Dear buc_fan33,
Many who take issue with Jehovah’s Witnesses’ “
New World Translation” of John 1:1 (as, “a god”) often miss the point that the Grammatical construction there is *
a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, and subject noun (implied or stated) *; and
not just that the noun theos (in the third clause) lacks the Greek definite article or because it is simply
a predicate nominative.
For other examples of the same Greek construction, please examine the few following verses within your own prefered translation of the Bible and see whether they had inserted either an “a” or “an” there:
Mark 6:49
Mark 11:32
John 4:19
John 6:70
John 8:44a
John 8:44b
John 9:17
John 10:1
John 10:13
John 10:33
John 12:6
At each of the above verses, identity of the one being discussed was not at issue; no, but rather, the class of the individual was.
Therefore, rather than changing their translation “to support their belief that Jesus is not God,” Jehovah’s Christian witnesses are, in fact, following just what others for centuries have done, that is, when translating verses of the Bible which display the very same syntax as that found in those other verses.
But now, when it comes to John 1:1, rather than let God’s Word speak for itself, Trinitarian influenced scholars seem to have forgotten their own guidelines in this and allowed their preconceived theological bias to guide them in their translation of this verse - thus, in fitting with their own ideology, we more commonly read, “and the Word was God.”
Along these very lines, a very good observation is attested to by the following:
“Here I may observe, that, to persons uninitiated in the doctrines of Christianity, this passage [John 1:1c], and other obscure passages of the present Gospel, must have appeared unintelligible; yet by the disciples of the evangelist, already acquainted with his language on such subjects, they would be easily understood. Their previous knowledge led them to the true explanation. At the present day, the readers of Scriptures have generally imbibed certain religious notions from education before they sit down to the task; and then, unconsciously, perhaps, but very naturally, they explain every difficulty in accordance with those notions. Hence it happens that men of every persuasion find the confirmation of their peculiar opinions in the sacred volumes: for, in fact, it is not the Scripture that informs them, but they that affix their own meaning to the language of Scripture.”
Taken From: Lingard, John (b.?-d.?).
A New Version of The Four Gospels with Notes Critical and Explanatory, by a Catholic. (London, England: J. Booker, 1836), p. 330. BS2553 .L5 / 06-30318.
When I quote Mr. Lingard, as Catholic (and, therefore, Trinitarian), his intended purpose may very well have been to address the non-Trinitarian treatment of this verse during his day. Interestingly, when Lingard speaks of those “persons uninitiated in the doctrines of Christianity,” no doubt he would have it in mind to include those individuals not ‘initiated’ into the teaching of the Trinity doctrine. Therefore, by these very words he has unwittingly just admitted to being guided in his own rendering of this verse by the very thing he has critisized others. Otherwise, as a principal, his astute observation can be aptly applied to any translator or commentator, with any level of learning – and, most certainly, not to the exclusion of Trinitarian scholars/theologians themselves.
You may also want to examine the contents of these related links as well:
“Some Interesting Observations About the Trinity, Perhaps Not So Commonly Known”
“Some Powerful Reasoning’s About the Trinity, Not So Easily Dismissed”
Code:
Agape, Alan.
[email]john1one@earthlink.net[/email]
[Good Companion Books](http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com)
