John 1:1

[Dan_Parker]

I make this post in another thread as a reply to a request to explain how I view John 1:1. Since it is really a different subject from the original thread I will use it to start a new one.

Originally Posted by tobinatorstark
Exactly why do you feel that way?? Assuming that you have an NWT, compare it to the KJV and Douay-Rheims John 1:1. See what you come up with. Two totally different doctrines

**
Dan:**
Perhaps you don’t understand how Jehovah’s Witnesses view John 1:1. We view the Word in John 1:1 as being presented as the spokesman of God in a similar manner to how Moses was the spokesman for God.

If one accepts a translation of “the Word was God” then I would view this as similar to how the NWT renders Ex 7:1

NWT Exodus 7:1 Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: "See, I have made you** God to Pharaoh**, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet.

The KJV renders this verse:
KJV Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

In John 1:1 the Son existed in heaven with his Father before he became a human being. He was the Word or spokesman for his Father. He was not the Father nor was he a second God alongside his Father. The former would be modalism, the latter polytheism.

Interestingly, the Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich Greek lexicon financed by the Lutheran Missouri Synod says to compare Exodus 7:1 (LXX) to John 1:1.

The matter of John 1:1 is more a matter of interpretation than it is a matter of translation. That being said, I do believe that the Greek QEOS HN hO LOGOS (lit a god was the Word) is the best translation for the verse. Discussing that is beyond the scope of this short post.

You have not shared how you view John 1:1. Even amongst Trinitarians there is a large difference.

For example Catholic John L McKenzie, S.J.

In the words of Jesus and in much of the rest of the NT the God of Israel (Gk. ho theos) is the Father* of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that the title ho theos, which now designates the Father as a personal reality, is not applied in the NT to Jesus Himself; Jesus is the Son of God (of ho theos). This is a matter of usage and not of rule, and the noun [Gk. ho theos] is applied to Jesus a few times. “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated “the word was with the God = the Father], and **the word was a **divine being.” Thomas invokes Jesus with the titles which belong to the *Father, “My Lord and my God” (Jn 20:28). “The glory of our great God and Savior” which is to appear can be the glory of no other than Jesus (Tt 2:13)” (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, God, p317)

Note that McKenzie is a Trinitarian and a Catholic who interprets John 20:28 and Titus 2:13 as examples where he feels the Son is called God with the definite article. But he agrees with Jehovah’s Witnesses that Jesus was “a divine being” and not “God” in John 1:1.

Dan

 

[FCEGM]

Dan, what you don’t realize in employing McKenzie’s quote (culled from a far longer article) is that it actually is saying what you think John 1:1 is explicitly denying vis-a-vis the Trinity. When McKenzie states, “This is a matter of usage and not of rule, and the noun is applied to Jesus a few times. John 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God =the Father], and the word was a divine being.’ Thomas invokes Jesus with the titles which belong to the Father, ‘My Lord and my God’ (John 20:28). ‘The glory of our great God and Savior’ which is to appear can be the glory of no other than Jesus (Tit. 2:13),” he is demonstrating the unity of Christ and God, not what Jehovah’s Witnesses propose as a disunion between the Father and the Son. McKenzie sees John’s usage as being employed to distinguish the Persons of the Father (the God of Israel that did not yet know of the Son and the Holy Spirit) and the Son, not to separate them as to their One Divine Being.

As McKenzie goes on to say in his dictionary article on God: "It should be understood that this usage of ho theos touches the personal distinction of the Father and the Son and not the divinity, i.e., the divine sonship of Jesus Christ. . .In Christ the fullness of deity dwells bodily (Col. 2:9). In His preexistent state Christ existed in the form of God (Phil. 2:6). . . .In Jesus Christ therefore not only the word of God is made flesh, but all of the saving attributes of Yahweh in the OT. In Him [Jesus] God is known in a new and more intimately personal manner, and through Him God is attained more nearly: for He speaks of "my Father and your Father, my God and your God (Jn 20:17.

So while we may argue over the translation, the intent of John is clear: The Word is God Incarnate.

 

[John7]

The matter of John 1:1 is more a matter of interpretation than it is a matter of translation. That being said, I do believe that the Greek QEOS HN hO LOGOS (lit a god was the Word) is the best translation for the verse. Discussing that is beyond the scope of this short post.

Dan

I believe the best translation is ‘and the Word was God’

Although I don’t know the depths of some of the grammar in John 1:1, I do appreciate and trust the views of these Greek scholars especially heavy-weight Greek scholar, the late Dr. Mezger.

“Randolph O. Yeager: “Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate ‘…and the Word was a God.’ The article with logos, shows that logos is the subject of the verb en and the fact that theos is without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of theos demands that we translate ‘…and the Word was God.’ John is not saying as Jehovah’s Witnesses are fond of teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely the opposite.” The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), p.4.”

"Bruce Metzger: “It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists… As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation.” “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ,” Theology Today (April 1953), p. 75. " (Here’s a reprint of Metzger’s article, scroll down to section IV ‘Erroneous translations’ archive.org/stream/TheJehovahsWitnessesAndJesusChrist/Jehovahs_Witnesses_and_Jesus_Christ_Metzger#page/n10/mode/1up).

more Greek scholar entries from towerwatch.com/Witnesses/New_World_Translation/john_11.htm

 

[Omyo12]

If one accepts a translation of “the Word was God” then I would view this as similar to how the NWT renders Ex 7:1

NWT Exodus 7:1 Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: "See, I have made you** God to Pharaoh**, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet.

The KJV renders this verse:
KJV Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

In regards to this, Catholic Bibles usually don’t render Ex 7:1 “a god”

Douay-Rheims
Exodus 7:1- And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition):
Exodus 7:1- And the LORD said to Moses, "See, I make you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.

New American Bible
Exodus 7:1- The LORD answered him, "See! I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall act as your prophet.

New Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition)
Exodus 7:1- The LORD said to Moses, ‘See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.

However, the New Jerusalem Bible does;
Exodus 7:1- Yahweh then said to Moses, 'Look, I have made you as a god for Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron is to be your prophet.

I do not have a Jerusalem Bible nor is it available online…

 

[Dan_Parker]

I believe the best translation is ‘and the Word was God’

Although I don’t know the depths of some of the grammar in John 1:1, I do appreciate and trust the views of these Greek scholars especially heavy-weight Greek scholar, the late Dr. Mezger.

“Randolph O. Yeager: “Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate ‘…and the Word was a God.’ The article with logos, shows that logos is the subject of the verb en and the fact that theos is without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of theos demands that we translate ‘…and the Word was God.’ John is not saying as Jehovah’s Witnesses are fond of teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely the opposite.” The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), p.4.”

"Bruce Metzger: “It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists… As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation.” “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ,” Theology Today (April 1953), p. 75. " (Here’s a reprint of Metzger’s article, scroll down to section IV ‘Erroneous translations’ archive.org/stream/TheJehovahsWitnessesAndJesusChrist/Jehovahs_Witnesses_and_Jesus_Christ_Metzger#page/n10/mode/1up).

more Greek scholar entries from towerwatch.com/Witnesses/New_World_Translation/john_11.htm

The difference between our approaches is substantial. When I started studying the bible and having debates on this subject I decided that I should learn as much about Greek and Hebrew as I could in order to make my own informed decision. As a result I can discuss this in as much detail as necessary and am quite confidant that the translation “and the Word was a god” is both contextual and grammatical.

On the other hand, you have selected some quotes from scholars who believe differently for reasons you cannot quite grasp.

That being said, I have already quoted Catholic John L McKenzie, S.J. whose interpretation of the text (the Word was a divine being) agrees with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Since you are Catholic I would ask you do you consider McKenzie a sophomore in Greek or a polytheist?

Dan

 

[Dan_Parker]

In regards to this, Catholic Bibles usually don’t render Ex 7:1 “a god”

Douay-Rheims
Exodus 7:1- And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition):
Exodus 7:1- And the LORD said to Moses, "See, I make you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.

New American Bible
Exodus 7:1- The LORD answered him, "See! I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall act as your prophet.

New Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition)
Exodus 7:1- The LORD said to Moses, ‘See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.

However, the New Jerusalem Bible does;
Exodus 7:1- Yahweh then said to Moses, 'Look, I have made you as a god for Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron is to be your prophet.

I do not have a Jerusalem Bible nor is it available online…

Thanks for the list. The Douay Rheims is very close to the NWT. You might be interested in knowing that the word “as” is an interpretation and does not appear in the Hebrew text at all.

Also, I would note that you don’t argue that the JB did not render the text as “a god” without justification from the Hebrew. The JB does have the imprimatur and the nihil obstat, does it not?

Dan

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan, what you don’t realize in employing McKenzie’s quote (culled from a far longer article) is that it actually is saying what you think John 1:1 is explicitly denying vis-a-vis the Trinity. When McKenzie states, “This is a matter of usage and not of rule, and the noun is applied to Jesus a few times. John 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God =the Father], and the word was a divine being.’ Thomas invokes Jesus with the titles which belong to the Father, ‘My Lord and my God’ (John 20:28). ‘The glory of our great God and Savior’ which is to appear can be the glory of no other than Jesus (Tit. 2:13),” he is demonstrating the unity of Christ and God, not what Jehovah’s Witnesses propose as a disunion between the Father and the Son. McKenzie sees John’s usage as being employed to distinguish the Persons of the Father (the God of Israel that did not yet know of the Son and the Holy Spirit) and the Son, not to separate them as to their One Divine Being.

As McKenzie goes on to say in his dictionary article on God: "It should be understood that this usage of ho theos touches the personal distinction of the Father and the Son and not the divinity, i.e., the divine sonship of Jesus Christ. . .In Christ the fullness of deity dwells bodily (Col. 2:9). In His preexistent state Christ existed in the form of God (Phil. 2:6). . . .In Jesus Christ therefore not only the word of God is made flesh, but all of the saving attributes of Yahweh in the OT. In Him [Jesus] God is known in a new and more intimately personal manner, and through Him God is attained more nearly: for He speaks of "my Father and your Father, my God and your God (Jn 20:17.

So while we may argue over the translation, the intent of John is clear: The Word is God Incarnate.

Actually the McKenzie quote is much worse for your position that you realize. Trinitarians believe that there is only one Being who is God and that this one Being is three persons. To say that the Word is a divine being all by himself would make him a different divine being than his Father and that would be polytheism.

Yes, McKenzie is a Trinitarian and he gives examples right after that where the definite article is used where he believes it refers to the Son as God, but that does not mean he agrees with you on John 1:1, and that is the text we are discussing. If you read what I posted I did address this already.

Dan

 

[Omyo12]

Thanks for the list. The Douay Rheims is very close to the NWT. You might be interested in knowing that the word “as” is an interpretation and does not appear in the Hebrew text at all.

Also, I would note that you don’t argue that the JB did not render the text as “a god” without justification from the Hebrew. The JB does have the imprimatur and the nihil obstat, does it not?

Dan

All an imprimatur means is it doesn’t contradict the Catholic faith, it doesn’t mean the way it translates something is “correct.”

The only “official” Roman Catholic Bible is the Latin Vulgate

 

[Dan_Parker]

All an imprimatur means is it doesn’t contradict the Catholic faith, it doesn’t mean the way it translates something is “correct.”

The only “official” Roman Catholic Bible is the Latin Vulgate

Good, so it does not contradict either the Catholic faith or the JW faith to consider someone “a god” if they represent the true God. That was the point I was making.

Dan

 

[Danno2281]

Good, so it does not contradict either the Catholic faith or the JW faith to consider someone “a god” if they represent the true God. That was the point I was making.

Dan

The most pertinent consideration is that there is in Greek no indefinite article, as you well know. The application of the article, by Mackenzie or anyone else, comes down to interpretation being necessary to faithful translation. Because the whole of scripture is the milieu wherein the interpretation must occur, one cannot rightly argue one line against the whole backdrop of the scriptures. Given the examples of the assurance of the divinity of Christ above (and there are many more), and the impossibility of believing in more than one god (cf.Jas: 2, 19), the argument against the article prevails

 

[FCEGM]

Actually the McKenzie quote is much worse for your position that you realize. Trinitarians believe that there is only one Being who is God and that this one Being is three persons. To say that the Word is a divine being all by himself would make him a different divine being than his Father and that would be polytheism.

His quote can hardly be taken as a worsening of the Catholic position, since neither McKenzie nor the sacred text (nor did I) state or imply that the Word is a divine being “all by [H]imself” and thus a “different divine being than [H]is Father.” :tsktsk:

Yes, McKenzie is a Trinitarian and he gives examples right after that where the definite article is used where he believes it refers to the Son as God, but that does not mean he agrees with you on John 1:1, and that is the text we are discussing. If you read what I posted I did address this already.

Yes, I know and I addressed that in my post. But as has already been shown, McKenzie’s understanding on how John 1:1 is to be translated is not universally accepted.

 

[Dan_Parker]

FCEGM:
His quote can hardly be taken as a worsening of the Catholic position, since neither McKenzie nor the sacred text (nor did I) state or imply that the Word is a divine being “all by [H]imself” and thus a “different divine being than [H]is Father.” :tsktsk:

Dan:
So then you must believe that the rendering “the Word was a god (ie a divine being)” does not mean that the Word is a second God.

In English, when one says that the Word is with God and the Word was a divine being the sense is clearly that this divine being is not the same God he is with. I don’t see how you can assert otherwise. The simple reading of that sentence is obvious to anyone who reads it.

That is why the NWT is criticized by some who say that if the Word is “a god” then it is polytheism. However Jehovah’s Witnesses take this to have the same sense as Moses being a god in Exodus 7:1, as the representative of God. That is certainly not polytheism.

Dan

 

[Dan_Parker]

The most pertinent consideration is that there is in Greek no indefinite article, as you well know. The application of the article, by Mackenzie or anyone else, comes down to interpretation being necessary to faithful translation. Because the whole of scripture is the milieu wherein the interpretation must occur, one cannot rightly argue one line against the whole backdrop of the scriptures. Given the examples of the assurance of the divinity of Christ above (and there are many more), and the impossibility of believing in more than one god (cf.Jas: 2, 19), the argument against the article prevails

Actually, the question is not whether or not more than one person has been given the title of god is not debatable. Moses was called elohim (Ex 7:1) and there are other examples as well. Since others can have the title of god in a limited way the question arises as to how bible writers express the concept of monotheism.

Monotheism comes from the Greek word MONO (one or only) and QEOS (God). When bible writers establish and articulate the concept of monotheism they frequently modify the word God with hEIS (one) or MONOS (only).

Do a search of all examples in Scripture where this is done and you will find that in many cases not only is the basic concept of monotheism established, but in the very same verse that one God is identified.

Here are some of them:

• NAB Malachi 2:10 (1 )Have we not all the one Father? Has not the one God created us? Why then do we break faith with each other, violating the covenant of our fathers?
• NAB 1 Corinthians 8:6 (1 )yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we exist.
• NAB Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
• NAB 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human [context mandates the one God is the Father]
• NAB John 5:43 I came in the name of my Father, but you do not accept me; yet if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. 44 How can you believe, when you accept praise from one another and do not seek the praise that comes from the only God?
• NAB Jude 1:25 to the only God, our savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord be glory, majesty, power, and authority from ages past, now, and for ages to come. Amen. [the one God distinguished from Jesus]
• NAB John 17:3 Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ. [Jesus praying to his Father]

When bible writers articulate the concept of monotheism they also at the same time frequently identify the Father as that one God.

That is the monotheism of the bible writers and what they teach in context.

 

[FCEGM]

So then you must believe that the rendering “the Word was a god (ie a divine being)” does not mean that the Word is a second God.

What I believe is that even when, a la McKenzie, John 1:1 is given as “the Word was a god” this does not necessarily mean that this implies a second God - this is obvious from McKenzie’s further writings on the subject. (I think, however, that McKenzie’s translation is erroneous.) It does, however, mean such in the hands of Jehovah’s Witnesses who precisely see the Word as being other than God.

In English, when one says that the Word is with God and the Word was a divine being the sense is clearly that this divine being is not the same God he is with.

No, it isn’t, especially when Scripture doesn’t say that the Word was a divine being; it says “and the Word was God.” Even McKenzie with his interpretation of John 1:1 knows that the use of “a god” is not a denial of Christ’s Oneness with of the Godhead (which you insist it does), but that John is rather making a rightful distinction between the Persons, not the One Being.

I don’t see how you can assert otherwise. The simple reading of that sentence is obvious to anyone who reads it.

Only for one insisting on the erroneous JW understanding of the text.

That is why the NWT is criticized by some who say that if the Word is “a god” then it is polytheism. However Jehovah’s Witnesses take this to have the same sense as Moses being a god in Exodus 7:1, as the representative of God. That is certainly not polytheism.

I know you don’t see it as such, but your interpretation of John 1:1 presents Jesus as some type of lower deity - a pre-existent deity, at that, quite unlike Moses. Further, Moses is not presented as nor is he claiming to be God Incarnate, nor is his death worthy of saving all of humanity.

 

[Dan_Parker]

You are somehow under the misconception that Jehovah’s Witnesses bring up John 1:1 as proof against the Trinity. Go back and look at how this thread developed. It is quite typical. It was brought up by someone criticizing the NWT rendering of this verse. This is in spite of the fact that McKenzie renders it in a similar fashion.

**My **argument against the teaching that God is three and not one can be found in the post “Bible writers teach monotheism and identify the Father as the one God.”

However I do continue to believe that when McKenzie says “the Word was a divine being” he inadvertently slips up. When the Word is “a divine being” in English it implies there is more than one divine being. I consider the Father a divine being and the Son to be a divine being and so I don’t mind McKenzie’s rendering at all.

Dan

 

[FCEGM]

You are somehow under the misconception that Jehovah’s Witnesses bring up John 1:1 as proof against the Trinity.

But of course you do. Your organization uses it as one of their prooftexts in support of one of their essential doctrines: “Jesus is the Son of God, the firstborn of all creation. He was the first one created by Jehovah God, and it was by means of him that the Father created all other things. Jesus often prayed to God, so it is clear that he is not God. A correct translation of John 1:1 testifies to this fact: ‘In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with god, and the Word was a god.’ Jesus knew who he was, and he so admitted, ‘The Father is greater than I.’ Only the Father is God, which in Greek is ho Theos. Jesus may be a mighty god, but only Jehovah is almighty God.” Reasoning from the Scriptures, 209-18.

Go back and look at how this thread developed. It is quite typical. It was brought up by someone criticizing the NWT rendering of this verse. This is in spite of the fact that McKenzie renders it in a similar fashion.

Which simply illustrates - as has been shown - that McKenzie is likewise in error.

My argument against the teaching that God is three and not one can be found in the post “Bible writers teach monotheism and identify the Father as the one God.”

]However I do continue to believe that when McKenzie says “the Word was a divine being” he inadvertently slips up. When the Word is “a divine being” in English it implies there is more than one divine being. I consider the Father a divine being and the Son to be a divine being and so I don’t mind McKenzie’s rendering at all.

I’m sure you don’t, Dan. But that gets back to the point of polytheism which your organization can’t quite get around with its insistance on its translation on John 1:1. It has made its organizational translation fit its organizational doctrine, not the other way 'round. This can be seen in the NWT’s inconsistency in translating anarthous nouns in other verses of John 1 itself and elsewhere according to the rule of translation it claims to uphold.

 

[Dan_Parker]

But of course you do. Your organization uses it as one of their prooftexts in support of one of their essential doctrines: “Jesus is the Son of God, the firstborn of all creation. He was the first one created by Jehovah God, and it was by means of him that the Father created all other things. Jesus often prayed to God, so it is clear that he is not God. A correct translation of John 1:1 testifies to this fact: ‘In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with god, and the Word was a god.’ Jesus knew who he was, and he so admitted, ‘The Father is greater than I.’ Only the Father is God, which in Greek is ho Theos. Jesus may be a mighty god, but only Jehovah is almighty God.” Reasoning from the Scriptures, 209-18.

Which simply illustrates - as has been shown - that McKenzie is likewise in error.

I’m sure you don’t, Dan. But that gets back to the point of polytheism which your organization can’t quite get around with its insistance on its translation on John 1:1. It has made its organizational translation fit its organizational doctrine, not the other way 'round. This can be seen in the NWT’s inconsistency in translating anarthous nouns in other verses of John 1 itself and elsewhere according to the rule of translation it claims to uphold.

Actually, you are incorrect. The book reasoning from the scriptures is used by us to prepare us for those who bring up John 1:1. I don’t fault you for not knowing this because the book is primarily a tool to prepare us in our ministry.

Your argument for other anarthrous nouns in John is not based on a good understanding of why we translate John 1:1c as ‘the Word was a god’. I could claim that your bibles are not consistent because they add the anarthrous “a” in English in other places in John 1, for example John 1:6 in the NAB and NJB (A man named John was sent from God).

John 1:1c is a particular construction called a pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominative. In this construction the anarthrous noun (QEOS) precedes the verb HN (imperfect of EIMI). Another example is found in John 4:19.

NAB John 4:19 The woman said to him, "Sir, I can see that you are a prophet.

This is the same construction. The Greek is PROFHTHS EI where the anarthrous noun “prophet” precedes the verb EI which is the present indicative of the same same equative verb EIMI from John 1:1c.

In John 4:19 the sense is that the woman perceives that Jesus can tell the future. It is not rendered as you are the prophet, or you are the Prophet, capital ‘P’ but as you are ‘a’ prophet, someone who can foretell the future.

So as you can see, your objection that you felt that the NWT should is inconsistent with other places where the indefinite article is either found or not found is misplaced. I have seen this argument before. It is a bad argument and misrepresents why the NWT renders John 1:1 as ‘the Word was a god’

In fact I will go so far to say that bibles that render the verse as ‘the Word was God’ are actually inconsistent considering John 4:19 and great many other examples of this construction in the Greek.

If you decide to pursue the Greek exegesis of this passage I will be glad to provide a great many more details.

Dan

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan, what you don’t realize in employing McKenzie’s quote (culled from a far longer article) is that it actually is saying what you think John 1:1 is explicitly denying vis-a-vis the Trinity. When McKenzie states, “This is a matter of usage and not of rule, and the noun is applied to Jesus a few times. John 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God =the Father], and the word was a divine being.’ Thomas invokes Jesus with the titles which belong to the Father, ‘My Lord and my God’ (John 20:28). ‘The glory of our great God and Savior’ which is to appear can be the glory of no other than Jesus (Tit. 2:13),” he is demonstrating the unity of Christ and God, not what Jehovah’s Witnesses propose as a disunion between the Father and the Son. McKenzie sees John’s usage as being employed to distinguish the Persons of the Father (the God of Israel that did not yet know of the Son and the Holy Spirit) and the Son, not to separate them as to their One Divine Being.

As McKenzie goes on to say in his dictionary article on God: "It should be understood that this usage of ho theos touches the personal distinction of the Father and the Son and not the divinity, i.e., the divine sonship of Jesus Christ. . .In Christ the fullness of deity dwells bodily (Col. 2:9). In His preexistent state Christ existed in the form of God (Phil. 2:6). . . .In Jesus Christ therefore not only the word of God is made flesh, but all of the saving attributes of Yahweh in the OT. In Him [Jesus] God is known in a new and more intimately personal manner, and through Him God is attained more nearly: for He speaks of "my Father and your Father, my God and your God (Jn 20:17.

So while we may argue over the translation, the intent of John is clear: The Word is God Incarnate.

I would be delighted to discuss your other proof-texts if you have the time and inclination. Neither Col 2:9, Phil 2:6, John 20:28 or Titus 2:13 are decisive in proving that Jesus and his Father are the same being or the same God, let alone that three are God.

Dan

 

[Dan_Parker]

But of course you do. Your organization uses it as one of their prooftexts in support of one of their essential doctrines: “Jesus is the Son of God, the firstborn of all creation. He was the first one created by Jehovah God, and it was by means of him that the Father created all other things. Jesus often prayed to God, so it is clear that he is not God. A correct translation of John 1:1 testifies to this fact: ‘In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with god, and the Word was a god.’ Jesus knew who he was, and he so admitted, ‘The Father is greater than I.’ Only the Father is God, which in Greek is ho Theos. Jesus may be a mighty god, but only Jehovah is almighty God.” Reasoning from the Scriptures, 209-18.

Which simply illustrates - as has been shown - that McKenzie is likewise in error.

I’m sure you don’t, Dan. But that gets back to the point of polytheism which your organization can’t quite get around with its insistance on its translation on John 1:1. It has made its organizational translation fit its organizational doctrine, not the other way 'round. This can be seen in the NWT’s inconsistency in translating anarthous nouns in other verses of John 1 itself and elsewhere according to the rule of translation it claims to uphold.

As for polytheism based on John 1:1, I have already explained that we view the Word as “a god” because he is the representative of God. Moses was also called elohim (a god) in the KJV, NJB and Greek Septuagint. Surely you don’t consider McKenzie a polytheist even though you view him in error on this.

Dan

 

[Danno2281]

As for polytheism based on John 1:1, I have already explained that we view the Word as “a god” because he is the representative of God. Moses was also called elohim (a god) in the KJV, NJB and Greek Septuagint. Surely you don’t consider McKenzie a polytheist even though you view him in error on this.

Dan

You cite the NWT frequently. Would you be good enough to tell us just who is responsible for this translation and what their qualifications in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew were?