Jehovah Witnesses say John 1:1 was changed & their NWT Bible re-established the original wording! Sources?

Question

Jehovah Witnesses say John 1:1 was changed & their NWT Bible re-established the original wording! Sources?

Answer 1

There is proof out there that the world is flat. It is also easily refuted and hardly anyone believes that the earth is flat any more.



There may be external proof that they cite, but there are a few facts to consider

1) the JW's have proven that they can't quote people straight and honestly. Them saying that this is so does not necessarily make it that way.

2) consider the source. Johannes Grieber was a Watchtower authority quoted often until they found what else he taught.

I have never heard of this new testament manuscript and what is says is a marginalized minority reading.

What it says in Greek is "EN ARCHE THEOS EN HO LOGOS" What it says word for word is "In the beginning, God was the Word" What we see is a literary device in Greek to emphasize that Jesus is God and the JW's miss that. If you want to see more about this topic, have a look at Dana and Mantey's Critical Greek Apparatus of the New Testament. Julius Mantey was one of the best NT scholars around and one that the Watchtower quoted incorrectly. They had him supporting the NWT translation when he was in fact ROUNDLY DENOUNCING THEIR RENDERING!!!!!

Answer 2

The JW New World Translation Bible has changed John 1:1 to say: "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was "a" god."



This is one of the most common verses of contention between the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians. Their false assumption is that Jesus is not God in flesh, but Michael the archangel who became a man. Therefore, since they deny that Jesus is divine, they have altered the Bible in John 1:1 so that Jesus is not divine in nature.



The New World Translation has added the word "a" to the verse so it says, "...and the Word was a god." The correct translation for this verse is "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." This is how it is rendered in the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, etc.



The New World translation is incorrect in its translation of this verse for several reasons. First of all, the Bible teaches a strict monotheism. To say that Jesus is "a god" is to suggest that there is another god besides YHWH, which is contrary to scripture (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8, etc.). Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses will respond that Jesus is not the Almighty God, but a "lesser" kind of God. He is the "mighty God" as is referenced in Isaiah 9:6, "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, and the government will rest on His shoulders, and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Therefore, they say that Jesus is the mighty god, but not the Almighty God.



The immediate problem with this explanation is that YHWH is also called the Mighty God in Jeremiah 21:18 and Isaiah 10:20. In all three verses, including Isaiah 9:6, the Hebrew word for "mighty" (gibbor) is used.



Isaiah 10:20-21, "Now it will come about in that day that the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel. 21A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God."

Jer. 32:18, "who showest lovingkindness to thousands, but repayest the iniquity of fathers into the bosom of their children after them, O great and mighty God. the LORD of hosts is His name."



We can see that the Jehovah's Witness explanation is not valid. Both the Son and God are called the Mighty God.



Furthermore, how many actual gods are there in scripture? The obvious answer is that there is only one God in existence. Though there are others who have been falsely called gods (1 Cor. 8:5-6) or even said to be "as God" like Moses (Ex. 4:16; 7:1), there is only one real God (Gal. 4:8-9; Isaiah 44:6,8). If Jesus is "a god" that was "with God" in the beginning, then is Jesus a true god or a false god?



But, the Jehovah's Witnesses often claim that Jesus is a god in the sense that Moses was called a god. But, Moses was not called a god. Rather, he would be "as God."



"Moreover, he shall speak for you to the people; and it shall come about that he shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be as God to him, (Exodus 4:16).

"Then the Lord said to Moses, 'See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet,'" (Exodus 7:1).



Why was Moses going to "as God" to Pharaoh? Because Moses was given the authority and power to display powerful miracles that decimated much of Egypt. Was Moses really a god? Being "as God" in regards to power given to perform miracles over Egypt is not the same thing as being called "a god" that was in the beginning with God, (John 1:1).



John was a strict Jew, a monotheist. Does the Jehovah's Witness really think that John would be saying that there was another God besides Jehovah, even if it were Jesus? Being raised a good Jew, the apostle John would never believe that there was more than one God in existence. Yet, he compared the word with God, said the word was God, and that the word became flesh (John 1:1,14).



John 1:1 in a literal translation reads thus: "In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word." Notice that it says "God was the word." This is the actual word for word translation. It is not saying that "a god was the word." That wouldn't make sense. Let me break it down into three statements.



"In beginning was the word..."

(en arche en ho logos)

A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.

"and the word was with the God..."

(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)

This same Word was with God.

"and God was the word." -- Properly translated as "and the Word was God."

(kai theos en ho logos)

This same Word was God.



Regarding statement 3 above, the correct English translation is "...and the Word was God," not "and God was the word." This is because if there is only one definite article ("ho"="the") in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative ("subject") form ("theos" and "logos"), then the noun with the definite article ("ho"="the") is the subject. In this case "ho logos" means that "the word" is the subject of the clause. Therefore, "...the Word was God" is the correct translation, not "God was the Word."1 But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Jesus is "a god," or the "mighty god" as was addressed above.



Is there suddenly a new god in the text of John 1:1? It is the same God that is being spoken of in part 2 as in part 3. How do the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that the word had somehow become a god in this context, since there is only one God mentioned? Remember, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus was Michael the Archangel. Therefore, is there any place in the Bible where an angel is called "a god," besides Satan being called the god of this world in 2 Cor. 4:3-4?



John 20:28 - "Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'"



In the Greek in John 20:28 Thomas said to Jesus, "ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou," "The Lord of me, and the God of me." If Jesus was not God, but "a" god, then shouldn't Jesus have corrected Thomas? Shouldn't Jesus have said, "No Thomas, I am not the God. I am a god."? But Jesus did not. To do so would have been ludicrous. Nevertheless, the Jehovah's Witness will say that Thomas was so stunned by Jesus' appearance, that he swore. This is ridiculous because it means that Thomas, a devout man of God, swore in front of Jesus and used the Lord's name in vain in violation of Exodus 20:7. This is hardly the case since we find no New Testament equivalent of a disciple of Christ using God's name in vain.



In conclusion, John 1:1 is best translated without the "a" inserted into the text. "The Word was God" is the best translation. This way, we do not run into the danger of polytheism, with Jesus being "a god." We do not have Thomas the disciples swearing and using God's name in vain. And, we do not have the problem of Jesus being a "mighty god" and yet not the God -- even though God Himself is called the Mighty God (Jeremiah 21:18; Isaiah 10:20).



References



1. Chapman, B. (1994). Greek New Testament Insert. (2nd ed., revised.). Quakertown, PA: Stylus Publishing. Also, Louw, J. P. (1989; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains (electronic edition of the 2nd ed.) (Page 592). New York: United Bible societies.

Answer 3

Using Coptic Text to state the Bible has been changed is usually not a good idea. They changed many things. The original Gospels and teachings of the apostles were well circulated and they used the word "logos" in this verse.



The information I found in the lexicon for logos is:



1. A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose in John 1.



2. a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea

Answer 4

How ironic, I heard the other day that Jehovah Witnesses were embarrassed a while back to admit that the men that translated their "bible" didn't even know Greek. So how good a translation could they have?



If you are truly interested, by a book called "Reasoning from The Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses" by Ron Rhodes.

Answer 5

I'm a JW but I'm not familiar with that Sahidic Coptic NT. Anyway here are other Bible versions and see how they translated John 1:1. Notice though that Jehovah is called "God of gods" so these gods must exist, just like saying Lord of lords , other lords exist as well. It also doesn't mean that the Jehovah is "God of FALSE gods" otherwise you are making Jehovah like Satan which is not true.



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.

1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

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.

Answer 6

I have often wondered why proponants of the KJV decry our use of the term "a god" at John 1:1. There are other passages of very similar Greek construction the are consistentently rendered by the KJV translator with the indefinite article, which does not appear in the Greek. (It does not EXIST in the GreeK.)



English word-for-word of John 1:1c = god was the word. KJV renders this, of course, as the Word was God.



Now consider Acts 28:4 of the KJV -- "And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live."



This was speaking of the apostle Paul. Let's focus on the pertinant phrase: "this man is a murderer." In Greek this is "murderer is the man."



This is the same construction and word order as John 1:1, but here KJV adds the "a" and there are many other similar instances where they do the same, but they fail to do so in John 1:1.



Since the reason is obviously NOT grammatical, it has to based solely in a theological trinitarian bias.

Answer 7

You know, instead of getting all hung up over this one verse, why not take the entire Bible and see if you really get the feeling that Jesus is God, the Father, when everything else in the Bible leads us to the belief that Jesus is God's Son. Why try and make man's doctirne of the trinity fit, when the Bible clearly teaches that there is one God, not some mysterious triune godhead!



What does the King James Bible say at verse:

Psalm 83:18: "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth."



Had not so many of the Bible translators taken God's name out of the Bible and replaced it with mere titles, this confusion would not exist, and the trinity never would have been taught!



Still, the truth is there to learn...

John 17:3: "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."



Matthew 3: 16 & 17: " 16 After being baptized Jesus immediately came up from the water; and, look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw descending like a dove God’s spirit coming upon him"



1 Corinthians 11:3: "But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God. "



Jesus is not an equal part of a God head, but under the authority and power of Jehovah God, his God and Father.

Answer 8

The JW's have rewritten the Holy Bible to fit their agenda. They say in John 1:1 that the Word was a god, they changed the wording. The correct verse is



John 1

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.



2The same was in the beginning with God.



3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.



check out this link and explore their bible



http://www.watchtower.org/

Answer 9

The JWs had to change it in their translation. Its a bit hard to go to someone and say the "Word was a god" If you have the KJV (which they used prior to their invention of the NWT) which says "the Word was God"

Answer 10

It is true, Witnesses, "incorrectly" believe, they have restored the correct wording and/or interpretation of John 1:1 in their Bible Publication entitled: The New World Translation.

_______________



John 1:1 (King James Version): In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.



John 1:1 (New World Translation): In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

_________________



A translation, should never change, twist, or redefine the meaning of a scripture. Its only responsibility is to convey in another language, what was originally inspired by God.



Note: The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament(which includes the Book of John and Hebrews) was originally written in Greek.



There are two important points to understand....



(1). The original Greek Scriptures...utilizes the word Theos, when referring to "GOD" in this scripture. Theos signifies the Deity of God...not a son, not a prophet, not an angel.



Hebrews 1:6-8 states:



And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let ALL the angels of God(Theos) worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. BUT unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O GOD(Theos), is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.



In the above scripture, Hebrews 1:6-8, God clearly refers to Jesus in the flesh as God, while making a clear distinction between Jesus and ALL Angels(that would include Michael)!



(2). The original Greek scriptures...utilizes the word Logos, when referring to the "Word" in this scripture. Logos signifies the thoughts and expressions of God...it is not something repeated by another, or conveyed to others via an object.



Thus, based on scripture, those who believe the interpretation of John 1:1 in the New World Translation, have been misled. It is clear, that Jesus in the flesh...was the Word...was God!



Blessings, Miji

Answer 11

The Sahidic Coptic translation is very important to our confirming the text of the NT. It is a primary witness to the text, and in part reflects the proto Alexandrian text type, the text type of excellence also preserved in the Greek Uncials Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.



Is it Gnostic? It is true many Gnostics works came from Egypt and were written in Coptic, that does not mean everything written in Coptic must be influenced by Gnosticism. In fact the early church was well established in Alexandria Egypt, and was home to influential writers such as Clement and Origen. They were not Gnostic. The writings of many church fathers are preserved in Coptic; some of these were Trinitarians who firmly opposed Gnosticism in their writings. So just because something is written in Coptic does not mean it is Gnostic, many Egyptians were opposed to Gnosticism and promoted Holy Trinity dogma. Interestingly quotes of the NT by Clement and Origen also reflect the Proto Alexandrian text.



Would it surprise the questioner to learn that most of the early Papyrus witnesses of the authentic NT text were found in Egypt? That whilst many were in Greek others were in Coptic? That these Coptic witnesses are very old, for example the oldest extant manuscript of 1 Peter is a Coptic one not a Greek one? That some of the most prized Greek papyrus manuscripts were written with two columns, one Greek the other Coptic?



All this serves to illustrate the importance of the Coptic version. With respect to the issue at hand, an outstanding point should be stressed: The translator's of the Coptic version, worked when Koine Greek was still a living language, in fact it was the international language. They knew Koine Greek intimately. No modern scholars can claim to have such intimacy, they refer to it as a "dead language" and differ among themselves with respect to some details of how to understand it.



The grammar Coptic John 1:1 is discussed on my blog. (http://bibliasahidica.blogspot.com/ ) It does indeed read rather like the NWT.



With respect to Greek grammar, Jehovah's Witnesses were by no means the first to observe the contrast between articular QEOS and the pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominative QEOS. They were by no means the first to conclude that something different is meant by each use of QEOS. They were not the first to judge the noun to be indefinite and to consequently have a somewhat qualitative force so that the idea is: "the Word was a divine being".



When one has been familiar with the translation "the Word was God" that has been around for centuries it may appear that versions that read differently (of which there are many) have changed the Bible.



Really though the NWT makes a sound translation decision. It is at very least a legitimate choice, and I personally have been persuaded by the grammatical arguments that it is the preferable choice.



As for neural sources on the translation of John 1:1. I think it is hard to find any writer on this topic without a theological stance. Professor Jason BeDuhn's book 'Truth In Translation' comes to mind as a somewhat neutral evaluation of several vesions including the NWT. One hopes that writers can be as objective as possible; still readers need to exercise their little grey cells to fully comprehend the issues here and recognise the truth of the matter. If one is forming an Christological position it is essential that such is based on a study of the entire Bible, not just one controversial verse.



Warm Regards

Ousboui

Answer 12

Jehovah's Witnesses did not change the wording of John 1:1 in Greek. The question is, How should it be translated into English? The Greek literally says, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with the god and god was the word." The original Greek has no capitalization, but the definite article "the" (hO in Greek) serves much the same duty as capital letters in English. Thus we would have, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God and god was the Word." The second "god" is a pre-verbal predicate noun that does not have the Greek definite article, and therein lies the translation problem. Should it be "God" or "god" or "a god" or "divine" or something else? There has been much debate on this over many centuries, and many, many books have been written about it. But this is not because Jehovah's Witnesses changed anything.



The first known written, extant commentary on John 1:1 was by Origen in the 3rd century, and he tried to grasp the meaning of the second occurrence of "god" in this verse. It can be noted that he did not understand it to mean "the Word was God" as we might understand that sentence today. Origen distinguished between the Father, whom he called Autotheos ("God of Himself") and the Son, who was divine by his association with God, but not God as the Father is.



As for the 2nd/3rd century Sahidic Coptic version of John 1:1, it is NOT a Gnostic work. Rather, it is the earliest known translation of this verse of the Canonical Gospel of St. John in a language that has both an indefinite article ("a") and a definite article ("the"). Coptic John 1:1c says *auw ne.u.noute pe p.Saje*. This translates literally as "and a god was the Word." Some people would argue for other meanings, but "and a god was the Word" is what the Coptic says literally.



This would indicate that the ancient Coptic translators, who had behind them a 500-year-old history of Greek in Egypt, and who did their work when the Koine Greek of the New Testament was still a living language, did not understand John 1:1c to say "the Word was God," but something else. Possibly, "the Word was like God," or "the Word was a divine being," or "the Word was divine."



The Sahidic Coptic New Testament is recognized by textual scholars as a valuable witness to the original text of the New Testament, Greek scholars such as Dr. Bruce Metzger and Kurt and Barbara Aland, in the same category as the ancient Latin and Syriac versions.



Being a translation of the original Greek text -- which no longer exists -- does not make the Coptic text less valuable. The Greek Septuagint (LXX) was "just" a translation of the Hebrew Bible, but the Septuagint was the Bible used by the early Church, and New Testament writers like St. Paul the apostle.



Since we do not any longer have the "original" Greek text of the New Testament, versions like the Coptic, Latin, and Syriac show us how the text was understood by the early Christians.



I have been a student of ancient Egyptian (the parent of Coptic) for several years, and a student of Coptic itself for 2 years. I can see for myself that the literal Coptic text does say "and a god was the Word."

Answer 13

I just emailed (to you) links to some of the informative sites regarding the Sahidic Coptic Scriptures, etc. which I am aware of.



It is my understanding that these copies are The oldest & most reliable known to be in existance. They have very painstakingly been compiled, & have not been available for very long. One of the sites --which is currently under construction-- will supposedly have on-line:



The Sahidic Coptic New Testament with Parallel Greek,

&, Sahidica - The Egyptian New Testament



"The Sahidic is probably the earliest of the translations, and also has the greatest textual value. It came into existence no later than the third century, since a copy of 1 Peter exists in a manuscript from about the end of that century. Unlike the Bohairic version, there is little evidence of progressive revision."

(Versions of the New Testament > Sahidic Coptic > skypoint.com)



"At least by the third century C.E., the first translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures had been made for the Coptic natives of Egypt. Various Coptic dialects were used in Egypt, and in time various Coptic versions were produced. The most important are the Thebaic, or Sahidic, Version of Upper Egypt (in the S) and the Bohairic Version of Lower Egypt (in the N)." (Insight bk > Versions)



Arm yourself:



Should You Believe Everything You Hear?

http://watchtower.org/e/20000622/article_01.htm



Propaganda Critic: Introduction

- The Institute for Propaganda Analysis

www.propagandacritic.com



ADDITIONAL:



"The Sahidic Coptic text of the Gospel of John has been found to be in the Alexandrian text tradition of the well-regarded Codex Vaticanus (B) (Vatican 1209), one of the best of the early extant Greek New Testament manuscripts. Coptic John also shows affinities to the Greek Papyrus Bodmer XIV (p75) of the late 2nd/3rd century. Concerning the Alexandrian text tradition, Dr. Bruce Metzger states that it 'is usually considered to be the best text and the most faithful in preserving the original.'"



This is a quote from:

Bruce M. Metzger,

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,

2nd edition, United Bible Societies, 1994, page 5

Answer 14

If you do a search on the Sahidic Coptic New Testament, you will find, the Sahidic is probably the earliest of the translations, and also has the greatest textual value. It came into existence no later than the third century, since a copy of 1 Peter exists in a manuscript from about the end of that century. There is little evidence of progressive revision which makes it a very reliable reference.

Answer 15

Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:



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



Those who say that Jehovah's Witnesses changed the Bible have been grossly misinformed. If you will notice, some Bible versions that say "a god" came out long before the NWT.

Answer 16

Sahidic Coptic New Testament? That's a bunch of crap. The oldest complete Bible's we have are four codex's, none of which are this so-called Coptic text.



The New Testament was originally written in Greek anyway, not in Coptic. It was only translated into Coptic later. So any Coptic text is going to be less old than the older versions.

Answer 17

I personally have never heard a JW say that... but I have studied the original Koine Greek used in that verse and there are things wrong with most translations... I dont know why translators dont just use the actual direct translation which would be "in the beginning was the word and the word was with the God and the word was a powerful spirit being"



so you ask, why is the last word best translated "a powerful spirit being" instead of "god"?

because John used two different Koine Greek words commonly translated "god" at John 1:1

Paul used the same Koine Greek word found at the end of John 1:1 in 2 Cor 4:4,

So by their own logic of using John 1:1 to prove Jesus is co-equal to "the God", trinitarians logically would believe the one mentioned at 2 Cor 4:4 to be a co-equal part of their trinity as well.



BTW, Paul uses the other Koine Greek word for "the God" at the end of 2 Cor 4:4 and you can find these truths in any Interlinear Bible which should show the original Koine Greek wording.



may the one Jesus serves and calls "the only true God" at John 17:3 bless you in your search for the truth (BTW John uses the Koine Greek spelling of "the God" at 17:3)

agape!

Answer 18

The king james version was taken from the eramus text that was full of translational errors written around 1500.since we now have over 6000 differant copies dating from all differant times the New World Translation is by far superior then most translation of earlier times.

look at these other fine translations

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.



1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.



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.

Answer 19

The continuing fixation concerning John 1:1 is an enormous distraction and quite pointless; the fact remains that neither rendering ("the Word was God" OR "the Word was a god") actually proves or disproves trinitarianism (the full context of the bible is needed).



Nontrinitarian Christians such as Jehovah's Witnesses freely acknowledge that Jehovah (the Father) is "a god" and that Jesus is rightly called "God" in a few passages (such as Isaiah 9:6).





The discovery of this early Coptic translation (mentioned in the question) is interesting because it exposes as small-minded and needlessly argumentative those who have screamed for 50 years that Jehovah's Witnesses were wrong to translate John 1:1 with "the Word was a god". This manuscript dates from about 200 C.E., and the Coptic language used indefinite articles (which Greek did not). The manuscript plainly shows that the early Christians believed John 1:1 to read "...and the Word was a God."



http://copticjohn.com/

http://jehovah.to/exe/translation/coptic.pdf

http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml



Learn more:

http://watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm?article=article_05.htm

http://watchtower.org/e/rq/index.htm?article=article_03.htm

http://watchtower.org/e/pr/index.htm?article=article_04.htm

http://watchtower.org/e/dg/index.htm?article=article_03.htm

http://watchtower.org/e/lmn/index.htm?article=article_04.htm

Answer 20

Because the KJV was the most available English version around for a long time, most English speaking people are duped into thinking it is the "only" bible and therefore infallible. A serious effort into research will tell any bible student that, in fact, the KJV is one of the most inaccurate English translations out there. The people who published the NRSV bible stated in their foreword that the KJV "...has serious defects." Yes, that is a direct quote! Interestingly, since the discovery of many more bible transcripts that by far predate the ones used by the KJV translators, many new translations say things like "...and the word was divine" or "...and the word was godlike" or "...the word was like a god". The Greek word used there is different than the word used in the beginning of the verse. The fact of the matter is that the trinity teaching is a man- made doctrine that has become a tradition that people can't let go of, but it is NOT bible truth.

Answer 21

Well first off, if you didn't know our NWT is based on the King James Version. If you read the verse, it says (in the KJV) it was "a" god. If for some reason yours does not say that, please re-read the verse. As you can see in the middle of it, it states "the Word was with God." Ok now stop and think. How can the Word (being Jesus) be with God, but yet be God? That makes no sense. Also earlier someone pointed to a few scriptures and posted links where to find OUR scriptures. The only true place to find anything on our religion is at www.watchtower.org. Every other site is false. Also another scripture to look at in your copy of the KJV is Colossians 1:13-15. In vs. 14 it plainly states that it is through he who gave his life for us (being Jesus) and then in 15 it states "the firstborn over all creation". So here it says he was created and was the first thing that Jehovah created. One more thing to ponder on is the account in Genesis 1:26. It says God said "let US make man in OUR image." he is using this term in the plural tense signifying more than one person was there. So I hope this information helped clear up and questions and please feel free to ask me anything.

Answer 22

Watchtower Witnesses must compare their translations with the original manuscripts of scriptures like everyone else.This Sahidic Coptic NEW Testament is, just another translation. The fact that it made the same error as Witnesses 1,700 years earlier, does not make it true or prove anything. Pagans have been around even longer.



Watchtower Witnesses changed John 1:1 like all the other scriptures which prove Jesus is God to agree with their beliefs. This sect will sift through authors, books, and anything else until they find someone who agrees with them, and then they'll say "ah ha" look what we found. They don't mind isolating themselves from others, unless others have something to say which benefits them.



It's not impressive, when out of centuries, witnesses only have a handful of isolated authors and translations that agree with them, none of which are inspired works, but intellectual scholarly opinions. Mind you, these people also usually have criticisms about other parts of Witnesses beliefs, but they do not quote those. When will the madness end???



The other day a Witness posted a supposedly unbiased scholar who said their bible was most accurate, but left out other comments by this gentleman where he admitted when it came to specific points such as Jehovah's name and Divinity, certain scriptures were changed to support their beliefs which were not accurate. I wonder why they left that part out?



I'll be the first to say Witnesses have some accuracy in their teaching, such as not celebrating pagan holidays and such, but some of the most important points of the Bible they've perverted, and this is one of them. Unless their Watchtower Society announces this is an error, Witnesses will not budge on this issue, even if deep down inside they have doubts.



Also, for the record, the word "trinity" is a man-made written term, to describe correctly what is supported by the Bible. No one has tried to put the word Trinity in the Bible to give the impression it was inspired by prophets.



It is just a word for descriptive purposes, no different than "kingdom hall" "field service" "watchtower bible and tract society" and other terms witnesses use to describe biblical responsibilities which are not in the bible.

Answer 23

A few things to take mental note of;

1. There are a lot of misinformed people out there when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses.

2. There are people out in this world who deliberately try and bash Jehovah's Witnesses for their beliefs.

3. There are ex-Jehovah's Witnesses(who have CHOSEN to be ex-Jehovah's Witnesses) that are angry and seeking to misguide people by stating false words about JW's. These are the hardest to deal with because they will bend and turn everything to suit their own agenda which is to make sure no one is taught the bible by a JW. These people have made a vow to follow what the bible says as to morality then have gone against the vow. If they show no regret and are resolved to stay on their course they eventually leave and are no longer considered Jehovah's Witnesses. They turn on their former friends and spread lies about JW's, which is what some of the messages above look like.

If you want to know what JW's believe please go to the only true source of accurate beliefs at www.watchtower.org

You can also call your local Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall and ask for someone to answer your questions without any obligation.

Answer 24

Too lazy to get the sources for you at the moment....but the definite article ("a") isn't in any of the Greek manuscripts.



Nor is it "implied", as most Greek grammaticians will admit.



To make it read as the JW's pervert it, makes it contrast with the rest of the Bible- which says there is only ONE God. (First they say He's "A god"...but then later they tell you that they believe He is an angel...)



There is just so much to this, I couldn't tell it all to you in a month. Do some research on the web. There's plenty of info out there.



The JWs are always saying the NT manuscripts are corrupt, and that they've "restored them"- If they were corrupt, how could the JWs have "restored" them, when they have found no other manuscripts? What they mean to say, is that they ultimately do not believe the Bible is the definitive revelation from God. As one advances in their org., they are told that devine revelation (the word of God) comes not through the preserved writings, but by God "speaking through" 12 guys in Brooklyn, NY. who just happen to be the heads of the Watchtower Bible And Tract Society. So basically, what they are saying is, it doesn't matter what any manuscript says...you just have to believe whatever they tell you. They expect you to believe that the "Holy 12" in Brooklyn (of all places!) are to be believed rather than any preserved written manuscript of God!!!

An interesting note: Their NWT translation was essentially the work of one man- Frederick Franz- whom, admitted under oath in a Scottish court trial, that he could not even write nor understand even elementary Hebrew or Greek. And none of the others on the translating commitee had even remotely any credentials in ancient languages.

The best examples of their lunacies though, are their own words...and their words from the past. The JWs are the most notoriuous false prophets- prophesying the end of the world many times over the last 150 years!

They also have such embarassments to their credit as a mansion that they built in California in the 20's, for Moses and Elijah to live in when they were resurrected!!- and a large occultic pyramid that sits on Charles Taze Russells' grave (their founder)

There is just so much info out there on these loonies...do a little Googling.(They prey upon the Biblically illiterate- and teach them not out of any bible, but out of a book they wrote...and they isolate their converts from all non-JWs,- even their own non-JW family members, so that they will never hear the criticisms of the JWs)

When I was young, I was interested in the JWs- as I thought they were anti-Catholic (I had come out of Catholicism)...but I later found out, that their org is just a smaller version of Catholicism. The Catholics say that the Pope is the instrument of devine revelation...the JWs say that their 12 guys are the source. The Catholics say you can't understand the Bible without their guidance...the JWs say you cant understand without their guidance. The list goes on and on.

They even add words to the Bible! The greek says that Jesus was crucified on a stake...the JWs say "torture stake" in their NWT.....

They are one of the most blatantly dishonest cults out there.

Answer 25

Exodus 20 starts the 10 commandments.

In the King James Version it says:

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

You shall have no other gods before me. He goes on to say do not make an image and bow down to it or serve it.



This is clearly saying he is God alone.



Even if Jesus was a god, a mighty one, God would punish you if you served Jesus instead of Him.



Jehovah God is from everlasting to everlasting.

Jesus had a beginning.



Jehovah is the father

Jesus is the son.



No one has seen God at any time and lived .

Jesus walked the earth talking to men.



Jehovah is a spirit....and hears and answers your prayers

Jesus is the way to God...and he does not have the privilege of hearing prayers.



It is so simple....God, Jehovah always was and will be...he created his only begotten son who is above the angels. After Jesus was created and named Michael in heaven he was given an assignment to do everything, build everything for his father. So everything came to be because as a master worker he built it with help from the powerful force his father gave him, the holy spirit.



So in the beginning he was with God...he was a mighty god but he was never The Almighty God.



He even said not to worship him. He never gave way to a seizure that he was equal to God.



But this discussion proves that he gives his truths to the meek ones and hides it from the haughty ones.

Another thing...God calls who he wants. He will rock the nations and the desirable ones will come into His organization. All the others are rejected.



God is the reader of hearts.....is yours so scarred that it is worthless? Beg Jehovah God to help you learn what His will for you is.

Answer 26

why not just go down to ant bible book store and buy an Interlinear Greek Translation of the New Testament. Record how many ways the Apostle John spelled the Greek word for god. Take note that he never uses the same spelling in reference to The Word and in reference to his Father. He does use the same spelling in reference to The Word, Satan, and men. So, is Satan and humans also God or "a god"? King James says "a god". Should it say God in those locations, also? Don't take anyone word for it. Look it up yourself.

Answer 27

I can tell you this much--I used to believe that Jesus was God, and I began to study how to talk to someone I knew who was one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I went to an extra-biblical study help that both faiths agree is accurate, called Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, and looked up John 1:1, in order to show this person that the verse proves Jesus' deity. Imagine my surprise when Vine's stated that grammatically and linguistically it could go either way! I began, at that point, to do some indepth personal study, and am now one of Jehovah's Witnesses, convinced that what is taught is really the Truth.

Answer 28

The Sahidic Coptic New Testament is gnostic. The JWTs should only use this source for their bible exclusively if they believe it is inspired work.

The problem is they also use the Septuagint Bible and others for their translations. They should stick to one.



For more information on this subject go to this link.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/16078c.htm



Pece and every blessing!

Answer 29

The only thing I can think to say as the daughter of a JW is that over the many many years of the bible being translated into different languages certain words have been lost and/or changed because of it.

Answer 30

I have found the non-Christian religions, such as Jehovah Witnesses, to be philosophically indefensible, being internally incoherent or undermining human reason and experience. To better understand Jehovah Witnesses, I suggest you review the sites listed below.



The Watchtower’s version of the bible, New World Translation, alters biblical verses to match JW doctrines. For example, see John 1:1; John 17:3; Philippians 1:23; Colossians 1: 16; Hebrews 1:8 and compare it to any of the little green JW bibles.



http://www.carm.org/jw/john1_1.htm

http://www.carm.org/witnesses.htm

http://www.premier1.net/~raines/offshoot.html



Here is a good analysis of the JW John 1:1 mistranslation:



http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/bible-for-dummies/BD0805W3.htm



http://aomin.org/GERM_JWS.html

Answer 31

Darlin - The Jehovah's Witnesses believe what the "Two Prophets" tell them is true. It is not a Christian faith. They have altered the scripture themselves.



Get a Strong's Concordance and it will take you back to the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic meanings of the words - and you can see for yourself. Have the Christian Book Store Folks show you how to look things up in it.



Worry not. Jesus IS the Son of God - part of the trinity. (Something else they deny.)



Peace hon.

Answer 32

I use my Armenian Bible which is not a JW translation, and that particular verse in my language implies that he was a god.