Question:
Can an honest person read John 1 verse 1 and still believe the Jehovah's cult?
Hamish
2013-01-13 01:03:08 UTC
The Jehovah's Witnesses deny the deity of Christ. They deny the plain word of God. They trust cult heretics as leaders and teachers yet reject the bible.
Three answers:
Terry
2013-01-13 01:11:33 UTC
Did you know that there is NO definite article in the old Greek ( the word "A" or "an") so the grammar would decide. So look at the context, the word (Jesus) was WITH GOD, how on earth does anyone make sense of such grammar as that, to be with someone and yet be them at the same time !!!!



Trinitarian Moffatt's highly acclaimed New Translation of the Bible and (2) trinitarian Smith-Goodspeed's An American Translation both say that the Word "was divine.



Even the very trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: "a god was the Word". - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.



Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is "and a God[2] (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" - p. 54, (`New Covenant' section), Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.

Certainly a trinitarian scholar such as Dr. Young would interpret John 1:1c to mean "the Word was the true God" if he could honestly do so! Obviously he felt there was something wrong with that interpretation.



Highly trinitarian NT scholar Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, `the Word was a god,' but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that "context" will not allow such an interpretation! - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.



Professor Jason David BeDuhn tells us, “Grammatically, John 1:1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression. A lexical (‘interlinear’) translation of the controversial clause would read: ‘And the Word was a god.’ A minimal literal (‘formal equivalence’) translation would rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence, from Greek grammar, from literary context, and from cultural environment, supports this translation….” - p. 132, Truth in Translation, University Press of America, 2003.



Many trinitarian scholars, in fact, are forced to reject the interpretation that John 1:1c says that Jesus was the same "God" that he was with. Famed trinitarian scholars A. T. Robertson and B. F. Westcott, for example, were both forced to that conclusion - p. 96, Selected Notes On The Syntax Of New Testament Greek, Wallace, 3rd ed., 1981. Prof. Philip B. Harner also came to that conclusion, p. 85, JBL, vol. 92, 1973.



Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, "the word was a god."



Moffatt's The Bible, 1972, "the Logos was divine"



Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek, 1694, "and the Word was a god"



Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, "The Word was a God"



Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885, "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"



Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god”



J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901, [A]nd was a god"



Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. (in A Familiar Illustration of Certain Passages of Scripture Relating to The Power of Man to do the Will of God, Original Sin, Election and Reprobation, The Divinity of Christ; And, Atonement for Sin by the Death of Christ [Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37). "a God"



Andrews Norton, D.D. (in A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). "a god"



Paul Wernle, Professor of Modern Church History at the University of Basil (in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16). "a God"



Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University Press, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"



Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"



Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"



If they (trinitarian translators) had honestly believed that John was saying that Jesus is God, they certainly would not have hesitated to say "the Word was God." Why, then, did some Trinitarian translators of Christendom, some of the best Bible scholars and translators in the world, choose the word "divine" or the word was a god? Can you explain that ? Here was a golden opportunity for Trinitarian translators to translate that "Jesus was god " at Jo 1:1 but they did not, why?



Most Greek scholars laugh at the way Trinitarians try to use John 1:1 to support the trinity !
?
2013-01-13 08:11:10 UTC
its not a question of rejecting the Bible,

it is a question of understanding what the Bible said in its original language it was written in,

not the interpretation some choose to put on it in english to suit their beliefs



the greek expression used here is more than adequately explained in the other answers given.



so its good to know what the Bible really says.



" cult heretics " did not write john 1 v1.

nor did they write John 20:30, 31

To be sure, Jesus performed many other signs also before the disciples, which are not written down in this scroll.

31But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, YOU may have life by means of his name.
Bagsure
2013-01-13 01:36:04 UTC
Seriously, you are one of the most unchristlike people that I have come across on Yahoo. Your name calling is reminiscent of school playground tactics, and you certainly are not going to win over anyone, does you pastor not teach you that !



3 points here to consider:



1.) As @terry has already shown you that there is NO definite article in the old Greek ("a" or "an") so the way to understand is to look at the context and the context here is obvious that the son is WITH the father and is not him! That is why most honest translations including many TRINITARIAN bibles translate Jo 1:1 " a god" or he "was divine" or "god like"!



If they (trinitarian translators) had honestly believed that John was saying that Jesus is God, they certainly would not have hesitated to say "the Word was God." Why, then, did some Trinitarian translators of Christendom, some of the best Bible scholars and translators in the world, choose the word "divine" or the word was a god? Can you explain that ? Here was a golden opportunity for Trinitarian translators to translate that "Jesus was god " at Jo 1:1 but they did not, why? In fact most translators are Trinitarian, about 98% are so an honest translator will invariably pick the meaning that is closest to his own beliefs and prejudices. And an honest Trinitarian would, therefore, translate John 1:1c as "and the Word was God" If he felt he could honestly do so! So why have some Trinitarian translators refused to so translate it? I could understand if they were anti-trinitarian but they are not!........Just think about this point !



2.) Why is it that you are being disobedient to Jesus, as he did say:



"“Into whatever city or village ​YOU​ enter, search out who in it is deserving, and stay there until ​YOU​ leave.When ​YOU​ are entering into the house, greet the household; and if the house is deserving, let the peace ​YOU​ wish it come upon it; but if it is not deserving, let the peace from ​YOU​ return upon ​YOU.Wherever anyone does not take ​YOU​ in or listen to ​YOUR​ words, on going out of that house or that city shake the dust off ​YOUR​ feet" Matt 10



Although talking about going to villages, the same principle applies, so let me ask YOU why when JW's are NOT listening to YOUR words why then are you not following Jesus command and "shaking the dust off your feet ? Why do you continue there? You are not doing as Jesus commanded! I DO NOT remember him saying "just remain there and INSULT & RANT at them !



3.) I doubt that you will listen to the TRUTH as you already have your own agenda!



Many trinitarian scholars, in fact, are forced to reject the interpretation that John 1:1c says that Jesus was the same "God" that he was with. Famed trinitarian scholars A. T. Robertson and B. F. Westcott, for example, were both forced to that conclusion - p. 96, Selected Notes On The Syntax Of New Testament Greek, Wallace, 3rd ed., 1981. Prof. Philip B. Harner also came to that conclusion, p. 85, JBL, vol. 92, 1973.



Professor Jason David BeDuhn tells us, “Grammatically, John 1:1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression. A lexical (‘interlinear’) translation of the controversial clause would read: ‘And the Word was a god.’ A minimal literal (‘formal equivalence’) translation would rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence, from Greek grammar, from literary context, and from cultural environment, supports this translation….” - p. 132, Truth in Translation, University Press of America, 2003.



Why did Trinity believer "William Barclay" say the following, is it because he understands the TRUTH about John 1:1 where as you do not !



"When John said 'The Word was God'

he was NOT saying that Jesus is identical with God,

he was saying that Jesus is...the same as God

in mind, in heart, in being -

that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like"

-Barclay, W. The Daily Study Bible-

The Gospel of John vol.1 "III.

[Revised Edition ISBN 0-664-21304-9:


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...