John 1:1 - Is Jesus God or "a god"?

Greek Scholar, the late Dr. Robert countess explains the dishonesty of the NWT committee in translating John 1:1 "a god". Former Jw's Bill Cetnar explains how the society has even turned to the occult for support of their mistranslation.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Jehovah's
• Witnesses
• cult

[manilamerc]

do you have all the parts to this episode?

[October31st1517]

@manilamerc Yes, I do.

[steveparadise1]

@ October31st1517 He mentions Dr. William Barclay who opposed the NWT and in particular their translation of John 1:1. That is true, he hammered it. 20 years later he said that "the Word was a god is a possible translation for John 1:1 Why did he not translate this verse as "the Word was God" in his NT?. He saw what many other trinitarian translators and scholars have seen. If you say "the Word was God" then what you are saying is the Word was ALL of God?

Excluding the Father and holy spirit

[October31st1517]

@steveparadise1 No, It shows that they have the same divine nature. If you have a "THE GOD" or an "a god". Then by nature there is more than 1 God.

[steveparadise1]

And these guys are supposed to be smart. A bit biased.

[October31st1517]

@steveparadise1 How so?

[Calvinist007]

Dr. A.T. Robertson, the greatest Koine Greek scholar of modern times, says, "So in John 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God...."--"Short Grammar", p. 279 Dr. Donald Guthrie, Greek scholar, states, "The absence of the article with Theos has misled some into thinking that the correct understanding of the statement would be that 'the Word was a god' (or divine), but this is GRAMMATICALLY INDEFENSIBLE [emph. mine] since Theos is a predicate."--"N.T. Theology", p. 327

[Calvinist007]

Dr. A.T. Robertson, the greatest Koine Greek scholar of modern times, says in "Word Pictures of the New Testament" regarding Jn. 1:1: "And the Word was God (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ὁ λόγος and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ὁ λόγος) and the predicate without it (θεὸς)...."

[manilamerc]

@October31st1517 send it to me

[chriscox1121]

@steveparadise1 maybe, but it would be a far cry to say JW are not bias as well. It's the most bias translation that's been produced. I would encourage you to read "crisis of conscience' by Raymond Franz. It's a free PDF download and he talks in depth about how the text was abused in the NWT. He was a JW almost his whole life

[chriscox1121]

@steveparadise1 This would only be true if λογος was preceded by the article. Then you would have an equation in the text and thus giving weight to an translation that would promote a oneses view not a Unitarian view. The passage simply states "και θεος ην ο λογοs", which literally translated is " and God was the Word". "the Word" is the subject of the sentence, which is the reason it's translated first in English followed by the imperfect form of "ειμι", "ην". emphasis over order.

[raitasorin]

Yes they were talking a lot of craps up there

[steveparadise1]

@october31st1517 There is only one God according to Jesus at John 17:3 and that God is the Father. This is supported by Paul at 2 Cor 8:6 "to us there is one God, the Father". Paul also calls Jesus the "exact copy of his (Gods) very being" and the "Image of the invisible God" In that case, in the true sense of what the word God means, a powerful one, he must therefore be of divine nature. The video calls JWs "dishonest" in their version of John 1:1 many trinitarian scholars do not agree