The Word was A god?

[Nekic]

I have trouble understanding the NWT of John 1:1.
Jesus was *a god? *since when?

The only explanation that i can come up with is that Jehovah’s Witnesses are polytheists at heart, as much as the mormons are.
But, i know they say otherwise.

Now, i know that people will post, saying that it is a mistranslation. I agree with this opinion, but that is besides the point. The translation exists, and i would like a Jehovah’s Witness to explain. If they say that there is only one god, why say jesus is an additional god, apart form the one already existing?

 

[Melanie01]

Nekic, I had only recently discovered that the Orthodox rite you adhere to does not have as dogma the Triune Godhead,where is Jesus Christ in the orthodox system? Is He a MAN only?

This is a huge difference between the Roman Catholic Church and yours… Jesus Christ has the duel natures of the Divine and a Human Nature. This is a difficult concept (a mystery) and I will not elaborate because I shall mess it up, there are other people better explaining things than I.

To Jesus through Mary

 

[severinus]

Melanie01:

Nekic, I had only recently discovered that the Orthodox rite you adhere to does not have as dogma the Triune Godhead,where is Jesus Christ in the orthodox system? Is He a MAN only?

This is a huge difference between the Roman Catholic Church and yours… Jesus Christ has the duel natures of the Divine and a Human Nature. This is a difficult concept (a mystery) and I will not elaborate because I shall mess it up, there are other people better explaining things than I.

To Jesus through Mary

I have always thought that Nekic is Catholic. Am I missing something here?

 

[b_justb]

Nekiæ:

I have trouble understanding the NWT of John 1:1.
Jesus was *a god? *since when?

I remember that explanation being offered by the JW’s is from:

John 10:33-36 (NAB here not NWT): The Jews answered him, “We are not stoning you for a good work but for blasphemy. You, a man, are making yourself God.” Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside, can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

 

[pnewton]

I the Greek the word for God does not have a the definite article “the” in front of it. This means that the word is used in the since of an adjective. A proper translation could also be, “The word was divine” giving no preference to either Christians or JW’s.

 

[DonCameron]

For what it is worth, in his “Dictionary of the Bible” (1965), John L. McKenzie, S.J. said this…

“John 1:1 should rigerously be translated, ‘The Word was a divine being.’”

Hmmmmm… That looks awfully close to “a god.”

Search Google “John L. McKenzie, S.J.”

Don

 

[Melanie01]

I may have got a bit muddled here, Nekic I thought and read your public profile as an Orthodox adherent. I may have misinterpretated this, if so I do apologise, I must find my proper reading glasses…

 

[catholic2]

Just happen to have the Greek! Here’s the literal translation.

“In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward the God, and God was the word This was in the beginning toward the God.”
(Edited by Paul R. McReynolds, the complete text of the Greek New Testament, UBS 3rd edition)

Now isn’t it nice to have the original language to fall back on to?

 

[b_justb]

DonCameron:

For what it is worth, in his “Dictionary of the Bible” (1965), John L. McKenzie, S.J. said this…

“John 1:1 should rigerously be translated, ‘The Word was a divine being.’”

Hmmmmm… That looks awfully close to “a god.”

Search Google “John L. McKenzie, S.J.”

Don

The Witnesses believe John 1:1 teaches Jesus was a lesser god, but not the Almighty God. They’re willing to say Christ was (and is) a divine being, but not the supremely Divine Being. Their citation of McKenzie is an attempt to show how even a Catholic Scripture scholar admits John 1:1 teaches this.

(The Witnesses stress how McKenzie’s remarks are published with a nihil obstat and an imprimatur from the Archdiocese of Chicago, as if this lends official Catholic support for their rendering of John 1:1.)

While McKenzie agrees with the Witnesses that the Word, Jesus, was a divine being, he doesn’t mean by this what the Witnesses mean. McKenzie is actually affirming the divinity of Christ. After explaining why the New Testament doesn’t usually refer to Christ as God, he writes:

“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)” (Dictionary of the Bible, 317).

Mckenzie concludes his comments on God and Christ by noting, “In Jesus Christ therefore not only the word of God is made flesh, but all of the saving attributes of Yahweh in the Old Testament” (Dictionary of the Bible, 318).

McKenzie points to a number of texts where Christ is called God as evidence of Jesus’ divinity. In no way is he saying Jesus is a lesser god. This conclusion is underscored when we remember McKenzie’s observation that the New Testament doesn’t place the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit above or below one another on the divine level of being.

Whole article: catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9004fea.asp

 

[DonCameron]

b_justb said…

*While McKenzie agrees with the Witnesses that the Word, Jesus, was a divine being, he doesn’t mean by this what the Witnesses mean. *

True. But it was still surprising to me to see McKenzie agree with the way the Society translates this particuilar verse.

Don

 

[Nekic]

Nekic, I had only recently discovered that the Orthodox rite you adhere to does not have as dogma the Triune Godhead,where is Jesus Christ in the orthodox system? Is He a MAN only?

This is a huge difference between the Roman Catholic Church and yours… Jesus Christ has the duel natures of the Divine and a Human Nature. This is a difficult concept (a mystery) and I will not elaborate because I shall mess it up, there are other people better explaining things than I.

Umm, Melanie, i am an orthodox (ie. strict, correct, et cetera) Roman rite Catholic. Orthodox with a small o. I go to mass, not to a divine liturgy (even though i would like to go to a byzantine divine liturgy), and i am in full communion with the pope. I’m just as roman catholic as he is.
Thus, i believe in everything that is said in the chatechism, that includes the Triune Godhead.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Now, there seems to be an excess of PROVING that John 1:1 is a mistranslation. I do not need this information. I already know it is a mistranslation. That is besides the point.

I remember that explanation being offered by the JW’s is from:

John 10:33-36 (NAB here not NWT): The Jews answered him, “We are not stoning you for a good work but for blasphemy. You, a man, are making yourself God.” Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside, can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

b_justb, could you please explain this passage? I get it not. Why does God call us gods?

And, there is the thing about jesus being a divine being, but not almighty god. Now, in my understanding of the word “divine”, god is the only divine being. There can be only one divine being since there is only one god. How is this explained? or is my understanding flawed?

 

[carol_marie]

Nekić:

Umm, Melanie, i am an orthodox (ie. strict, correct, et cetera) Roman rite Catholic. Orthodox with a small o. I go to mass, not to a divine liturgy (even though i would like to go to a byzantine divine liturgy), and i am in full communion with the pope. I’m just as roman catholic as he is.
Thus, i believe in everything that is said in the chatechism, that includes the Triune Godhead.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Now, there seems to be an excess of PROVING that John 1:1 is a mistranslation. I do not need this information. I already know it is a mistranslation. That is besides the point.

b_justb, could you please explain this passage? I get it not. Why does God call us gods?

And, there is the thing about jesus being a divine being, but not almighty god. Now, in my understanding of the word “divine”, god is the only divine being. There can be only one divine being since there is only one god. How is this explained? or is my understanding flawed?

Your understanding is not flawed - there is no way to make sense of it. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are asking to us to believe that there is One true God (Jehovah) who is Almighty - but that Jesus is also “god” (always with a small “g”) who is not Almighty - but only Mighty. And actually, since they believe that Satan can be a “god” and that “money can be your god” etc- showing that people worship false “gods” - always with the small “g,” I wish a Witness would tell me if they believe Jesus is a false god???

Because if there is only One True God - surely all the rest are false?

 

[b_justb]

Nekić:

b_justb, could you please explain this passage? I get it not. Why does God call us gods?

And, there is the thing about jesus being a divine being, but not almighty god. Now, in my understanding of the word “divine”, god is the only divine being. There can be only one divine being since there is only one god. How is this explained? or is my understanding flawed?

John 10:34 Note from NAB: [34] This is a reference to the judges of Israel who,since they exercised the divine prerogative to judge (Deut 1:17), were called “gods”; cf Exodus 21:6, besides Psalm 82:6 from which the quotation comes.

Deut 1:17 In rendering judgment, do not consider who a person is; give ear to the lowly and to the great alike, fearing no man, for judgment is God’s. Refer to me any case that is too hard for you and I will hear it.’

Ex 21:6 his master shall bring him to God and there, at the door or doorpost, he shall pierce his ear with an awl, thus keeping him as his slave forever.

Ps 82:6,7 I declare: “Gods though you be, offspring of the Most High all of you, Yet like any mortal you shall die; like any prince you shall fall.”

All I really recall the JW saying is that in these Jn 10 passages shows that Jesus is not God, therefore no Trinity, because Jesus denied that He is God.

I personally look at all of John 10 and see it as most definitely defining the relationships within the Trinity with regards to the Father and the Son. They are one as Jesus says in Jn 10: 30, yet Jesus is the Son of God Jn 10:36. The people attempting to stone Jesus for these statments saw his statements in the light of Jesus saying He was The Father, which Jesus is not, and the Trinity so dictates as well. The Father is the Father, the Son is the Son, yet there is One God. I think the JW’s view is that the Trinity is a polytheistic system and theirs is monotheistic. I say that is because the JW’s don’t really understand the Trinity in it’s relational aspects and only focus on the 3 Persons of the Godhead and then concluding that people that ascribe to the doctrine of the Trinity are seeing 3 gods not the One True God, which they say is the Father alone.

As a side note, it is interesting that in the JW proof text if we look just one stanza up in Ps. 82:5 it says “The gods neither know nor understand, wandering about in darkness, and all the world’s foundations shake.” With knowing and understanding how did Jesus (who the JW’s insist in Jn 1:1 is “a god”) do the will of the Father at all times? Was Jesus a robot without understanding; or just another aspect of this cosmic “active force”? But maybe that’s another thread.

(All my Scriptural quotes are from the NAB).

 

[whowantsumadebo]

catholic2:

“In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward the God, and God was the word This was in the beginning toward the God.”
(Edited by Paul R. McReynolds, the complete text of the Greek New Testament, UBS 3rd edition)

The caption above is a word-for-word translation, but that isn’t neccessarily the right method to translate something.

Here’s the Greek-English New Testament, Nestle-Aland, Edited by Barbara and Curt Aland, and a bunch of other geeks with too much time on their hands:

In the Begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The point remains that no definate article is present to make it read “a god”; nor does it seem proper to render ‘Theos’–“Divine” or anything to that effect; it says ‘God’.

 

[catholic2]

whowantsumeadebo: You mean Adobo, don’t you? Of course the word for word translation directly from the Greek would be different from the English translation. The Greek sentence structure is built like that, however,and from the Greek we then determine how it is to be done in whatever vernacular you use! whatsamattawiddat?

 

[pnewton]

whowantsumadebo:

The point remains that no definate article is present to make it read “a god”; nor does it seem proper to render ‘Theos’–“Divine” or anything to that effect; it says ‘God’.

Rendering an indefinite article where none exists, like the New World Translation does is certainly putting something in the text that is not there, but no more than reading it as a proper noun, when all other “theos’s” have the article. Lack of any article is used somethimes in the sense of an adjective.

Translation is tricky at times. It is why it is seldom wise to make huge theological agruements over a single word that can be translated from more than one viewpoint.

 

[whowantsumadebo]

catholic2:

The Greek sentence structure is built like that, however,and from the Greek we then determine how it is to be done in whatever vernacular you use! whatsamattawiddat?

yah… that’s what I meant.

pnewton:

Rendering an indefinite article where none exists, like the New World Translation does is certainly putting something in the text that is not there, but no more than reading it as a proper noun, when all other “theos’s” have the article. Lack of any article is used somethimes in the sense of an adjective.

Looks like you got me. Shucks.
It would therefore appear beneficial to shed some light on the case of this particular passage.

 

[catholic2]

pnewton:

Rendering an indefinite article where none exists, like the New World Translation does is certainly putting something in the text that is not there, but no more than reading it as a proper noun, when all other “theos’s” have the article. Lack of any article is used somethimes in the sense of an adjective.

This sounds like an exercise in futility. I don’t know why you even mentioned what you did. Of course the indefinite article added at this juncture is inappropriate, and that’s the whole point. The following point you used is a nonsequitor.

 

[pnewton]

catholic2:

The following point you used is a nonsequitor.

Why? The post I responded to was:
#14:

The point remains that no definate article is present to make it read “a god”; nor does it seem proper to render ‘Theos’–"Divine" or anything to that effect; it says ‘God’.

There are three different possibilities presented by the poster here:

1. “A god” - lack of a definite article, may or may not have this meaning.
2. “divine” - lack of a definite article, may or may not carry this meaning.
3. “God” - while a lack of a defiinte article, may carry this meaning, in the immediate context of of the passage, (where the other occurances do carry the article), it stand out as different.

I have always chosen the middle choice because it is my opinion that is is the more literal and accurate of the three.

The first possibility implies a polytheism and draws a distinciton which should not be drawn, i.e., the “a god” that is the Word, is a different god than God.

The third choice translates the word “theos” the exact same as “ho theos” without reason.

The middle possibility “divine” (which is an adjective) changes the form, but this is acceptable since the dropping of an article can have this sense. More importantly to me is that it does not interject a pre-conceived notion, either in the oneness of Christ with God, or of a sort of polytheism. Translation should always be geared toward as little interpretation as possible.

Maybe you do not know why I mention this. But the earlier poster had quoted Nestle/Aland and stated he didn’t see why it was proper to render the word “divine.” I was explaining why I and others thought it okay.

 

[catholic2]

In the final analysis as I see it, this discussion hinges on whether or not you believe that Jesus is God. If you believe that Jesus is God, then the use of an indefinite article or an adjective in your case is highly heretical because it diminishes and denies Jesus.