John 1:1 - The JW's NWT vs TNIV/KJV, the age old question

[Roguish]

https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...rest-whats-the-stumper.235584/bible/john/1:1/
Well, there is no definitive article in the sentence "Theos en o logos" so its a justifiable objection in the part of the JW's. Yet, without any article how did they translate it as "a God"? How did the Christians translate it as "the word was God" with out a definitive article and just saying theos is only an attribution as Edgar Goodspeed says? Whats the justification?

To state that A is with B and also that A is B, makes no sense in any way. If A is with B, then clearly A cannot be B in the sense of complete identity. So what then does "A was (a) B" mean? Indeed it must be attributive: god-like, or divine. If I recall correctly there is also no capitalization in the Greek originals (or written in all capitals). Therefore, the best possible translation (in English) is:

In the beginning was the Word
And the Word was with God
And the Word was divine.

But maybe we should worry more about whether "the Word" is the best term to use...

 

[Terry Sampson]

maybe we should worry more about whether "the Word" is the best term to use...

LOL! Okay, you pick a term that you like and everybody else will critique your choice.
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=lo/gos

 

[nPeace]

Whats the justification?

"Colwell's rule"
Colwell discovered that "Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article ... a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun ..."

Article Deeje linked...
His [Colwell's] rule appears to be true in some places in the Greek Bible. However, Colwell himself admitted that there are exceptions to the rule, that it is not absolute. (See, for instance, an interlinear rendering of Luke 20:33; 1 Corinthians 9:1, 2.) In fact, there appear to be so many exceptions that thirty years after his rule was formed, one Greek grammar book says that the rule may only reflect a “general tendency.” Well, then, what about John 1:1? Would the rule apply there?

Colwell himself answers: “The predicate [“GOD”] . . . is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it.” Notice, not any inviolable “rule,” but context is the crucial factor.

What is the justification? Context. See John 1:14; 14:28, and the video from the official website www.jw.org.

 

[Clear]

re colwells "rule".

I agree with @Deeje regarding Colwells' "rule" and Colwells own admissions regarding the arbitrariness of this "rule".

Can anyone give me even 10 examples where Colwell's rule actually holds true as a grammatical "rule"?

If the exceptions to a grammatical "rule" happen more often than the rule, then it is not a "rule" at all.
Unless someone comes up with good data to support this "rule", I will continue to assume it was an attempt by Colwell to justify a personal religious bias rather than an authentic grammatical "rule".

Even Colwell admits this is not an authentic grammatical rule when he admits, even teaches, that it is the historical context which determines definiteness in this and other cases (absent the article in Koine) Colwells' grammatical "rule" is not a "rule" at all.

Clear
φυφυτωω

 

[Terry Sampson]

But, why does John say "a god"?

He doesn't; JWs do, but not consistently. "John" wrote:

 

[savagewind]

He doesn't; JWs do, but not consistently. "John" wrote:

View attachment 41973

OK. Me not paying special attention here. I'll try it again. Why does John write about Jesus "god"?

 

[Clear]

He doesn't; JWs do, but not consistently. "John" wrote:

View attachment 41973

Hi @Terry Sampson

In post #65 above, You cut and pasted John 1:1 from C. Sinaiticus. What is the point you wanted to make out of it since it shows your claim is incorrect?

The text you pasted, clearly leaves out the article and grammatically reads "the word is A god".

You say John DOESN'T read "A" god, but then offer us an example where the text DOES read "A" god.

Why offer a claim but then give us visual evidence (in your attachment) that shows your claim is incorrect? This doesn't make sense.

Clear
σεειφιω

 

[Terry Sampson]

Hi @Terry Sampson

In post #65 above, You cut and pasted John 1:1 from C. Sinaiticus. What is the point you wanted to make out of it since it shows your claim is incorrect?

The text you pasted, clearly leaves out the article and grammatically reads "the word is A god".

You say John DOESN'T read "A" god, but then offer us an example where the text DOES read "A" god.

Why offer a claim but then give us visual evidence (in your attachment) that shows your claim is incorrect? This doesn't make sense.

Clear
σεειφιω

Clearly???
What doesn't make sense is your assumption that my Post #65, which was in response to a specific reader's post [i.e. savagewind's Post #60], was an offer to readers of a claim followed by visual evidence that shows my claim is incorrect.

Let's take a little trip down "Memory Lane" together, and see if that helps to resolve your confusion.

• savagewind posted #60:

  • But, why does John say "a god"?

• Terry Sampson [that's me] posted #65:

  • He doesn't; JWs do, but not consistently. "John" wrote:
    

    

  
  
• My claim to savagewind was that "John" doesn't say "a god", JWs do. To show what "John" actually said, I included a screenshot of the Greek language version of John 1:1.
  
• Now, since you're such a clever fellow, perhaps you can show me where, in the screenshot that I offered savagewind, I can find the English words: "a god", eh? Feel free to ask your JW-buddies to help you find those English language words if you have a problem finding them. I'm pretty sure that they have a drawer full of "a god"s for any occasion.
  
• Regarding my words "but not consistently", I offer this example of JW selective (a.k.a. biased) inconsistency:
  • 
    
    
  • John 1:18 [Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures]
    • θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε; μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
    • God no one has seen at any time; only-begotten god the (one) being into the bosom of the Father that (one) explained.
• "God no one has seen at any time" and "only-begotten god the (one)"? Looks like an inconsistency to me. Whence the inconsistency? Ahhh, yes: Context and human choice. No room for bias there, I bet. Nahhh, ... couldn't be, everybody knows they have "the Truth". Just ask them.

 

[Clear]

1) THE GREEK TEXT OF JOHN 1:1c, - "And the word was a God"
Savagewind says “But, why does John say "a god"?” (post #60)
Terry Sampson says “He doesn't” (post #65).

Then Terry Sampsons post #65 demonstrated the greek text shows John 1:1 DOES say “a God”. (post #65)

My point Terry Sampson is that you make a claim and then you prove your claim is incorrect in the same post.


2) DOUBLING DOWN ON AN ERROR IS NOT HELPFUL
To make matters worse, In post #68 you repeat this inaccurate claim “My claim to savagewind was that "John" doesn't say "a god"…(Terry Sampson in post #68)
Yes, you did claim this again, despite having just proved you were wrong in post #65 with your visual attachment that DOES say "And the Word was a God."


3) THE SCREENSHOT PROVES THE CLAIM IN THE SAME POST IS INCORRECT.
Terry Sampson explains : “To show what "John" actually said, I included a screenshot of the Greek language version of John 1:1.” (post #68)

Yes, you gave a wonderful example of what the text says. It is a beautiful and great example of what the text says. It is a spectacular example of the text.
However, your screenshot of C. Sinaiticus PROVES the text, grammatically, reads “A God” (it lacks the article).

You are giving readers the proof that demonstrates your claim regarding what the Greek of John 1:1 says, is incorrect. You might want to learn greek before trying to teach greek.


Clear
σιδρτωω

 

[Terry Sampson]

My point Terry Sampson is that you make a claim and then you prove your claim is incorrect in the same post.

Now you're being silly.

Then Terry Sampsons post #65 demonstrated the greek text shows John 1:1 DOES say “a God”. (post #65)

The hell it does. The Greek text doesn't have any English words in it. The Greek text "shows"

• 
• That's Greek.
• 
• That's English. It says "a god" because I took that screenshot from jw.org.
• A trinitarian site would have written "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2) DOUBLING DOWN ON AN ERROR IS NOT HELPFUL

Neither is obtuseness, but you don't seem to be letting that stop you.

To make matters worse, In post #68 you repeat this inaccurate claim

The hell I did. You're imagining things.
Let's see how long your delusional state persists. Keep your eye on A Simple Question

You might want to learn greek before trying to teach greek.

LOL! You need to bone up on your English.

 

[Clear]

@Terry Sampson

John does, grammatically, write "a God", he simply wrote it in greek.

Are you trying to claim that your actual point in post #65 was that John did not write the english words "a God" because he was writing in greek?

Clear

 

[Terry Sampson]

@Terry Sampson

Are you claiming that your point in post #65 was that John wrote in greek and did not write in english the words "a God"?

Clear

Took a while for the clicking gears to get you there. Time for a mental health exam.

 

[Clear]

Terry Sampson,

Of course John was not writing in english. This feels like you are simply trolling Terry. Not good.

And of course John wrote "and the word was a God".
He simply wrote it in greek (as your example demonstrated).



Clear
σεφιφεω

 

[Terry Sampson]

If your point was that John was not writing in english then this feels like trolling Terry. Not good.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I told you up front that I was responding to a specific question from savagewind and you ignored me. THAT's "not good".

Of course the greek text of "the word was a God" was written in greek.

"Of course"? Check yourself in the mirror; your hubris is showing.
You like solving puzzles? Why do JWs captalize "God" in Genesis 3:5 when θεοὶ isn't preceded by a definite article in the Septuaginta?

• Genesis 3.
  • NWT, English
    • 4. At this the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die. e 5. For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad.”
  • Septuagint, Greek
    • 4 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ὄφις τῇ γυναικί Οὐ θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε· 5 ᾔδει γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ὅτι ἐν ᾗ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ φάγητε ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ, διανοιχθήσονται ὑμῶν οἱ ὀφθαλμοί, καὶ ἔσεσθε ὡς θεοὶ γινώσκοντες καλὸν καὶ πονηρόν.
  • www.chabad.org, English and Hebrew
    • 4 And the serpent said to the woman, "You will surely not die. 5 For God knows that on the day that you eat thereof, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like angels, knowing good and evil."
    • דוַיֹּ֥אמֶר הַנָּחָ֖שׁ אֶל־הָֽאִשָּׁ֑ה לֹא־מ֖וֹת תְּמֻתֽוּן:
    • הכִּ֚י יֹדֵ֣עַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים כִּ֗י בְּיוֹם֙ אֲכָלְכֶ֣ם מִמֶּ֔נּוּ וְנִפְקְח֖וּ עֵֽינֵיכֶ֑ם וִֽהְיִיתֶם֙ כֵּֽאלֹהִ֔ים יֹֽדְעֵ֖י ט֥וֹב וָרָֽע:

 

[Clear]

Terry Sampson

There is NO good purpose in simply trolling.

Even intimating an assumption that Savagewind was unaware John was not writing in english is silly and condescending.
If you were trying to make a joke in post #65, this was not made clear. If you actually did not know that John did write "the Logos was a God" and are claiming you meant he wasn't writing in english as a cover up for this mistake, then the method of trying to cover up wasn't cordial or civil.

in any case, I hope your own life is good.

Clear

 

[Terry Sampson]

I hope your own life is good.

Will be as soon as I put you on my "Ignore" list.

 

[Clear]

@Terry Sampson

I am sorry to be on your ignore list. I will not be putting you on any ignore list. I still believe you may have some good ideas that I want to hear. It's simply that your last interaction was not good, nor civil. As I said, trolling is never helpful nor good.

If you are still angry or embarrassed over our last debate, I apologize if that debate was uncomfortable for you but I am not your enemy. You simply needed more and better data to support your theories.

I remain hopeful your journey in life is good.

Clear
Sieiak

 

[Terry Sampson]

Please brother, read his translation.

I read his translation: Goodspeed translated "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" as "and the Word was divine". It so happens that I'm not excited by that translation: IMO, it complicates an already complicated problem by using a noun as an adjective when merely using the noun without a definite article as a noun is already being debated.

Just knowing how Goodspeed translated "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" did not, IMO, shed light on your question. It wasn't until I read James White's essay "Goodspeed and the Deity of Christ" at Goodspeed and The Deity of Christ – Alpha and Omega Ministries that I began to see Goodspeed's translation in a different light.

You have made it clear that you are not interested in the debate over the divinity of Jesus; that you merely want to know how to translate four Greek words correctly or best.

This is not about the theological debate "Is Jesus God", this is the difference in rendering a Koine Greek script.

Asking whether Goodspeed translates the four Greek words correctly or best makes it even more difficult to address a matter which was debated long before Goodspeed came along.

Literally, i.e. strictly speaking, "θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" translates to "god was the word".
I don't think anyone can get more literal than that. The least debated words, of course, are "was" and "the". Having translated those two words, "all hell breaks loose."

1. Consider Roguish's proposal in his Post #61: "But maybe we should worry more about whether "the Word" is the best term to use..." I don't think you responded to his comment. My response was: "LOL! Okay, you pick a term that you like and everybody else will critique your choice."
2. Another issue is "word order". The order of the Greek words is set in stone, so to speak.
   • However, the order of the English words when translating the Greek can become an issue.
     • The least common English-language order is: "and god was the word." But, linguistically (i.e. technically) speaking, that order is not absolutely forbidden, as far as I know. I'd sure like to know why it is, if someone else thinks it is on strictly linguistic grounds without getting into a debate over Jesus' divinity. Here is where your desire to avoid debate over the divinity of Jesus gets stepped on. To understand why, I point out that saying "and god was the word" would be tantamount to saying "and God was the Son", given the historical practice of associating "the word" with "Jesus" and "the Son of God".
       • Would saying "God was the Son" be absolutely forbidden? Only if you consider that statement to be heretical. If you don't, then no, it would not be forbidden.
     • That said, the most common English-language order is: "and the word was god".
       • Because, contrary to your desire to avoid debate over the divinity of Jesus, "the word" has historically been understood to be a reference to Jesus and because Jesus has historically been understood, by and among most Christians, to be worthy of special treatment, "the word" is capitalized in this way: "the Word" and, to avoid the heresy of Sabellianism, "the Word" is moved to the front of the English sentence, giving us: "and the Word was god".
     • Having capitalized "Word" and having transposed the order of "the Word" and "god", we have jumped over two more hurdles. One more hurdle remains: how to translate "θεὸς". Here is where swords are drawn. "θεὸς" doesn't have a definite article. Here is where your desire to avoid debate over the divinity of Jesus and to focus on the correct or best translation of the clause is trampled into the dust by barbarian Christians.
     • Should "θεὸς" be translated as: "god", "God", "a God", or "a god"?
       • Is that a linguistic question or a theological question or both?
       • IMO, it's both; and notice: I haven't even gotten into Goodspeed's translation of "θεὸς" as "divine".

 

[firedragon]

I read his translation: Goodspeed translated "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" as "and the Word was divine". It so happens that I'm not excited by that translation: IMO, it complicates an already complicated problem by using a noun as an adjective when merely using the noun without a definite article as a noun is already being debated.

Just knowing how Goodspeed translated "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" did not, IMO, shed light on your question. It wasn't until I read James White's essay "Goodspeed and the Deity of Christ" at Goodspeed and The Deity of Christ – Alpha and Omega Ministries that I began to see Goodspeed's translation in a different light.

You have made it clear that you are not interested in the debate over the divinity of Jesus; that you merely want to know how to translate four Greek words correctly or best.

Asking whether Goodspeed translates the four Greek words correctly or best makes it even more difficult to address a matter which was debated long before Goodspeed came along.

Literally, i.e. strictly speaking, "θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" translates to "god was the word".
I don't think anyone can get more literal than that. The least debated words, of course, are "was" and "the". Having translated those two words, "all hell breaks loose."

1. Consider Roguish's proposal in his Post #61: "But maybe we should worry more about whether "the Word" is the best term to use..." I don't think you responded to his comment. My response was: "LOL! Okay, you pick a term that you like and everybody else will critique your choice."
2. Another issue is "word order". The order of the Greek words is set in stone, so to speak.
   • However, the order of the English words when translating the Greek can become an issue.
     • The least common English-language order is: "and god was the word." But, linguistically (i.e. technically) speaking, that order is not absolutely forbidden, as far as I know. I'd sure like to know why it is, if someone else thinks it is on strictly linguistic grounds without getting into a debate over Jesus' divinity. Here is where your desire to avoid debate over the divinity of Jesus gets stepped on. To understand why, I point out that saying "and god was the word" would be tantamount to saying "and God was the Son", given the historical practice of associating "the word" with "Jesus" and "the Son of God".
       • Would saying "God was the Son" be absolutely forbidden? Only if you consider that statement to be heretical. If you don't, then no, it would not be forbidden.
     • That said, the most common English-language order is: "and the word was god".
       • Because, contrary to your desire to avoid debate over the divinity of Jesus, "the word" has historically been understood to be a reference to Jesus and because Jesus has historically been understood, by and among most Christians, to be worthy of special treatment, "the word" is capitalized in this way: "the Word" and, to avoid the heresy of Sabellianism, "the Word" is moved to the front of the English sentence, giving us: "and the Word was god".
     • Having capitalized "Word" and having transposed the order of "the Word" and "god", we have jumped over two more hurdles. One more hurdle remains: how to translate "θεὸς". Here is where swords are drawn. "θεὸς" doesn't have a definite article. Here is where your desire to avoid debate over the divinity of Jesus and to focus on the correct or best translation of the clause is trampled into the dust by barbarian Christians.
     • Should "θεὸς" be translated as: "god", "God", "a God", or "a god"?
       • Is that a linguistic question or a theological question or both?
       • IMO, it's both; and notice: I haven't even gotten into Goodspeed's translation of "θεὸς" as "divine".

Great. Cheers.

 

[cataway]

i am wondering, are you's seeing the " Word " as a name ?? or should it be seen as a definition of a promise of action by the one that always accomplishes what the true God wanted to have happen ?