heavenly Father. He calls his Father “the only true God.” And toward the end of his Gospel, John sums up matters by saying: “These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” (John 20:31) Notice that Jesus is called, not God, but the Son of God. This additional information provided in the Gospel of John shows how John 1:1 should be understood. Jesus, the Word, is “a god” in the sense that he has a high position but is not the same as Almighty God.

Other Bibles That Render John 1:1c "a god"

The NWT is not the only Bible to render John 1:1c as "a god". Actually, there are many Bibles that render John 1:1 as "a God" or it's equivalent:

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.

1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

Trinitarian Scholars Have Even Admitted That "the Word was *a* god"

Even a number of respected trinitarian scholars have admitted that "the Word was *a* god" is the literal translation at John 1:1c.

In addition to their comments below, W. E. Vine, Prof. C. H. Dodd (Director of the New English Bible project), and Murray J. Harris admit that this ("the Word was a god") is the literal translation, but, being trinitarians, they insist that it be interpreted and translated as "and the Word was God." Why? Because of a trinitarian bias only!

W. E. Vine - "a god was the Word" - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament.

C. H. Dodd - "The Word was a god" - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Jan., 1977.

Murray J. Harris - "the Word was a god" - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Robert Young - "and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" - Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary.

Even Origen, the most knowledgeable of the early Christian Greek-speaking scholars, tells us that John 1:1c actually means "the Word [logos] was a god". - "Origen's Commentary on John," Book I, ch. 42 - Bk II, ch.3.

Origen's Commentary on John is "the first great work of Christian interpretation." Origen was certainly the most knowledgeable about NT (koine) Greek of any scholar. He studied it from early childhood and even taught it professionally from his teens onward. And this was during a time when it was a living language and, of course, well understood. - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, pp. 291-294, vol. X, Eerdmans Publ., 1990 printing.

The Sahidic Coptic Translation Reads John 1:1 as, "And the Word was *a* god."

It is also interesting to note that the Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus' earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. A significant fact concerning the Coptic language is that, unlike the Greek, it used an indefinite article ("a" or "an" in English).

The Sahidic Coptic translation DOES USE an indefinite article with the word 'god' in the final part of John 1:1 and when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: 'And the Word was a god.' (Coptic Translation of John 1:1-14)

The fact is that the New World Translation is not wrong in translating John 1:1 the way it does as some critics propose. In fact, these critics have it completely turned around. The absence of the indefinite article (a) at John 1:1c has been purposely mistranslated in most Trinitarian-produced Bibles to fit THEIR doctrine that Jesus is God.

For much more, see:

Was the Word “God” or “a god”? (w08 11/1 pp. 24-25; Watchtower Online Library)

"The Word Was God" (bh p. 201-p. 204 par. 2; Watchtower Online Library)

“Those Who Are Called ‘Gods’” (g05 4/22 pp. 8-9; Watchtower Online Library)

John 1:1 - Links to Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

SEARCH THIS SITE:

Defend Jehovah's Witnesses

SEARCH JW.ORG:

JW.ORG

Was Christ Jesus Married?

By WILLIAM WRIGHT

A new book based on interpretations of an Aramaic text argue that Jesus Christ was married to the woman the Bible says was his mother. The book also asserts the couple had two children.

ABC News reported, “In ‘The Lost Gospel,’ authors Simcha Jacobovici and Barrie Wilson argue that the original Virgin Mary was Jesus’ wife — not his mother and that there was an assassination attempt on Jesus’ life 13 years before he was crucified.” Their arguments are based on an ancient manuscript dating back nearly 1,500 years, one they say they found in a British library.”

Although the report quotes Mark Goodacre, a professor of religious studies at Duke University, as stating, “There is simply no evidence in this text or anywhere else that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, much less that they had a couple of children,” news outlets are covering the scandalous accusation as if it had merit, when in fact it does not.

What proof are the authors offering? They offer the document itself as proof. Do you believe a document written some 500 years after Jesus walked the earth can offer greater proof than the documents written during the same generation that actually knew Jesus? Scholars had already scrutinized the document and discarded it as insignificant, according to news sources.

The International Business Times reports that Jacobovici has published controversial takes on early Christianity in the past, including a 2002 documentary on a site of human skeletal remains he believed to show Jesus had a family. Later, the Discovery Channel named the site one of the top 10 scientific hoaxes of all time.

Of course, this is not the first claim that Jesus was married. A fragment of an ancient Egyptian papyrus known as the “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” was unveiled in 2012, containing the phrase “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife...’”

This document was also written centuries after Jesus died. The discovery was announced at the 10th International Congress on Coptic studies held in Rome. But Stephen Emmel, a professor of Coptology at the University of Muenster in Germany, stated in an interview at the conference, “There’s something about this fragment in its appearance and also in the grammar of the Coptic that strikes me as being not completely convincing somehow.”

Some experts commented that the writing on the papyrus is “personal writing,” whereas in ancient manuscripts it would have been written in a more rigid way, similar to a printed text. At the conference Alin Suciu, a papyrologist at the University of Hamburg, said, “I would say it’s a forgery. The script doesn’t look authentic.”

Even if this proved to be an authentic product of a fourth-century writer, why would that carry more weight than the loyal, candid, gospel writers of the first century who either knew Jesus personally or lived in his era? It was no crime to be married. So why would anyone not report a marriage unless it never happened?

Why assume every article written about Jesus, hundreds of years after his death, was historical? Are we to assume that every writer in the past was a historian? People wrote for entertainment and fun even as they do today. Don’t be surprised if archaeologists dig up more baseless assertions about Jesus than these two.

Experts don’t even know if this fourth-century fragment could have intended to include the words, “Jesus said to them, my wife — is the congregation,” or “Jesus said to them, my wife — will be those with me in heaven.”

That would harmonize with similar statements in the Bible at Revelation 19:7-8: “Let us be glad and rejoice and give him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his wife has made herself ready. And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.” — New King James Version.

As Paul wrote to loyal first century Christians in 2 Corinthians 11:2, “I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.” — New International Version. The relationship between Christ and Christians going to heaven is so close that their oneness was likened to a husband and wife in Scriptures like John 3:28-30, Ephesians 5:22-32 and Galatians 3:28.

The Scriptures are clear that Jesus knew his life would be short-lived, cut off in his prime (Matthew 16:21). Clearly, he came to die for our sins and glorify God, not marry and have children (John 3:16).

Based on a few incomplete sentences and one text written some 500 years after Jesus walked the earth, some people may be ready to dismiss centuries of documentation provided by eyewitness disciples of Christ. But for millions of Christians, the Bible is the best, most reliable source of information on the life and ministry of Christ.

Unfortunately, Bible critics will continue to feed the news media with sensational stories so these skeptics can make a name for themselves. True to its word, the Bible foretold at 2 Timothy 3:1-2 that in the “last days” men would be “blasphemers” and there has been no shortage of irreverent lies in our day.

Perhaps the words of Jesus at John 8:44 could be extended to certain people in our time? Jesus told a group of religious leaders who were slandering him, “You people are from your father the devil, and you want to do what your father desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies.” — New English Translation.

If, on the other hand, you do take the four gospels of the Bible to be the inspired Word of truth — to love, honor and cherish it — to have and to hold, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, from this day forward until death do you part — then feel free to respond by saying, “I do!”

http://www.clevelandbanner.com/view/full_story/20264926/article-WRIGHT-WAY--Was-Christ-Jesus-married-?instance=main_article

-----------------------------------------------------------------
For more about this subject, see:

Was Jesus Married? Did Jesus Have Siblings? (JW.ORG)

The Microscopic World - Purposeful Design or Mindless Process?

Childbirth

This series of biochemical and physical events...eloquently points to design on the part of our Creator, whom the Bible calls “the source of life.”—Psalm 36:9; Ecclesiastes 11:5.
The Amazing Process of Childbirth (g 1/11 pp. 16-17; Watchtower Online Library)

FOR MOBILE DEVICES - VIDEO: The Miracle of Human Creation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image: A White Blood Cell Chases and Engulfs This Bacteria

"Regarding white blood cells, [the book ABC’s of the Human Body states]: “While there is only one kind of red cell, white blood cells come in many varieties, each type capable of fighting the body’s battles in a different way. One kind, for instance, destroys dead cells. Other kinds produce antibodies against viruses, detoxify foreign substances, or literally eat up and digest bacteria.”

"What an amazing and highly organized system! Surely anything that is so well put together and so thoroughly protective must have a very intelligent and caring organizer—God." - "How We Can Know There Is a God"; The Unique Blood System

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

DNA

There are myriad chemical reactions that need to be precisely staged to form DNA.

For perspective, Dr. Emil Borel, an authority on probabilities, says that if there is less chance for something to happen than 1 in 10 to the 50th power (1 followed by 50 zeros), then it will never happen, no matter how much time is allowed.

So when Dr. Frank Salisbury of Utah State University, U.S.A., calculated the odds of the spontaneous formation of a basic DNA molecule essential for the appearance of life, the calculations revealed the probability to be so tiny (one in 1 followed by 415 zeros!) that it is considered mathematically impossible.

Actually, the odds for natural evolution are so incredibly poor that even noted evolutionists admit that it is virtually impossible, but they believe it anyway, because the only alternative (creation) is so repugnant to them.
- How Likely is it For a Basic DNA Molecule to Form Spontaneously? (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

FOR MOBILE DEVICES - VIDEO: DNA Replication

Also see:

WAS IT DESIGNED? - The Storage Capacity of DNA (JW.ORG)

Where Did the Instructions Come From? (lf question 3 pp. 13-21; Watchtower Online Library)

Can Complex Information Write Itself? (g 11/11 pp. 4-6; Watchtower Online Library)

DNA - Links to Information (INDEX; Watchtower Online Library)

SEARCH THIS SITE:

Defend Jehovah's Witnesses

SEARCH JW.ORG:

JW.ORG

How Likely is it For a Basic DNA Molecule to Form Spontaneously?

If evolution is true, then it should seem at least reasonably possible that DNA could have come about by means of a series of chance events.

Yet there are myriad chemical reactions that need to be precisely staged to form DNA.

For perspective, Dr. Emil Borel, an authority on probabilities, says that if there is less chance for something to happen than 1 in 10 to the 50th power (1 followed by 50 zeros), then it will never happen, no matter how much time is allowed.

So when Dr. Frank Salisbury of Utah State University, U.S.A., calculated the odds of the spontaneous formation of a basic DNA molecule essential for the appearance of life, the calculations revealed the probability to be so tiny (one in 1 followed by 415 zeros!) that it is considered mathematically impossible.

Actually, the odds for natural evolution are so incredibly poor that even noted evolutionists admit that it is virtually impossible, but they believe it anyway, because the only alternative (creation) is so repugnant to them.

For example, Nobel Prize-winning biologist Dr. George Wald admits:

"One only has to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result I believe, of spontaneous generation."

This belief in the impossible by evolutionists is mainly because they don't want to believe in the alternative.

Biologist D. H. Watson once said: Evolution is

"universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

For more, see:

DNA - Links to Information (INDEX; Watchtower Online Library)

WAS IT DESIGNED? - The Storage Capacity of DNA (JW.ORG)

Where Did the Instructions Come From? (lf question 3 pp. 13-21; Watchtower Online Library)

Can Complex Information Write Itself? (g 11/11 pp. 4-6; Watchtower Online Library)

Abiogenesis - Links to Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Creation - Links to Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

SEARCH THIS SITE:

Defend Jehovah's Witnesses

SEARCH JW.ORG:

JW.ORG