JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

Participant

Not3in1;

We're on the same page. However, there are many scriptures which show that Christ existed as a Son of God before being conceived in Mary.
I've posted them on the usual threads.

Steven

August 14, 2007 at 11:52 am#64033

Cult Buster

Participant

Quote (Mr. Steve @ Aug. 08 2007,10:30)

Not3in1;

The best way to interpret scripture is with scripture. Christ said the seed is the Word of God. His word is eternal. Indeed, his word is eternal life and grows when it finds good ground. Christ was good ground because he was born of the word and begotten by God and every tree bringeth forth fruit after his kind. When God has children and the children obey they please God. Christ said he always did the things that pleased the Father. In response to the seed and the apple. Is not the seed part of the Apple. When you have an apple, don't you have seeds, too. In this manner the Word was God. Some believers that do not believe in the pre-existence of the Son of God only believe that Christ was God just as the seed is the apple. Again, the scriptures state that Christ made the worlds so he must have been begotten long before the foundation of our world and existed as the Son of God.

Mr Steve.

What you are doing again is putting the “twist” on scripture.

In John 1:1 it states “. . . kai theos en ho logos”. This is usually translated as “. . . and the Word was God.”

The original word order in Greek, however, is “. . . and God was the Word.”

If when the predicate nominative precedes the verb and subject in Greek as it is the case here, the predicate nominative (in this case “theos”) it cannot grammatically have a definite article. If it did have a definite article, then its position in the sentence would make it the subject of the sentence.

Also however, when the predicate nominative precedes the verb and subject in the Greek, then the grammatical and stylistic effect is to emphasize the meaning of the predicate nominative and to give it the added effect of being a very forceful adjective.

So the statement in John 1:1 means that the Word, which is Jesus, is God–not just “a god,” like the Jehovah's Witnesses highly biased NWT suggests.

John 1:1 literally translated reads: “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.” as the corrupted NWT states. That wouldn't make sense. Let's break it down into three statements.

“In beginning was the word…”
(en arche en ho logos)

“and the word was with the God…”
(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)

“and God was the word.”
(kai theos en ho logos)

— Properly translated as “and the Word was God.”

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, This obviously identifies Jesus as The Word (Jehovah God)

The Gospel of John emphasizes the divinity of Christ from beginning to end. It starts with John 1:1 and climaxes in Thomas’ confession of faith.

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

August 14, 2007 at 1:01 pm#64038

Participant

Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 14 2007,06:52)

“the doctrine which ye have learned”? Well, since the Trinity doctrine did not come about until many, many years later, and it DID cause a division among believers, there is a strong indication that Paul is speaking about it. That Paul was prophetic in his own right, wouldn't you say?

Oh, “the hearts of the simple” is a good one too. The Trinity is not simple, it is called a mystery and many are confused by it. But the simple truth was not the Trinity so again, Paul addresses the fallacy of the Trinity twice in these 2 verses. Way to go Paul!

August 14, 2007 at 7:13 pm#64044

Participant

I had seen something like this before, but had an opportunity to follow up on it today. Has anyone ever heard of the Coptic version of the Gospel of John? If not, I will highlight some things that relate to John 1:1. From http://sahidiccoptic.bravehost.com/solomon.html

In harmony with Jesus' command to them, the early Christians eagerly spread the message of the good news of Jehovah's Kingdom far and wide. They made translations of the koine Greek Gospels into several languages. By about the year 200, the earliest of these were found in Syriac, Coptic, and Latin.1 Coptic was the language spoken by Christians in Egypt, in the Sahidic dialect, until replaced by the Fayyumic and the Bohairic dialects in Coptic church liturgy in the 11th century C.E.
Much was made of it in the scholarly world when an apocryphal gospel written in Coptic, titled the “Gospel of Thomas,” was discovered in Egypt near Nag Hammadi in December 1945. Yet, after an initial welcome, the scholarly world has been strangely silent about an earlier and more significant find, the Sahidic Coptic translation of the canonical Gospel of John, which may date from about the late 2nd century C.E.
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.3 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.”
Therefore, it is all the more strange that insights of the Sahidic Coptic text of John 1:1 are largely ignored by popular Bible translators. Might that be because the Sahidic Coptic Gospel of John translates John 1:1c in a way that is unpopular in Christendom? The Sahidic text renders John 1:1c as auw neunoute pe pshaje, clearly meaning literally “and was a god the Word.” Unlike koine Greek, Sahidic Coptic has both the definite article, p, and the indefinite article, u. The Coptic text of John 1:1b identifies the first mention of noute as pnoute, “the god,” i.e., God. This corresponds to the koine Greek text, wherein theos, “god,” has the definite article ho- at John 1:1b, i.e., “the Word was with [the] God.”
The koine Greek text indicates the indefiniteness of the word theos in its second mention (John 1:1c), “god,” by omitting the definite article before it, because koine Greek had no indefinite article. But Coptic does have an indefinite article, and the text employs the indefinite article at John 1:1c. This makes it clear that in reading the original Greek text, the ancient Coptic translators understood it to say specifically that “the Word was a god.”
The early Coptic Christians had a good understanding of both Greek and their own language, and their translation of John's koine Greek here is very precise and accurate. Because they actually employed the indefinite article before the word “god,” noute, the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c is more precise than the translation found in the Latin Vulgate, since Latin has neither a definite nor an indefinite article. Ancient Coptic translations made after the Sahidic, in the Bohairic dialect, also employ the indefinite article before the Coptic word for “god.”
That very point may give some indication as to why the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c is largely kept under wraps in academic religious circles today. Most new English translations continue to translate this verse to say “the Word was God.” But the Coptic text provides clear evidence — from very ancient times — that the New World Translation is correct in rendering John 1:1c as “the Word was a god.”

From http://commentary.copticjohn.com/

Top Seven Reasons why the Coptic of John 1:1c should be translated 'a
god'
I. Grammatical: Coptic John 1:1c, ne.u.noute pe p.Saje is literally,
ne = indicates past tense of what follows;
(o)u = a (indefinite article);
noute = god;
pe = “was” when following ne;
p = the (masculine singular definite article);
Saje = Word,
giving us interlinearly, “a god was the Word.”
2. Grammatical and syntactical: The Coptic word noute, “god,” is not an abstract noun or noun indicating unspecified quantities of a substance, in which case the indefinite article could go without translation in English. Rather, it is a regular or count noun, in which case the English indefinite article “a” is customarily utilized in translation, as in the English translation of the Coptic New Testament by George Horner, and in numerous English translations of other Coptic works, such as the Gnostic gospels of Thomas, Philip, and Judas.
Contrary to what some Trinitarian apologists imply, there is nothing incomprehensible or mysterious about the Coptic indefinite article. “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.” –Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, page 5
3. Faithful to the underlying Greek text: Greek anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nouns are often translated as indefinite in English, utilizing the English indefinite article “a.”
4. Understanding grounded on the underlying Greek text: Apart from theology, and on the basis of grammar alone, the ancient Coptic
translators of the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE obviously understood the
Greek construction of John 1:1c to be indefinite, and translated
accordingly in the Coptic. If they had understood it to be definite
(“the Word was God”), they had no indication of such a meaning in the
Greek text, which does not have the Greek definite article here. If
they understood it to be “qualitative,” (“the Word was deity or
divine”) they could have translated it by means of Coptic adjectival
prefixes. They did not, but utilized the Coptic indefinite article
instead: ou noute: “a god.”
5. Theology I: While we cannot know with specificity the theological
presuppositions of the Coptic translators, or even if those
presuppositions guided their translation of John 1:1c, it should be
noted that their translation was most likely made before
Trinitarianism became the established church dogma. The translators
would have had no need to translate John 1:1c according to any
Trinitarian formula that equated Jesus Christ with God Almighty.
6. Theology II: Several early Church fathers contemporaneous with the Coptic translators, like Origen, distinguished between God and His Son, and were
subordinationist in outlook. They saw he Son as subordinate to the
Father, and not equal in either eternity or in ontology with the
Father. To understand John 1:1c as saying “the Word was a god [or, a
divine being]” would not have been out of harmony with the
hermeneutics of the time that the Sahidic Coptic translation was made.
7. New Testament Harmony: Like any other accurate translation of the New Testament, the ancient Sahidic Coptic New Testament preserves all the verses which show that Jesus Christ is a god, a divine being, the divine Son of God, the Image of God, God's firstborn, but not God Himself. The Coptic text does not support Modalism or Sabellianism.

August 14, 2007 at 7:17 pm#64045

Participant

CB;

Thank you for the greek analysis on John 1:1. According to your interpretation, Christ was the Word. Where is that in the original greek?
Does it not say the Word was God, or as you like, God was the Word. Are not they inseparable? Why then if the Word was Christ, that Christ was known as the Son of God and never the Son of the Word. How come no one in scripture refers to Christ as the Word, or the Son of the Word, come down from the cross.

Jesus said was the Word was. The seed is the Word of God. This is why the Word and God are inseparable. The seed is within itself.

Now if the Word was Christ and God, here are a few questions which arise from your conclusion. You believe that Christ is the Word in John 1:1. This verse states the Word is God. It would then follow that if Christ is the Word and the Word is God, then Christ is God. So if Christ is God then who is the Son of God. Is the Word both the Son of God and God? This sounds like Oneness. Hence, you are saying that Christ and God are inseparable.

Why then did Christ distinguish himself in so many ways a part from his Father, if they are inseparable?

If Christ is the Word and God, why did he say his doctrine or the words he spoke were not his?

If Christ is the Word and God, why did he say he kept God's commandments? Wouldn't the commandments be his own?

If Christ is the Word and God, how come everyone proclaimed he was the Son of God, including himself and his Father?

If Christ is God, why did the Father say this is my Son?

If Christ is God, why did he say God sent him a million times?

When you share the gospel with people do you say that the Son of God died on the cross or the Almighty died?

You do believe Christ is the Almighty?

Also, if Christ is the Almighty, who was the Father that Jesus said was in heaven?

You finalized your post with Romans 16:17-18 which warns to avoid people that cause divisions and deceive others for their own gain. You usually don't give an analysis so I reasonably inferred your intent to communicate that I am a deceiver from the scriptures you posted.

You either have a demented sense of humor, or are deceived yourself. I suspect the later. However, I do not believe you are intentionally deceiving others with your trinity doctrine.

Deceit is actually a legal action which requires misrepresentation or fraud. An intentional misrepresentation requires that you make a false statement knowing that it is false with the intent that another relies on the statement and does rely to their detriment. I do not believe you are a deceiver because you believe what you are saying with respect to the trinity is true. Hence, you have no intent to deceive because you don't know what the truth is so you can't misrepresent it.

Good day

Mr. Steve

August 14, 2007 at 7:28 pm#64046

Participant

Whats sad is that an apologetic site is trying to refute the above, but this is all they can come up with: From http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/ScholarsAndCopticJohn.htm

Bentley Layon
“The indef. article is part of the Coptic syntactic pattern. This pattern predicates either a quality (we'd omit the English article in English: “is divine”) or an entity (“is a god”); the reader decides which reading to give it. The Coptic pattern does NOT predicate equivalence with the proper name “God”; in Coptic, God is always without exception supplied with the def. article. Occurrence of an anarthrous noun in this pattern would be podd.”1
“Don't worry about the indefinite article of John 1.1 in Coptic; it might mean was a god, was divine, was an instance of 'god', was one god (not two, three, etc.). The range of meanings of the Coptic indef. article does not map nicely onto English usage, nor Greek. Once you learn Coptic you will know all of this.”

That was supposed to refute “was a god”? didn't do too well. Let's see what more they have to offer

J. Warren Wells
“To answer your questions: On my website I state “Coptic was the first language the New Testament was translated into that has the indefinite article; and the only language with the indefinite article that was produced during the Koine Greek period. “The is of interest because, in Coptic versions, John 1:1b is commonly translated “the word was with God and the word was a God” using the Coptic indefinite article; with some variation in word order. “In the proto-Bohairic version (Papyrus Bodmer III, the text of which was partially reconstructed by Rodolphe Kasser) the first occurrence of “God” in John 1:1 is in the Nomina Sacra form, whereas the second occurrence is spelled out. In John 1:18 the word “God” (which no one has seen) is in the Nomina Sacra form, while the word “God” (only-begotten) is spelled out.” So literally, the Sahidic and Bohairic texts say “a god” in the extant mss. In a similar way translations of the Greek “pneuma ho theos” (spirit the god”) at John 4:24 usually say either “God is spirit” or “God is a spirit” where both give the same sense of “what” God is, not who he is. Here the Sahidic says literally “a spirit is the God” (P.Palau Rib 183) as does the Proto-Bohairic (Bodmer III). To me, the sense of the passage in John 1 is likewise a description of what the Logos was in relation to God. A rather clumsy reading might be: The Logos was in the beginning. The Logos was with God. The Logos was like God (or godlike, or divine) with the emphasis on his nature; not his person.

So this still does not give the Trinitarian his full meaning for “and the Word was God”. Now let's compare this to Philo of Alexandria again.

What then ought we to say? There is one true God only: but they who are called Gods, by an abuse of language, are numerous; on which account the holy scripture on the present occasion indicates that it is the true God that is meant by the use of the article, the expression being, “I am the God (ho Theos);” but when the word is used incorrectly, it is put without the article, the exression being, “He who was seen by thee in the place,” not of the God (tou Theou), but simply “of God” (Theou); (1.230) and what he here calls God is his most ancient word, not having any superstitious regard to the position of the names, but only proposing one end to himself, namely, to give a true account of the matter; for in other passages the sacred historian, when he considered whether there really was any name belonging to the living God, showed that he knew that there was none properly belonging to him; but that whatever appellation any one may give him, will be an abuse of terms; for the living God is not of a nature to be described, but only to be.

So comparing the Coptic translation with Philo (who preceded the writing of the New Testament), we see that the 1st and 2nd century Christians would not have see “the Word was God” in John 1:1.

August 14, 2007 at 7:52 pm#64048

Participant

Kejonn;

Why the fuss over John 1:1. There's no mention of Christ or his most proper title- Son of God. The next verse is key. The “same” was in the beginning with God. If John were referring to Christ he would have said “He was in the beginning with God.” John was stating that the Father God is entirely self-existent and all life proceeds from him. Whose seed is in itself. Indeed, the seed was with the Apple and part of the Apple yet somewhat distinct in itself. The truth is so rich.

August 14, 2007 at 8:33 pm#64052

Participant

Steve,

Why? Because those who were disciples of John, who was supposed to have written The Gospel of John, thoroughly believed that the Word was Yahshua. Here are some quotes from Ignatius:

He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same for ever; for “of His kingdom there shall be no end,” says Daniel the prophet.
And God the Word was truly born of the Virgin, having clothed Himself with a body of like passions with our own.
Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man;

About Ignatius:

Saint Ignatius of Antioch (also known as Theophorus) (ca. 35-107)[1] was the third Bishop or Patriarch of Antioch and a student of Apostle John. En route to his martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius wrote a series of letters which have been preserved as an example of the theology of the earliest Christians. Important topics addressed in these letters include ecclesiology, the sacraments, and the role of bishops.

August 14, 2007 at 8:35 pm#64054

Participant

Kejonn;

Thank you Sir.

Mr. Steve

August 14, 2007 at 11:27 pm#64059

Participant

Again who is this that has darkened our counsel by words with out Knowledge; Gird up men sayeth God Where are the foundations of the beginning Laid; A precious Stone; A stone that the builders refused; whom shall believe the report of whom the Arm of the God has been extended;

Isa 40:20 He that [is] so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree [that] will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, [that] shall not be moved.
21 ¶ Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Job 38:1 ¶ Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, :2 Who [is] this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? 3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 ¶ Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; :7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

selah

August 14, 2007 at 11:49 pm#64061

Participant

Charity;

Could you share your reasoning? I'm not sure what your point is or who you are responding to, if anyone.

Mr. Steven

August 15, 2007 at 1:21 am#64065

Participant

Hi Mr. steve

Sorry to confuse you;

I speck of the Gospel of John and the Hand of the writer
Even his manner of beginning this Gospel John 1;1
The great vexation begins; to work out what John means; God has put a desire in us to push to learn of Him; these words are just grief with out full report;
All thou I write these things; I need you to Know that I
Will not fail to submit to you and others; I do love the truth; and always If I can understand I will quickly humble myself before the excelent spirit; even the Kings of babylon will fall at the truth
By honors and dishonor, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and yet with true words; but without truth and freedom;
The prisoners are refused freedom
The garments the Man has put on are to righteous for him; (Gospal of John)
He has taken and made our Christ to answer
and made him to speck things before man that…
Before Time were prophside that; that when he was to come before the unrightous; his tounge cleaved to the roof of His mouth and he brought being in silence
Amongst many things he has taken advantage in that Time of silence; to remove the Kingdom hence from us; and accuse us responsible for not fighting
That he be not delivered to the jews; O this is so wrong; Mr steve
Jhn 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
even peter holding the keys to the kingdom could not raily an army to defence; at such a cime; prceeds further to reach us now
He layeth the axe to his brothers roots….
He casteth doubt three times on one….from which Christ has laid the keys to the kingdom; that it maybe done on this earth; called even question upon his head from above; to hold firm the earth inheritance
He cast down the work of our lord, and his crown; that he exalts himself above the poor and needy

And if not…; I pray you would forgive me if I am wrong;
but it is not an easy thing; to join the great feast of God; and rise up against the Kings that have destroyed and made the earth desolate; even by their writings

Isa 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, [and] consider thee, [saying, Is] this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; :17 [That] made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; [that] opened not the house of his prisoners?
:18 All the kings of the nations, [even] all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.
Rev 19:17 ¶ And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; :18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all [men, both] free and bond, both small and great. 19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
It is not

charity

August 23, 2007 at 5:18 am#64668

michaels

Participant

Quote (charity @ Aug. 15 2007,21:21)

Hi Mr. steve

Sorry to confuse you;

charity

you dont like john 1:1 ,this me believe to be the best,for all the traditions of men have been droped, not to prove him by men and traditions,geneology,well he is the son of ,bla bla bla to prove he came thru a certain line,hmmm, jesus is the son of GOD ,that simple, for he is one with GOD,has allways been,and is GOD, yet there is only one GOD,and one father, john seems to get rite to the truth,can we prove GOD thru trditions of men,hmmm well some say we are sons of abraham,yet did this prove anything to jesus, did he not say if they were abrams sons they would do as abram did,jesus did not as any man,thus he is not a son of man, but the son of GOD.for he did the works of GOD,so how con we say he is tied to any line of men?

August 23, 2007 at 6:10 am#64679

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/j01.html

Participant

Michaels>The Son of Man Has regenerations to follow him; yet then he is the Son of God without as you say; but if you stay with John he wishes to ride over the redeemed; that no man will rise; keeping him a one off creation of God
There is no sure mercy and the dead have perished then; no commission for the lost; that hoped in the resurrection of Life after him to also prolong their days; as he did
Who did he know that he should transport to become his first born; that was declared as the Son of God; when the heavens open and figure descended down from above?
Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Mat 19:28
And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Is it hard thing to consider; all the souls created Had to return to the dust; by the curse from the garden; By the mercy of God souls preserved and have the promise from God that they will rise for judgement Days; to put on salvation and prolong their days. Take part in the first resurrection the second is the second death lake of fire

And for unbelieving with no faith their shall be no miracles; only the miracle of the Men of Nineveh and the queen of Sheba rising to prove the seed is foreknown to be conformed also to the Image with this generation; to prolong their days; called to judge the twelve tribes of Israel

August 26, 2007 at 11:44 am#64822

Cult Buster

Participant

kejonn

Quote

But the Coptic text provides clear evidence — from very ancient times — that the New World Translation is correct in rendering John 1:1c as “the Word was a god.”

What Greek Scholars Think of the New World Translation

This collection of quotes, found on many Christian Bulletin Boards, primarily addresses the Jehovah Witnesses mistranslation of John 1:1

Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation):

“A shocking mistranslation.” “Obsolete and incorrect.” “It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'”
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature):

“A frightful mistranslation.” “Erroneous” and “pernicious” “reprehensible” “If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists.”
Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland:

“This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'”
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon:

“The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1.”
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California:

“I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar.”
Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana:

“I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses…I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language.”
Dr. Walter R. Martin (who did not teach Greek but has studied the language):

“The translation…'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention.”
Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland:

“The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '…the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impossible…It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”
Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England:

“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.” [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]
Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago:

“A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb…this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' – John 20:28”
Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College:

“The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word “THEOS” is places at the beginning for emphasis.”
Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach:

“No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct….I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian.”
Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society:

“With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek.” [Responsible for the Good News Bible – The committee worked under him.]
Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text – not the English part – is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation):

“The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article…No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word…in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead.”
Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text – not the English part – is used in the Emphatic Diaglott):

“So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favour of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth.”

August 26, 2007 at 11:58 am#64823

Cult Buster

Participant

“In beginning was the word…”
(en arche en ho logos)

“and the word was with the God…”
(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)

“and God was the word.”
(kai theos en ho logos)

— Properly translated as “and the Word was God.”

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, This obviously identifies Jesus as The Word (Jehovah God)

The Gospel of John emphasizes the divinity of Christ from beginning to end. It starts with John 1:1 and climaxes in Thomas’ confession of faith when he says “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28).

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

August 26, 2007 at 2:25 pm#64834

kenrch

Participant

Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 26 2007,23:58)

“In beginning was the word…”
(en arche en ho logos)

“and the word was with the God…”
(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)

“and God was the word.”
(kai theos en ho logos)

— Properly translated as “and the Word was God.”

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, This obviously identifies Jesus as The Word (Jehovah God)

The Gospel of John emphasizes the divinity of Christ from beginning to end. It starts with John 1:1 and climaxes in Thomas’ confession of faith when he says “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28).

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

CB, Who was the Son of MAN?

August 27, 2007 at 7:49 pm#64912

Participant

CB;

The word is the seed of God. The eternal procreation within God himself who by himself has begotten us in him in Christ Jesus. Christ was not the Word in heaven, but the Son of God begotten by the Word, as we all are begotten by God by his Word. Christ came down from heaven not to do his own will but the will of him that sent him. The scriptures identify Christ as a person in heaven with God, not merely the Word, because he had a will and it was not his will but the Father's which sent him. A Word or seed has no Will. Except a cernel of wheat fall to the ground and die it abides alone.

Mr. Steve

Steven

August 27, 2007 at 9:17 pm#64917