- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi All
A lie has been leveled against me by a poster simply because I do not “agree” with the varied opinions of a couple of Greek scholars who “claim” it is grammatically possible for 1:1c to be arthrous (with the indefinite article “a”).
The Greek language does not have the indefinite article [a] so the translators have to add it to a sentence to make sense of it. As a rule the translators did not add the article unless they had to because of grammar and its context.
“There isn't any Greek rules that says “if there is a lack of the “definite article” with a noun then the text should be translated “indefinite”.
Yet there are a few lonely versions of the Bible, the NWT for one, that have added [a] to the text of John 1:1c without any reason except that they say it could “grammatically” be possible.
The scholars disagree with the JWs and in fact some say it not only is not grammatically possible but even reckless as far as the JWs and their NWT.
First I want to address Mike’s sources and then give some other sources clearly showing that it is not “Grammatically” possible for the NWT to be correct.
The NWT is guilty of misquoting their sources out of context which you will see.
Mikes first source is…
Murray J. Harris has written: “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,….” -Jesus As God, 1992, p. 60.
A look at the context reveals that Harris concluded that John 1:1c“should not” be rendered “the Word was [a] god”.
Here is M Harris comments in context, (emphasis mine)…
“From the point of view of grammar alone, qeoV hn`o logoV could be rendered 'the Word was a god'…But the theological context, viz., John's monotheism, makes this rendering of 1:1c impossible” (Harris, Jesus as God, p. 60). Source
He also says..
The “…” in the previous quote reads: “just as, for example, if only grammatical considerations were taken into account, “umeiv ek tou patrov tou diabolou este kai tav epiqumiav tou patrov umwn qelete” (John 8:44) could mean 'you belong to the father of the devil'” (Harris, p. 60).
So the writer goes on to explain…
Thus, Harris demonstrates that grammatical possibilities do not yield accurate translations. He goes on to say, “it would not be impossible, from the point of view of grammar alone, to translate 1:1c as 'God was the Word'” (Harris, p. 61). ”Anyone reading Harris' chapter on John 1:1 will see that he favors the traditional translation (“The Word was God”) NOT MERELY ON THEOLOGICAL GROUNDS (JOHN'S MONOTHEISM, BY THE WAY; NOT HARRIS'), BUT ON STRONG GRAMMATICAL AND CONTEXTUAL GROUNDS AS WELL”.
The parts I highlighted are…
…”but the theological context, viz., John's monotheism, makes this rendering of 1:1c IMPOSSIBLE” (Harris, Jesus as God, p. 60).
If someone thinks it is “Impossible” that the NWTs rendering of John 1:1 is correct or even could possibly be correct “grammatically” then why is it “impossible” to him to translate it that way? It is because Harris is saying “grammar” ALONE does not dictate how a verse is to be translated by his example of John 8:44. The JWs have misrepresented Harris and his words.
Mike also quotes CH Dodd …
C. H. Dodd says: “If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”
Once again the scholar is quoted out of context for the context reads…
“If the translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted, and to pagan Greeks who heard early Christian language, Theos en o Logos, might have seemed a perfectly sensible statement. ”The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole”(The Bible Translator, Vol. 28, No. 1, Jan. 1977).
“IF the translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation would be, ‘The Word was a god.
From his own words he is saying that “translating” is “NOT” a matter of just substituting words or “grammar”. He says “IF IT WAS” then the NWT could be a “possible” translation. But we know that translating the scriptures is not merely grammatical without context. Grammar includes context and no Biblical Scholar would ever say that in translating the scriptures you can accurately translate them without context.
Now let’s check out some of the Scholars that tell us this very thing…
Dr. Julius R. Mantey is the Author of Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament had threatened action against the WT (Watch Tower) for misquoting him in relation to John 1:1.
In the investigative film Witnesses of Jehovah (1988 Good News Defenders, P.O. Box 8007, La Jolla, CA 92038) Dr. Mantey say’s this in the television interview:
“I have never found any so-called translation that goes so far away from what the Scripture actually teaches as these books published by Jehovah’s Witnesses. ”They are so far away from what there is in the original Hebrew and the original Greek…you can’t follow theirs because it’s biased and its deceptive because they deliberately changed words in the passage of Scripture to make it fit into their doctrine, they distorted the Scripture in many facets, scores and scores of passages in the New Testament dealing with the deity of Christ especially.” Source
Dr. Julius Mantey is adamant in his attitude toward the writings of the WTS. To read the actual letter that Mantey wrote after he learned that he was cited in the Watch Tower publications go to http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Mantey.htm.
Here is the letter written by Julius R. Mantey, whose Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament has been quoted by various Watchtower publications in their discussions of John 1:1-2…
Your statement: “their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1.“There is no statement in OUR GRAMMAR that was ever meant to imply that “a god” was a permissible translation in John 1:1. A. We had no “rule” to argue in support of the trinity. B. Neither did we state that we did have such intention. We were simply delineating the facts inherent in Biblical language. C. Your quotation from P. 148(3) was in a paragraph under the heading: “With the Subject in a Copulative Sentence.” Two examples occur here to illustrate that “the article points out the subject in these examples.” But we made no statement in this paragraph about the predicate except that, “as it stands the other persons of the trinity may be implied in theos. “And isn't that the opposite of what your translation “a god” infers? You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) IN OUR GRAMMAR WE STATED: “WITHOUT THE ARTICLE THEOS SIGNIFIES DIVINE ESSENCE…THEOS EN HO LOGOS EMPHASIZES CHRIST'S PARTICIPATION IN THE ESSENCE OF THE DIVINE NATURE.” OUR INTERPRETATION IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT IN NEB AND THE TED: “WHAT GOD WAS, THE WORD WAS”; AND WITH THAT OF BARCLAY: “THE NATURE OF THE WORD WAS THE SAME AS THE NATURE OF GOD,” WHICH YOU QUOTED IN YOUR LETTER TO CARIS.” Source
I will post more on this with more evidence that it is “not grammatically possible” to translate John 1:1c as indefinite.
Dr. Mantey stated… “There is no statement in our “GRAMMAR” that was ever meant to imply that “a god” was a permissible translation in John 1:1.
Now an honest question for Mike…
According to Dr Mantey is “a god” a grammatically permissible translation?
More to come!
WJ
Keith,
Excellent post my brother! It is NOT grammatically possible to translate John 1:1c 'a god.'
You have pit Mike's own sources against him. Well done!
Jack
WJ cited Mike's source Harris:
Quote “IF the translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation would be, ‘The Word was a god. From his own words he is saying that “translating” is “NOT” a matter of just substituting words or “grammar”. He says “IF IT WAS” then the NWT could be a “possible” translation. But we know that translating the scriptures is not merely grammatical without context. Grammar includes context and no Biblical Scholar would ever say that in translating the scriptures you can accurately translate them without context.
Keith,Did Mike post the “IF” clause in Harris's statement and along with Harris's conclusion?
Jack
Hi All
A.T. Robertson a world renowned Greek Grammarian states…
“So in John 1:1 theos en ho logos ”THE MEANING HAS TO BE THE LOGOS WAS GOD, not God was the Logos.” A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, by A.T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, 1977), p. 129.
According to Dr Robertson can John 1:1c grammatically be translated [a] god?
WJ
Hi ALL
F.F. Bruce a Professor at the University of Manchester, England and has authored a New Testament translation states…
“Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with ‘God’ in the phrase “And the Word was God.’ Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction…’a god’ would be totally indefensible.” Source
According to Dr Bruce is it grammatically possible to translate John 1:1c as “the Word was [a] god”?
WJ
Quote In the third place, in the NT theos (like kurios) is virtually a proper name and consequently shares the imprecision with regard to the use of the article that seems to mark all proper names. “It is therefore NOT POSSIBLE to maintain that whenever theos is anarthrous it differs from ho theos in meaning or emphasis.” (Pp. 37-38; capital and underline emphasis ours)
To support Harris’ statement we will present several examples from the NT, specifically from the writings of John, where theos is used without the article to denote the one true God:
“There came a man who was sent from God (theou); his name was John.” John 1:6
“Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God (theou)— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God (theou).” John 1:12-13
“No one has ever seen God (theon), but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.” John 1:18
“But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God (theo).” John 3:21
“Jesus replied, ‘If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God (theos), is the one who glorifies me.’” John 8:54
“Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God (theou).” John 16:30
“The Jews insisted, ‘We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God (huion theou).’” John 19:7
“How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God (theou)! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Dear friends, now we are children of God (theou), and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” 1 John 3:1-2
“Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father (theou patros) and from Jesus Christ, the Father's Son, will be with us in truth and love… Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God (theon); whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.” 2 John 1:3, 9
Keith posted F.F. Bruce:
Quote “Much is made by Arian AMATEUR grammarians of the omission of the definite article with ‘God’ in the phrase “And the Word was God.’ Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction…’a god’ would be totally indefensible.” “Arain AMATEUR grammarians”
“We might start with the qualifications of the NWT translating committee. The Witnesses report that they “…have chosen to remain anonymous…” Why? What dark secret have they to hide? The late Dr. Walter Martin said, “…there is not a single Greek scholar in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I did everything I could to find out the names of the translating committee of the NWT, and the Watchtower wouldn't tell me a thing. Finally, an ex-JW who knew the committee members personally told me who they were, and the men on that committee could not read New Testament Greek; nor could they read Hebrew… Only one of them had been to college, and he had dropped out after a year. He briefly studied the biblical languages while there… He read modern Greek, and I met him when I visited the Watchtower. I asked him to read John 1:1 in the Greek, and then said, 'How owuld you translate it?' He said, 'Well, the word was a god'. I said, 'What is the subject of the sentence?' He just looked at me. So I repeated, 'What is the subject of the sentence?' He didn't know. This was the only person in the Watchtower to read Greek and he didn't know the subject of the sentence in John 1:1.” (excerpted from the tape, “Martin and Mantey on The New World Translation”).
“By the way, the NWT translating committe consisted of: Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, Fred Franz and Milton Henschel. Mr. Franz, the only one to have any knowledge of the biblical languages was asked in a Scotland courtroom to translate Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew. He said that he could not. If he was not able to translate from English back to the original language, it would follow that he was likewise incapable of translating from the original Bible language to the English. His ignorance of the Hebrew language was exposed.”
W. E. Vine writes…
“'and the Word was God'; here a double stress is on theos, by the absence of the article and by the emphatic position. To translate it literally, “a god was the Word,' is entirely misleading” (Vine, Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary, “God”, p. 272).
According to W.E. Vine is it grammatically possible to translate John 1:1c as “the Word was [a] God?
WJ
B.F. Westcott writes…
It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say “the Word was ho theos”. “No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of the expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word” Compare the converse statement of the true humanity of Christ v. 27 (hoti hious anthropou estin…).'” (Moule, p. 116, emphasis added). Source
According to B.F. Westcort is it grammatically possible to translate John 1:1c as (inferior in nature) as [a] little god?
WJ
Keith,
Do you realize that not ONE of your scholars say it is GRAMMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE?
Let me know when you find one that does, okay? Until then, you are posting many OPINIONS and PREFERENCES of trinitarians. And it is quite clear to all of us that no one who thinks Jesus is the God he is the Son of wants to see the “a god” translation.
But we don't care what they PREFER or WANT, do we? No, we only care what is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE. And since it is absolutely 100% undeniably grammatically possible, let's move on with our discussion in the “Freak Greek” thread so I can use your own words to show you how it is also PREFERRABLE, okay?
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 23 2011,03:31) WJ cited Mike's source Harris: Quote “IF the translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation would be, ‘The Word was a god. From his own words he is saying that “translating” is “NOT” a matter of just substituting words or “grammar”. He says “IF IT WAS” then the NWT could be a “possible” translation. But we know that translating the scriptures is not merely grammatical without context. Grammar includes context and no Biblical Scholar would ever say that in translating the scriptures you can accurately translate them without context.
Keith,Did Mike post the “IF” clause in Harris's statement and along with Harris's conclusion?
Jack
Mike,DID YOU POST HARRIS'S “IF” CLAUSE WITH HIS CONCLUSIONS?
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 23 2011,19:07) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 23 2011,03:31) WJ cited Mike's source Harris: Quote “IF the translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation would be, ‘The Word was a god. From his own words he is saying that “translating” is “NOT” a matter of just substituting words or “grammar”. He says “IF IT WAS” then the NWT could be a “possible” translation. But we know that translating the scriptures is not merely grammatical without context. Grammar includes context and no Biblical Scholar would ever say that in translating the scriptures you can accurately translate them without context.
Keith,Did Mike post the “IF” clause in Harris's statement and along with Harris's conclusion?
Jack
Mike,DID YOU POST HARRIS'S “IF” CLAUSE WITH HIS CONCLUSIONS?
Correction,Mike,
Did you post Mantey's “IF” clause with his conclusions? If so please direct me to it.
Jack
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,19:52) Keith, Do you realize that not ONE of your scholars say it is GRAMMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE?
Let me know when you find one that does, okay? Until then, you are posting many OPINIONS and PREFERENCES of trinitarians. And it is quite clear to all of us that no one who thinks Jesus is the God he is the Son of wants to see the “a god” translation.
But we don't care what they PREFER or WANT, do we? No, we only care what is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE. And since it is absolutely 100% undeniably grammatically possible, let's move on with our discussion in the “Freak Greek” thread so I can use your own words to show you how it is also PREFERRABLE, okay?
mike
MikeNow who is being evasive? So you just refuse to answer the question and are going to reject my source?
You see Mike this shows how dishonest you are by claiming you always answer us yet what are you now doing? You run around here beating your chest like some self righteous know it all and condemn others by calling them “liars” while you claim that you are after the truth even if it means changing your doctrine, yet time and time again we have shown you truths that you totally reject (including Matt 28:19) to hold on to your fleshly manmade doctrines. You are so proud that you can't even see how foolish and silly it is to quote Trinitarians in an attempt to discredit what their ultimate conclusions are.
Here is the letter written by Julius R. Mantey, whose Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament has been quoted by various Watchtower publications in their discussions of John 1:1-2…
Your statement: “their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1.“There is no statement in OUR GRAMMAR that was ever meant to imply that “a god” was a permissible translation in John 1:1. A. We had no “rule” to argue in support of the trinity. B. Neither did we state that we did have such intention. We were simply delineating the facts inherent in Biblical language. C. Your quotation from P. 148(3) was in a paragraph under the heading: “With the Subject in a Copulative Sentence.” Two examples occur here to illustrate that “the article points out the subject in these examples.” But we made no statement in this paragraph about the predicate except that, “as it stands the other persons of the trinity may be implied in theos. “And isn't that the opposite of what your translation “a god” infers? You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) IN OUR GRAMMAR WE STATED: “WITHOUT THE ARTICLE THEOS SIGNIFIES DIVINE ESSENCE…THEOS EN HO LOGOS EMPHASIZES CHRIST'S PARTICIPATION IN THE ESSENCE OF THE DIVINE NATURE.” OUR INTERPRETATION IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT IN NEB AND THE TED: “WHAT GOD WAS, THE WORD WAS”; AND WITH THAT OF BARCLAY: “THE NATURE OF THE WORD WAS THE SAME AS THE NATURE OF GOD,” WHICH YOU QUOTED IN YOUR LETTER TO CARIS.” Source
There is your source and your context that you asked for Mike.
Sorry but if Dr Mantey says…
“There is no statement in OUR GRAMMAR that was ever meant to imply that “a god” was a permissible translation in John 1:1.
and clarifies by saying…
IN OUR GRAMMAR WE STATED: “WITHOUT THE ARTICLE THEOS SIGNIFIES DIVINE ESSENCE…THEOS EN HO LOGOS EMPHASIZES CHRIST'S PARTICIPATION IN THE ESSENCE OF THE DIVINE NATURE.” OUR INTERPRETATION IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT IN NEB AND THE TED: “WHAT GOD WAS, THE WORD WAS”; AND WITH THAT OF BARCLAY: “THE NATURE OF THE WORD WAS THE SAME AS THE NATURE OF GOD,” WHICH YOU QUOTED IN YOUR LETTER TO CARIS.”
Then that means to Dr Mantey “a god” is not “grammatically possible” because it is not “grammatically permissable”.
According to Dr Mantey is “a god” a grammatically permissible translation?
Answer the question Mike. It is a simple yes or no answer.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,19:52) Keith, Do you realize that not ONE of your scholars say it is GRAMMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE?
MikeDid you realize that one of “OUR” scholars has said it is “not grammatically permissable” to be translated “a god”.
When are you going to find an anti-Jesus is God Biblical Hebrew and Greek scholar?
WJ
WJ said:
Quote There is your source and your context that you asked for Mike. Sorry but if Dr Mantey says…
“There is no statement in OUR GRAMMAR that was ever meant to imply that “a god” was a permissible translation in John 1:1.
and clarifies by saying…
IN OUR GRAMMAR WE STATED: “WITHOUT THE ARTICLE THEOS SIGNIFIES DIVINE ESSENCE…THEOS EN HO LOGOS EMPHASIZES CHRIST'S PARTICIPATION IN THE ESSENCE OF THE DIVINE NATURE.” OUR INTERPRETATION IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT IN NEB AND THE TED: “WHAT GOD WAS, THE WORD WAS”; AND WITH THAT OF BARCLAY: “THE NATURE OF THE WORD WAS THE SAME AS THE NATURE OF GOD,” WHICH YOU QUOTED IN YOUR LETTER TO CARIS.”
Then that means to Dr Mantey “a god” is not “grammatically possible” because it is not “grammatically permissable”.
Bravo brother!Jack
Mike
Didn't you say…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,18:54) I don't play with words and avoid questions like you do, Keith. I don't have to play games like that, for I have the truth on my side. So why did you avoid the question Mike? Why are you playing word games now?
WJ
Keith, Keith, Keith,
You are so precious.
First, you ask a question yesterday. I say, “Show me the source”. Then you post the source only today, and before I've even logged on to HN, you're bullying me for an answer!
Give me a chance to read your first post before you go off on a tangent, okay? As for your scholary quote, you have quoted what this man has said to the Watchtower, not what his book on Greek grammar said. Apparently, what his book says was good enough for the JW's to say, “SEE? This Greek scholar admits “a god” is grammatically possible”. And he is telling them that he wasn't implying “a god” was a permissable translation. But that means he wasn't specifically implying it was NOT a permissable translation either. Face it, if he had said something to that effect, I doubt the JW's would have quoted him as support in the first place, right?
The “GRAMMAR” he refers to in this quote is the ENGLISH GRAMMAR he himself used in his book, and has nothing to do with the Greek grammar of John 1:1.
As far as his OPINION about “What God was, the Word was”, bring it up in the Freak Greek thread. I've made a post about it today.
Anyway, you haven't posted the actual words from his book about John 1:1. Do that, and then ask the question. Because he's definitely not telling the JW's it's IMPOSSIBLE, and apparently his book said something they liked in the first place.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
