why does the Jehovah Witness NWT translates the Greek word “Theos” in Jn 1:1c as “a god”, but....?

Question

The NWT translates the Greek word “Theos” in Jn 1:1c as “a god”, but translates this same exact Greek word as “God” everywhere else it appears?

Answer 1

Uncle Guido is correct. This all comes from an ignorance of Greek grammar by the translators. The word for god (θεός) has an article before it in some grammatical tenses, and does not have it in others. Absence of the article does not translate into "a god".



It's amazing how overblown these misunderstandings of Greek have become. A form of your question is asked on Yahoo almost every day.



EDIT: How on earth does a native Greek speaker get thumbs down for stating what is absolutely, positively true of the Greek language? LOL. You guys can believe all the interpretations you wish, but I know my language.

Answer 2

Greetings,



First, there should not be too much emphasis put on the occurrence of the Greek definite article or its absence. The use of THEOS without the article can be referring to Almighty God and hO THEOS can also be used of Christ (Jn 20:28). What is more significant is the differentiation here between one being called hO THEOS and another being called THEOS. The Word is not only a different PERSON than the Father, but a different THEOS also.



So, two things confirm the accuracy of the NWT's rendering of Jn.1:1: Grammatically, the predicate noun and the immediate context.



First, the term "god" in the clause "the Word was god" is a predicate. A predicate tells us something about the Word, not his identity. Therefore, the footnote in the NAB says: "'Was God': lack of a definite article with 'God' in Greek signifies predication rather than identification." It is describing Christ's nature, or more accurately a "quality" or characteristic.



Also, because the word "God" is grammatically a *count noun* it means that Christ is a member of the class of "Gods." A count noun must be always be either definite (The God) or indefinite (a god), even when it carries a "qualitative" emphasis. And, no modern Trinitarian scholar who is worth his salt claims that "God" here is a definite noun.



In most other places where the exact same grammatical structure occurs translators put an "a" in front of the predicate noun (e.g. "a prophet", "a slanderer" etc.). This would make it "a god" here. Translators place an "a" in most other occurrences of this structure but not at Jn.1:1 because of theological bias (This is an anarthrous predicate noun preceding the copulative verb: Mk.6:49; 11:32, Jn.4:19; 6:70; 8:44 (2x's); 9:17; 10:1,13,32; 12:6). The pre-verbal predicate nouns in these examples demand the addition of the indefinite article "a".





Next, grammatically Jesus is here placed ontologically separate from “The God" (TON QEON) by the use of "PROS" (with). The use of "PROS" (with) shows there is a relationship between The God and the Word on the level of QEOS.



Jesus cannot be the same as God because it twice states that Jesus is WITH "God" (Greek: The God). So we have two beings, both who are called "God" and *with* each other. The Trinity doctrine does not allow for "God" being with "God" since the three are only one God. To avoid this contradiction Trinitarians must subconsciously alter what the verse really says to "the Word was with the FATHER."



But, logically and semantically, either there were two equal Gods with each other or there was one individual *described* as divine (a quality) who was with a second individual *identified* as The [Almighty] God. There are no other valid explanations.



John was not saying that the Word was the same as The God who he was with but, rather, that the Word was godlike, divine, "a god."



William Loader remarks: "The statement's meaning and so it's translation, must be determined from it's context. It could also be translated: 'the Word was a god' or 'the Word was divine'...Against [the translation 'the Word was God'] is the fact that the author has just said that the Word was 'with' God....The other two translations fit the context more smoothly."--The Christology of the Fourth Gospel



Many other translators recognize that Jn.1:1 can be translated as "a god" because of the grammar and the context (Newcome, Thompson, Wilson's Diaglott, Robert Young's Commentary. Moffat and Goodspeed read "divine").



"Jn. 1:1 should rigorously be translated...and the word was a divine being."—John L. Mckenzie, Dictionary of the Bible



According to Robert Young in his "Concise Commentary" the most "literal" way to translate John 1:1c is to call the Word "a God", not "God".





Notice that Young admits that the most "literal" way to translate John 1:1c is to call the Word "a God", not "God".

So the rendering "was a god" is the most accurate and still very literal.



Many Greek Scholars recognize that Jn.1:1 does not identify Jesus as God, yet the poor lay people are kept in ignorance:



"It is not that Jesus is God. Time and time again the Fourth Gospel speaks of God sending Jesus into the world. Time and time again we see Jesus praying to God....Nowhere does the New Testament identify Jesus with God."—From "William Barclay; A Spiritual Autobiography"



"Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature."—The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Rom. 9:5).



In view of the above, the NWT's rendering here is an accurate rendering of God's Word, it breaks no 'rule' of grammar. It properly distinguishes between the one who is "HO THEOS," and the Word as "THEOS." It requires no mystical, incomprehensible interpretation; and no semantic equivocation.



Yours,



BAR-ANERGES

Answer 3

I made a word study on this once, but I think the results are on a computer in storage, so I can't give exact details.



But it pretty much went like this:



The genitive and dative Greek cases often drop the article but retain definiteness in meaning. This doesn't just affect "theos" but other Greek nouns. This is well known and is noted in most introductory Koine Greek grammars. There are many instances of "theos" in these cases without the article, but they are translated "God." John 1:6 is a good example, where "God" is in the genitive case, lacks the article, and is translated "God" (which actually carries the meaning "the god"), whereas "man" which is in the nominative case and lacks the article is translated "a man."



However, when "theos" is in the nominiative or accusative cases, it seems to have the article ("ho") about 95% of the time when referring to "God." There are only a handful of instances where "theos" lacks the article and can be translated "God." Other instances, like Acts 28:6, should obviously be translated "a god."



So to answer your question, the NWT is actually pretty consistent when it comes to translating "theos" in the nominative case that lacks the article. Other examples would be Mark 12:27, John 10:33, Acts 28:6, and 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

Answer 4

Even Vine's states:



"The literal translation: 'a god was the Word' is misleading"



The NAB footnote to John 1:1, states that God(2) is not an identification, but a quality.



Jason D. BeDuhn states that "and the Word was God" is improper english.



it is like saying: "Snoopy was dog". Proper English requires "a dog"



Proper English at John 1:1 requires "and the Word was a god".



As to everywhere theos appears, check out 2 Cor. 4:4.

Answer 5

If you still believe that Jesus was not a body manifestation of the very creator God, the word that formed the worlds made flesh, then you are still bound in a lack of revelation which is the central denial of the NWT rewrite; and the JW belief system. For it is not and was not the faith of the Apostles nor the plan of the only living God. God has laid aside all other names to set forth the Lord Jesus Christ; that at his name all things in earth below and heaven above should and will bow. For the first 300 years, until false doctrine defeated the true church; Christians were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord being his name under the title of Father; Jesus being his name under the title of Son; and Christ or Messiah being his name under the title of the Holy Ghost. Then as now, Jesus lives in his children; who are the believers and the true church in this ending hour.

Answer 6

This verse contains two forms of the Greek noun the‧os′ (god). The first is preceded by ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article, and in this case the word the‧on′ refers to Almighty God. In the second instance, however, the‧os′ has no definite article. Was the article mistakenly left out?



What, though, if the subject has a definite article but the predicate does not, as in John 1:1? Citing that verse as an example, scholar James Allen Hewett emphasizes: “In such a construction the subject and predicate are not the same, equal, identical, or anything of the sort.”



To illustrate, Hewett uses 1 John 1:5, which says: “God is light.” In Greek, “God” is ho the‧os′ and therefore has a definite article. But phos for “light” is not preceded by any article. Hewett points out: “One can always . . . say of God He is characterized by light; one cannot always say of light that it is God.” Similar examples are found at John 4:24, “God is a Spirit,” and at 1 John 4:16, “God is love.” In both of these verses, the subjects have definite articles but the predicates, “Spirit” and “love,” do not. So the subjects and predicates are not interchangeable. These verses cannot mean that “Spirit is God” or “love is God.”

Answer 7

I'm not sure; you would have to ask the translators. It may have something to do with the use of an article. Usually in Greek you will see it as "ho theos," meaning "the god," not just "theos" by itself.

Answer 8

QUIET simple....in the book of Acts 28:6 in Greek Koine...the original text it says PAUL WAS GOD.



BUT all bible ...translated Paul was a God....including your one.



Acts 28:6 but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.



http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+28&version=KJV



BUT in the Greek...the article wasn't before the word GOD...BUT your bible added also as all bibles...Did you knew that??



http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/act28.pdf



They say God was him...but your bible and all of the bibles added the article...WHY??



Cause the article in ancien Greek didn't existed.....and JWs have expalined 1 millions of times.



in John 1:1 also the same rules applied...BUT Catholics decided no put it..to make believe Jesus is the most high...WHY..cause mary would become Mother of the most high...to attract Pagans who worshipped a Goddess.



If Jesus is the most high of the universe....then Mary is mother of the most high and higher than the most high..and RCC...had a Goddess to offer to pagan Romans that used to worship Mithra.

Answer 9

To back up some of their faulty teachings regarding the Bible. Also note that they believe the maximum capacity for heaven is the 144,000. The book of Revelation says that this is the number of Jewish males sealed during the wrath of God. There are some strange doctrines like considering blood transfusions to be cannibalism and birthdays to be ungodly. However there worse one is denying the deity of Jesus Christ and His Holy Spirit.

Answer 10

Because the men who compiled their version of the bible were wrong. They wanted to perpetuate a lie. Why, I don't know!



This is why it is so important to STUDY the Bible! Break out the concordance, get into the Greek and Hebrew that it was originally written in so you have a clue! I only use a KJV Bible but even that has errors so I do what I can to make sure I'm getting the true idea of what God is trying to tell me!

Answer 11

They base it on whether the article (in this case "ho", which is translated "the") is present. If the Koine reads "ho theos" they say it translates as "God", but if the article is missing they translate it as "a god."



In my first semester of Koine we learned that the absence of the article can mean "a" but this is not a hard and fast rule. The NWT translators evidently did not get through their first semester of Koine.

Answer 12

My good friend BAR-ANERGES gave a very good answer that MIGHT help answering your question.



Here is the link, enjoy the reading!



https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20110530210032AAv2OvL