tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1811264108457143000.post8282113312513962323..comments2023-07-01T00:22:54.261+09:30Comments on Berith Road: The New World Translation of John 1:1 and Colwell's RuleSteven Coxheadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17798792943613130505noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1811264108457143000.post-49330610826882494702013-01-23T03:56:20.149+09:302013-01-23T03:56:20.149+09:30JohnOneOne -- I'm sorry, but I have to ask if ...JohnOneOne -- I'm sorry, but I have to ask if you know Greek? I even must wonder if you have seen the Greek transcript of the passage in question (or in fact of any you call out on your list).<br /><br />Let's confine ourselves to the specific passage this blog addresses. John 1:1.<br /><br />Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.<br /><br />or transliterated (without diacritics):<br /><br />EN ARCHE en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.<br /><br />EN - In<br />ARCHE -- beginning<br />en - was<br />ho - the<br />logos - word<br />kai - and<br />ho - the<br />logos - word<br />en - was<br />pros - with<br />ton - (accusative case article not translated to English)<br />theon - God<br />kai - and<br />theos - God<br />en - was<br />ho - the<br />logos - word<br /><br />Most translators rearrange the word order, as is proper for translating Greek to English, so it will easier to read. The goal, of course, should be to preserve the meaning. As we can see by going back to the Greek, the whole idea of discussing an "a" vs. "the" article is not at all applicable!<br /><br />The Greek articles are "ho" for the noun logos, and "ton" for the accusative case (and the first occurance) of theos. Neither of these have any bearing on the translation of theos (God)!!!<br /><br />Looking at the Greek, the meaning is crystal clear. Regardless of your belief about the content of the passage, the meaning itself holds no room for debate. None.<br /><br /><br />Personally, I don't understand why Jehovah's Witness don't simply have a prophet say the original Greek contained an error. That God has now revealed the lost passage...<br /><br />Στην αρχή ήταν η λέξη και η λέξη ήταν με τον θεό και η λέξη ήταν θεϊκή<br /><br />...at least this would not make them look foolish as they try to argue against all serious scholars.Scholarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1811264108457143000.post-89553519582218088832010-03-24T22:47:46.890+09:302010-03-24T22:47:46.890+09:30Thanks for your comment, JohnOneOne.
Those verses...Thanks for your comment, JohnOneOne.<br /><br />Those verses that you listed are good as examples of the anarthrous noun complement being indefinite. The more concrete the noun in question, the greater the chance it has of being indefinite rather than qualitative. But in the end it is context that must determine how these constructions should be translated. <br /><br />In your understanding, if Jehovah is a god and Jesus is a god, how is their deity to be distinguished?<br /><br />I’m glad that you mentioned John 10:34-35. I’m planning to do a post on those verses in the next day or so.Steven Coxheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798792943613130505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1811264108457143000.post-7822654852292137892010-03-23T23:28:18.517+09:302010-03-23T23:28:18.517+09:30~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Many who take issue with Jehovah...~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br />Many who take issue with Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" of 'theos' in John 1:1c (as, "a god") often miss the point that the structure of this whole clause is that it is 'a singular anarthrous predicate noun (meaning, without the Greek definite article), but one which is also *preceding the verb and subject noun (implied or stated)*' - that is, not just that use of the noun 'theos' in the third clause is lacking the Greek definite article. (In the Greek language of this period, there was no such thing as an indefinite article; therefore, depending upon the grammar, syntax, immediate and global context of the phrase, when translating to English, the decision on whether to add an indefinite article or not would be made by the translator.)<br /><br />Quite interestingly, at other places within the "New Testament" where the syntax (Greek word order) is also the same as that found within John 1:1c, it is not uncommon to read where Bible translators will typically add the English indefinite article, either as an "a" or "an". You may wish to examine the following within your own preferred translation(s) of the Bible, that is, to see whether, within those works, such had actually been done. Here are a few scriptures to look into:<br /><br />Mark 6:49<br />Mark 11:32<br />John 4:19<br />John 6:70<br />John 8:44a<br />John 8:44b<br />John 9:17<br />John 10:1<br />John 10:13<br />John 10:33<br />John 12:6<br /><br />Now, when we encounter that very same Greek grammatical construction in John 1:1c, we find that there are many translators who do not follow the same guideline, that is, as when they did when translating the above verses. Apparently, this inconsistency is due to their own theologically induced predisposition, their bias, that of the centuries old, "Catholic" inspired tradition, the unbiblical belief that God is a Trinity. In other words, unknown to their readers, they are just being dishonest.<br /><br />Furthermore, with respect to the suggestion that such a rendering though would fly in the strict Jewish monotheistic system of belief, in connection with Jesus' own words, recorded for us at John 10:34, 35 (when quoting from Psalm 82:6), there is this:<br /><br />"The Hebrew for ‘gods’ (‘elohîm) could refer to various exalted beings besides Yahweh [or, Jehovah], without implying any challenge to monotheism,…"<br /><br />Taken from: Blomberg, Craig L. (b.?-d.?), Distinguished Professor of the New Testament, Denver Seminary, Colorado.. "The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary." (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, c2002), "The feast of Dedication" ([John] 10:22-42), p. 163. BS2615.6.H55 B56 2002 / 2001051563.<br /><br />Obviously, there need be more evidence to substantiate such a rendering as, "and the Word was a god," as well as to address many of the other issues often raised by such wording. This is just a number of the many points we hope to address within our forthcoming work, "What About John 1:1?"<br /><br />To discover something of its design and progress, you are invited to visit:<br /><br />http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com<br /><br />Agape, JohnOneOne.<br />john1one@earthlink.net<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~JohnOneOnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05737468309788892988noreply@blogger.com