Help in Greek of John 1:1-2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Omyo12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Omyo12

Guest
I was speaking to a Jehovah’s Witness and they argued that John 1:1 is mistranslated and should read “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was a god.” (by “god” meaning a supernatural being like an angel)

I was looking at the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition and came across something I don’t quite understand.
1:1 en arch hn o logos kai o logos hn pros ton qeon kai qeos hn o logos 1:2 outos hn en arch pros ton qeon
Click to expand...
Most literally, this translates:
1:1 in beginning was the LOGOS and the LOGOS was with the ThEON and ThEOS was the LOGOS 1:2 this was in beginning with the ThEON
Click to expand...
The JW’s argument was… why does God have a “the” before it every time except when referring to the Word? “THE word and THE word was with THE god, and god was THE word” They claimed it means “god was the Word not THE God was the Word”…

for example:
“car he was driving” — “he was driving a car” (could be any car)
“god was the word” — “the word was a god” (could be any “god”)

“the car he was driving” — “he was driving the car” (a specific one)
“the god was the word” — “the word was the god” (the one and only God)

They also point to the Coptic Greek as further proof of “a god” versus “God”

HERE

The Greek sentence structure is foreign to me so I really couldn’t counter… so could someone explain this basic Koine Greek?
 
God is the God, so it makes sense to me. I think the Apostle was making an emphasis on the Christian belief in One God, because they were being accused of polytheism by the Jews and pagans.
 
Looking at my Greek concordance…

In the beginning was** the **Word and **the **Word was with the God and God was the Word this was in the beginning with the God

the: the definite article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom):–the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc.

Douay Rheims: 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.

So God is the Word. And the Word of course is Jesus!
How do we know the Word is Jesus - because a few verses later we read that the Word was made flesh 😃

Though I’m no scholar I hope this helps
 
Just reading over your post again

JW’s argument was… why does God have a “the” before it every time except when referring to the Word?

Do they think John is refering to two Gods :eek:

“THE word and THE word was with THE god, and god was THE word” They claimed it means “god was the Word not THE God was the Word”…

God (with the the) and God (without the the) it’s the same God.

the Word was with the God, and God (‘the’ God just refered to) was the Word.

and the Word was a god

The word isn’t a God, the Word is the God
God and the Word are one and the same

Mark12:29 And Jesus answered him: The first commandment of all is, Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy God is one God.
 
This is from myNew Greek English Interlinear New Testament-**NestleAland 26th Version.**In (the) beginning was the word and the Word was with God, and God was The Word.This One Was in (the) Beginning with God" I think that wording actually makes it clearer.
 
At first site this seems a non-problem. However looking into it a bit deeper, but still on a superficial level, reveals a problem. Common sense, sound grammar and standard theology reject the JW interpretation.

Wallace in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics discusses this and Colwell’s rule in detail. He points out that the* New World Translation* has “a god”. He disagrees strongly with this and adds “One can only suspect strong theological bias in such a translation”.

“A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”
 
I appreciate the responses, however they are still not strong enough to use as a defense.

I also have a Nestle-Aland Interlinear and a Textus Receptus Interlinear and I know how its translated by Christians.

The argument stands-
**why does ThEON have the definite article but not ThEOS?

Since it doesn’t have an article, they claim that based on the sentence structure that the grammatically correct thing to do is to add an indefinite article (a) and not a definite one (the)…**

They also points to the fact it’s spelled differently in the same sentence.
 
NoelFitz said:
Wallace in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics discusses this and Colwell’s rule in detail. He points out that the* New World Translation* has “a god”. He disagrees strongly with this and adds “One can only suspect strong theological bias in such a translation”.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I should order that book. Does he explain his reasoning or does he just say its wrong. Unfortunately when it comes to arguments, just saying “well so-n-so says this…” is not convincing at all… 🤷
 
Omyo12 said:
appreciate the responses, however they are still not strong enough to use as a defense.
Since it doesn’t have an article, they claim that based on the sentence structure that the grammatically correct thing to do is to add an indefinite article (a) and not a definite one (the)…
Click to expand...
Dug this up. Yikes, :eek: I found out that some of the articles on the web on John 1:1 can get ***extremely ***grammatically technical, the one below is not too bad. I hope it helps (a little).
“Furthermore, even though the Greek language does not have an ‘indefinite article’ like we think of in English, **there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea and thus avoid confusion. This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun ‘tis’. ** In John 1:1 there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ in the phrase, ‘and the Word was God’. However, in this instance, it cannot just be assumed that the word ‘God’ is meant to be ‘indefinite’, and therefore an indefinite article used in the English translation. Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was ‘a certain god’, but not the one he was just referring to. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1 (among many, many other examples). So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ - John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father.” from:ntgreek.org/answers/answer-frame-john1_1.htm

Mark 14:51
Καὶ νεανίσκος τις ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ
and young-man a-certain was-following-with him

so if John would have wanted to say that the Word was ‘a god’, he would have wrote last part of John 1:1 like this
καὶ Θεὸς τις ἦν ὁ Λόγος
and the word was a-certain god
 
So if the Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus was “a” God then that means that they believe in multiple Gods does it not? I know that they will answer you that they believe that God (capital “G”) is THE God, but Jesus is a little god (lowercase “g”). That does not make sense and would contradict so many other passages, such as Deuteronomy 32:39 which says “I alone, am God and there are no gods besides me” and Isaiah 43:10 “Before me no god was formed nor shall there be any after me”.

There would also be a problem with John 20:28 where Thomas says to Jesus “My Lord and my God” or more literally in the Greek*“The Lord of me and the God of me”*. It would be blasphemy if Jesus did no rebuke Thomas if he was wrong.

There are plenty more examples if you are interested but the above should help counter what the JW’s are alluding to with John 1:1.
 
The Jehovah’s witnesses have been trying to pull that bait and switch for years. Their original founder proposed that he knew Greek but did not and he translated the verse and the ‘Word was a god’. The earliest Greek translations all have the definite article so Julia is correct, even on the ordering as it is found in the Greek.
In (the) beginning was the word and the Word was with God, and God was The Word.This One Was in (the) Beginning with God"
John 1:1 The Word was God is: "(en 1722) in (arche 746) beginning/foundation (eimi 1510) was (ho 3588) the (logos 3056) Word (kai 2532) and (ho 3588) the (logos 3056) Word (eimi 1510) was (pros 4314) with (ton 3588) the (Theos 2316) God (kai 2532) and (Theos 2316) God (en’ 1510) **was **(ho 3588) the (logos 3056) Word ". So if you read from left to right, ‘GOD was the Word’. But in Greek you do not necessarily have to do that. Because you have the definite article (‘the’) the subject, verb, direct object etc become very clear and so interpretors can make the language more contemporary without changing the meaning. Think of it as the communative property of Greek - order does not matter but the definite article does. In this case it is clear that the Word of God is both with God. (“I and the Father are One”, - John 10:30) and God was the Word. Now for a totally insufficient analogy - When you speak are your words your own? Are they not directly sourced in your wisdom. How much more God and His Son - who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, the Logos and the Wisdom/Sophia of God in all His fullness? He has overcome all the world on a bitter cross that you may be called His - Now that is Love! 1 John 3:1 and who does John attribute that love to but the Father. Undertsanding the oneness of Christ is the Father is essential to foundational Christianity, which is why the Church has made it a doctrine. John 15:9
🙂
May the Omnipotent God of Truth and Love bless your day In Christ Jesus,
Rev 22:20 λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα ναί ἔρχομαι ταχύ ἀμήν ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ
 
Omyo12
Wallace’s book is very heavy reading.
He argues powerfully for the accepted translation, but it is not easy going.

There are several answers to the problem:
  1. The constant teaching throughout the ages
  2. The agreement of all Greek scholars
  3. Common sense
  4. The teaching of the Church
  5. The agreement Quod semper, ubique et ab omnibus
  6. Colwell’s rule.
A summary of Wallace’s argument is given on p 28 of Mounce’s “Basics of Biblical Greek” by Wallace himself.

He concludes his argument with:
Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. Bur he is not the first person of the Trinity. A this is concisely affirmed in KAI QEOS HN O LOGOS.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top