D.K.:
Fact is until Charles Taze Russell 1900 years after Jesus not one bible had the letter "A" in John 1!
.................................................................
“It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Christian theologians of the second and third centuries, even theologians of the rank of Origen...came to see the Logos [the Word, Christ] as
a god of second rank.” -
The Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan Publ., 1987, Vol. 9, p. 15.
“Moreover, It may be questioned whether
any Ante-nicene father distinctly affirms either the numerical Unity or the Coequality of the Three Persons; except
perhaps the heterodox Tertullian, and that chiefly in a work written after he had become a Montanist” - pp 17-18, Cardinal Newman,
The Development of Christian Doctrine.
John J. McKenzie, S. J., writes in his
Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated `the word was with the God (equals the Father), and the word was
a divine being.'" - p. 317, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1965, published with Catholic Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.
(1)
The New Testament in an Improved Version (1808) says: "the Word was with God, and the Word was
a god."
(2)
The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson (1865) says in the interlinear section: "
a god was the Word."
(3)
The Four Gospels - A New Translation by Prof. Charles C. Torrey says: "the Word was with God, and the Word was
god."
(4)
Das Evangelium nach Johannes by Siegfried Shultz says: "and
a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word."
(5)
Das Evangelium nach Johannes by Johannes Schneider says: "and
godlike sort was the Logos [Word]."
(6)
Das Evangelium nach Johannes by Jurgen Becker says: "and
a god was the Logos."
Notice how these 6 different translations use the word "
god" (or `godlike'), clearly differentiating between it and the only true God!
Even the very trinitarian Greek expert,
W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper
interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: "
a god was the Word". - p. 490,
An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.
Equally trinitarian Professor
C. H. Dodd, director of the
New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper
literal translation:
"A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, `The Word was
a god.' As a word-for-word translation
it cannot be faulted." -
Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.
The reason Prof. Dodd still rejects "a god" as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upsets his trinitarian interpretations of John's Gospel! - See WT, p. 28, Oct. 15, 1993.
Rev. J. W. Wenham wrote in his
The Elements of New Testament Greek: “Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed:
θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, which would mean either,
‘The Word is a god’, or, 'The Word is the god’.” - p. 35, Cambridge University Press, 1965.
(Of course if you carefully examine this study, you will find that the grammar really shows that ‘The Word is [or “was” in John 1:1c]
a god’ is what John intended.)
Trinitarian NT scholar
Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was
a god,’ but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that “John’s monotheism” will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60,
Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.
However, his acknowledgment of the use of “god” for men at John 10:34-36 and the use of “god/gods” for angels, judges, and other men in the Hebrew OT Scriptures contradicts his Trinitarian interpretation above. - p. 202.
Trinitarian
Dr. Robert Young admits that a more
literal translation of John 1:1c is "and
a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" - p. 54, (`New Covenant' section),
Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.
Respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator,
Dr. William Barclay wrote: "You could translate [John 1:1c],
so far as the Greek goes: `the Word was
a God'; but it
seems obvious that this is so much
against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong." - p. 205,
Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.
Professor Jason David BeDuhn tells us, “Grammatically, John 1:1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression. A lexical (‘interlinear’) translation of the controversial clause would read: ‘
And a god was the Word.’ A minimal literal (‘formal equivalence’) translation would rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: ‘
And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence, from Greek grammar, from literary context, and from cultural environment, supports this translation….” - p. 132,
Truth in Translation, University Press of America, 2003.
And I have personally, meticulously, examined the grammar of John’s writings and listed ALL the places where he (and the other Gospel writers) have used clauses parallel to John 1:1c.
All those clauses (18 in John’s writings) are translated in trinitarian Bibles as indefinite and use the indefinite article (‘a’ or ‘an’).
Examining the Trinity
You see, in ancient times many of God's servants had no qualms about using the word "god" or "gods" for godly men, kings, judges, and even angels.
Yes, as trinitarian scholar Dr. Robert Young tells us in the preface to
Young's Analytical Concordance in the section entitled "Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation":
"65. God—is used of
any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, Magistrates,
judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g.
Ex. 7:1; ...
John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28 ...." - Eerdmans Publ., 1978.
Notice how John 1:1 has been listed as an example of "God" (or "god") being applied to someone other than the true God (as in the case of "judges, angels, prophets, etc."). Dr. Young also specifically tells us that John 1:1 is literally "and
a God (i.e.
a Divine Being) was the Word." p. 54,
Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary. Certainly a trinitarian scholar such as Dr. Young would interpret John 1:1c to mean "the Word was the true God" if he could honestly do so! Obviously he felt there was something wrong with that interpretation.
New Testament Greek expert Joseph H. Thayer also defined
theos:
"[
Theos] is used of whatever can in
any respect be
likened to God or resembles him in
any way: Hebraistically, i.q. God's
representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges." - p. 288, Thayer's
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.
Angels are literally called "gods" (Hebrew -
elohim) at Ps. 8:5, 6. We know
angels are called "gods" here because this passage is quoted at Heb. 2:6, 7, and there the word "
angels" is used in New Testament Greek. In fact, the trinitarian
NKJV actually translates the
elohim of Ps. 8:5, 6 as `angels' ("For you have made him a little lower than the
angels.")
The very trinitarian
New American Bible (1970), St. Joseph ed., states in a footnote for Ps. 8:6:
"The angels: in Hebrew,
elohim, which is the ordinary word for `God' or `the
gods;' hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels]." So how does noted trinitarian Dr. James Moffatt translate (at Ps. 8:6) this word that means "God" or "gods" and which is here applied to
angels?
The equally trinitarian
New Bible Dictionary tells us:
"Sons (children) of God" - "a. Individuals of the class `
god'.... `Son of God' in Heb. means `
god' or `
godlike' rather than `son of (the) God (Yahweh)'. In Job 1:6; 2:1;
38:7; Ps. 29:1; 89:6, the `sons of God' [angels] form Yahweh's heavenly train or subordinates." - p. 1133,
New Bible Dictionary, (second ed.), 1982. Also note p. 1134. And see "Sons of God" in
Today's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 591 and
An Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 726, (1945 ed.).
The NIV Study Bible [1985 ed.] states:
"In the language of the OT ... rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could be given the honorific title `
god' ... or be called `son of God'." - footnote for Ps. 82:1. And, in a footnote for Ps. 45:6, this same highly-respected
trinitarian publication says: "In this psalm, which praises the [Israelite] king..., it is not unthinkable that he was called
`god' as a title of honor (
cf. Isa. 9:6)."
So, grammatically it is certain that John intended “a god” at John 1:1c. It is understandable what was meant by that word (not the only true God). And, your ridiculous claim that JWs were the first to use “a god” here is clearly false. We can see in the list above that it was used in 1808 and 1865, for example.
I know you are unable to give a clear exposition of my study (see link).
