The butchering of John 1:1 by JW anti-Trinitarian Translators

See John 1:18 Jesus=god not God------ god= has godlike qualities.
Um that is not what your translation states

Joh 1:18 (NWT) No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.
 
They keep throwing John 1:1 in front of me even after I have already given detailed data on that verse. Today I wrote...

I can say that in my beginning there was my word, and my word was with me, and my word was me. And that does not make my words a living thing. Only a fool would think my words were another me. It says Word. Words are not living things. I should not have to tell you this. We teach children in first grade that words are not alive.
Your words did not create everything but the Word was before every created thing and created everything that came into existence. An " it " doesn’t create , God creates and the Word is identified as God the Creator.

Next fallacy
 
Lets talk about these 2 verses that you have in red and in large print...

24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, [My Bible does not have "He" capsulized. In fact, the word "he" is not even in the text which is why the KJV has it in italics. And to believe that he is who he says... is the son of God, the Messiah. There is nothing in this verse that should cause anyone to believe he was claiming that he was something other than the Messiah.] you will die in your sins.”

28 So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man,
[He said the son of man. He did not say the God man.] then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.
The same I Am in Ex 3:14.

next fallacy

Isa 41:4
'I, the Lord, am the first, and with the last. I am He.'"


Isa 43:10-11
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
And there will be none after Me.
11 "I, even I am the Lord;
And there is no Savior besides Me.

Isa 43:13
13 "Even from eternity I am He;

Isa 44:6
6 "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel
And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
'I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.


John 6:35
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.



John 8:12
Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life."



John 8:24-25
"I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins."



John 8:58-59
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him;


John 10:14
"I am the good shepherd; and I know My own, and My own know Me,



John 18:5-7
They answered Him, "Jesus the Nazarene." He said to them, "I am He." And Judas also who was betraying Him, was standing with them. 6 When therefore He said to them, "I am He," they drew back, and fell to the ground. 7


Rev 1:8
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."


Rev 1:17-18
And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as a dead man. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 1


Rev 22:13
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

hope this helps !!!
 
This is a good time to quote @praise_yeshua from the old forum back in 2018. @Keiw1 @Peterlag

We see Moses (Moshe) describing God using a present form of "to be" (you are) in relation to past tense participles to describe how God exists in the present while existing before creation. Compare to the following:

Jesus used a present tense form of "to be" in relation to a past tense participle to describe how he was present before Abraham's birth while he was speaking to the Jews. Had Moses said something to the effect "Before the Mountains were formed... you were God", that would just indicate God preexisted the mountains and not really speak of the concept of God self-existing creation in of itself. Likewise, had Jesus said something to the effect "Before Abraham... I was (Or I have been)", Jesus would likewise just indicate preexistence and not really speak of the concept of Jesus self-existing creation. The usage of pronouns is important here to describe how God must be self-existent in order to describe his omnipotence and omnipresence. We therefore see a parallel between how Jesus claimed to presently exist in the past and how a person called God claimed to presently exist in the past thus describing an equal prerogative of deity.

Blessings in Messiah,

PraiseYeshua
 
They keep throwing John 1:1 in front of me even after I have already given detailed data on that verse. Today I wrote...

I can say that in my beginning there was my word, and my word was with me, and my word was me. And that does not make my words a living thing. Only a fool would think my words were another me. It says Word. Words are not living things. I should not have to tell you this. We teach children in first grade that words are not alive.
Your detailed data was weak and built on a priori assumptions

If God wants to refer to the being he is with as the Word, the one through whom all things came into being, of what value are your assumptions

Examine the data. It reveals the Word was personal in both testaments
 
Your detailed data was weak and built on a priori assumptions

If God wants to refer to the being he is with as the Word, the one through whom all things came into being, of what value are your assumptions

Examine the data. It reveals the Word was personal in both testaments
yes one cannot be personal with an it.

The Word was with God—The preposition translated "with" is pros. In Koine Greek pros (short for prosopon pros prosopon, "face to face") was used to show intimacy in personal relationships (see Matt. 13:56; 26:18; Mark 6:3; 14:49; 1 Cor. 13:12; 6:10; 2 Cor. 5:8; Gal. 1:18). Thus, for John to say "the Word was with God" was for him to mean "the Word was face to face with God" (see Williams’s translation) or "the Word was having intimate fellowship with God." This speaks of the preincarnate Son’s relationship with the Father prior to creation—in fact, prior to everything (see 1:18; 17:5, 24) (JFB).

With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other (RWP).

The preposition "with" in the phrase "the Word was with God" indicates both equality and distinction of identity along with association. The phrase can be rendered "face to face with." It may, therefore, imply personality, coexistence with the Creator, and yet be an expression of his creative being...The preposition ðñ’ò (pros) indicates both equality and distinction of identity. Robertson says, "The literal idea comes out well, ‘face to face with God’" (RHG, p. 623). Thus this implies personality and coexistence with God. Robertson says it bespeaks of "the fellowship between the Logos and God" (EBC).

Thus John’s statement is that the divine Word not only abode with the Father from all eternity, but was in the living, active relation of communion with Him (Vincent).

Of the character of this relationship to God no further details are given. [Apparently "with God" (pros + accusative) is intended as an indication not only of place but also of disposition and orientation. - note 23] The focus is entirely on the antecedent existence of the Word, that is, that it existed before all that is created, and on the Word's participation in the divine. This latter point is made in no uncertain terms by the emphatic positioning of the predicate noun: "And God was the Word" (Ridderbos).

What we notice about all these examples [of pros in the NT], however, is that in all but one or two peculiar constructions (e.g., 1 Pet. 3:15), prosmay mean 'with' only when a person is with a person, usually in some fairly intimate relationship. And that suggests that John may already be pointing out, rather subtly, that the 'Word' he is talking about is a person, with God and therefore distinguishable from God, and enjoying a personal relationship with him (Carson).

The Greek preposition translated with suggests the idea of communion. The thought is lit. 'towards God', which requires some distinctiveness between God and the Word. But the next phrase adds a further aspect, since it affirms that the Word was God...Since the Greek has no article before God, the term must be taken setting out a characteristic of the Word. Since God is a noun, John must be affirming the Godhead of the Word. It involves not only divinity but deity (NBC).

hope this helps !!!
 
yes one cannot be personal with an it.

The Word was with God—The preposition translated "with" is pros. In Koine Greek pros (short for prosopon pros prosopon, "face to face") was used to show intimacy in personal relationships (see Matt. 13:56; 26:18; Mark 6:3; 14:49; 1 Cor. 13:12; 6:10; 2 Cor. 5:8; Gal. 1:18). Thus, for John to say "the Word was with God" was for him to mean "the Word was face to face with God" (see Williams’s translation) or "the Word was having intimate fellowship with God." This speaks of the preincarnate Son’s relationship with the Father prior to creation—in fact, prior to everything (see 1:18; 17:5, 24) (JFB).

With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other (RWP).

The preposition "with" in the phrase "the Word was with God" indicates both equality and distinction of identity along with association. The phrase can be rendered "face to face with." It may, therefore, imply personality, coexistence with the Creator, and yet be an expression of his creative being...The preposition ðñ’ò (pros) indicates both equality and distinction of identity. Robertson says, "The literal idea comes out well, ‘face to face with God’" (RHG, p. 623). Thus this implies personality and coexistence with God. Robertson says it bespeaks of "the fellowship between the Logos and God" (EBC).

Thus John’s statement is that the divine Word not only abode with the Father from all eternity, but was in the living, active relation of communion with Him (Vincent).

Of the character of this relationship to God no further details are given. [Apparently "with God" (pros + accusative) is intended as an indication not only of place but also of disposition and orientation. - note 23] The focus is entirely on the antecedent existence of the Word, that is, that it existed before all that is created, and on the Word's participation in the divine. This latter point is made in no uncertain terms by the emphatic positioning of the predicate noun: "And God was the Word" (Ridderbos).

What we notice about all these examples [of pros in the NT], however, is that in all but one or two peculiar constructions (e.g., 1 Pet. 3:15), prosmay mean 'with' only when a person is with a person, usually in some fairly intimate relationship. And that suggests that John may already be pointing out, rather subtly, that the 'Word' he is talking about is a person, with God and therefore distinguishable from God, and enjoying a personal relationship with him (Carson).

The Greek preposition translated with suggests the idea of communion. The thought is lit. 'towards God', which requires some distinctiveness between God and the Word. But the next phrase adds a further aspect, since it affirms that the Word was God...Since the Greek has no article before God, the term must be taken setting out a characteristic of the Word. Since God is a noun, John must be affirming the Godhead of the Word. It involves not only divinity but deity (NBC).

hope this helps !!!
Yes and add to that the creation activities

John 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.

Christ's claim he came down from heaven and had glory with the Father before the world was

and his example demonstrating humility at Phil 2:5ff when existing in the form of God
 
Yes and add to that the creation activities

John 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.

Christ's claim he came down from heaven and had glory with the Father before the world was

and his example demonstrating humility at Phil 2:5ff when existing in the form of God
Amen !!!
 
Firstborn is not firstcreated

He is pre-eminent because

Colossians 1:16 (LEB) — 16 because all things in the heavens and on the earth were created by him, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers, all things were created through him and for him,

All things were created through him, so he could not be a creation

Preeminence. In all things... that He "γίνομαι"..... have Preeminence.

γίνομαι is a conditional clause. "Might" or "should".... be. It is not an absolute. Nor is it a statement of a definitive outcome. However, it does indicate the desire of Divinity.

We can be certain that Jesus will never be Preeminent in the hearts of Unitarians. Jesus just isn't "good enough" for them. You/we properly judge such from their actions and words contrary to the fact.
 
Last edited:
Your words did not create everything but the Word was before every created thing and created everything that came into existence. An " it " doesn’t create , God creates and the Word is identified as God the Creator.

Next fallacy
Words are not living things. No matter who's words they are be it human or spirit. God's words are as much another living being as my words are. Words don't have a different meaning because someone else says them.
 
Preeminence. In all things... that He "γίνομαι"..... have Preeminence.

γίνομαι is a conditional clause. "Might" or "should".... be. It is not an absolute. Nor is it a statement of a definitive outcome. However, it does indicate the desire of Divinity.

We can be certain that Jesus will never be Preeminent in the hearts of Unitarians. Jesus just isn't "good enough" for them. You/we properly judge such from their actions and words contrary to the fact.
I agree

We can be certain that Jesus will never be Preeminent in the hearts of Unitarians. Jesus just isn't "good enough" for them. You/we properly judge such from their actions and words contrary to the fact.
 
View attachment 1067

John 1:18 not even close to your definition Nas95

No one has seen God at any time;
the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

The only begotten God......................

Even the detestable NIV for all its errors states

John 1:18

New International Version
No one has ever seen God, but the
one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known..
Aramaic:
No man has seen God at any time;
The Only Begotten God Who is in the bosom of The Father, he has declared him.”
Not yours... You want more?
Try Contemporary English Version
No one has ever seen God.
The only Son, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like.

Please... pay attention.....

The JW New World Translation says


No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him.
Yes small g god is correct, the same at John 1:1--trinity scholars know its fact.
 
Incorrect
No man hath seen God at any time (theon oudeis heōraken pōpote). “God no one has ever seen.” Perfect active indicative of horaō. Seen with the human physical eye, John means. God is invisible (Exo_33:20; Deu_4:12). Paul calls God aoratos (Col_1:15; 1Ti_1:17). John repeats the idea in Joh_5:37; Joh_6:46. And yet in Joh_14:7 Jesus claims that the one who sees him has seen the Father as here.

The only begotten Son (ho monogenēs huios). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after hōs monogenous para patros in Joh_1:14. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read monogenēs theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text.

Probably some scribe changed it to ho monogenēs huios to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like Joh_3:16.

But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called theos in Joh_1:1. The Incarnation is stated in Joh_1:14, where he is also termed monogenēs. He was that before the Incarnation.

So he is “God only begotten,” “the Eternal Generation of the Son” of Origen’s phrase.

Which is in the bosom of the Father (ho ōn eis ton kolpon tou patros).

The eternal relation of the Son with the Father like pros ton theon in Joh_1:1. In Joh_3:13 there is some evidence for ho ōn en tōi ouranōi used by Christ of himself while still on earth. The mystic sense here is that the Son is qualified to reveal the Father as Logos (both the

Father in Idea and Expression) by reason of the continual fellowship with the Father.
He (ekinos). Emphatic pronoun referring to the Son.
Hath declared him (exēgēsato). First aorist (effective) middle indicative of exēgeomai, old verb to lead out, to draw out in narrative, to recount. Here only in John, though once in Luke’s Gospel (Luk_24:35) and four times in Acts (Act_10:8; Act_15:12, Act_15:14; Act_21:19). This word fitly closes the Prologue in which the Logos is pictured in marvellous fashion as the Word of God in human flesh, the Son of God with the Glory of God in him, showing men who God is and what he is.
Robertson

No man hath seen God at any time (Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε)
God is first in the Greek order, as emphatic: “God hath no man ever seen.” As to the substance of the statement, compare Joh_3:11; Exo_33:20; 1Jn_4:12. Manifestations of God to Old Testament saints were only partial and approximate (Exo_33:23). The seeing intended here is seeing of the divine essence rather than of the divine person, which also is indicated by the absence of the article from Θεὸν, God. In this sense even Christ was not seen as God. The verb ὁράω, to see, denotes a physical act, but emphasizes the mental discernment accompanying it, and points to the result rather than to the act of vision. In 1Jn_1:1; 1Jn_4:12, 1Jn_4:14, θεάομαι is used, denoting calm and deliberate contemplation (see on Joh_1:14). In Joh_12:45, we have θεωρέω, to behold (see on Mar_5:15; see on Luk_10:18). Both θεάομαι and θεωρέω imply deliberate contemplation, but the former is gazing with a view to satisfy the eye, while the latter is beholding more critically, with an inward spiritual or mental interest in the thing beheld, and with a view to acquire knowledge about it. “Θεωρεῖν would be used of a general officially reviewing or inspecting an army; θεᾶσθαι of a lay spectator looking at the parade” (Thayer).
The only begotten son (ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς)
Several of the principal manuscripts and a great mass of ancient evidence support the reading μονογενὴς Θεὸς, “God only begotten.”
Another and minor difference in reading relates to the article, which is omitted from μονογενὴς by most of the authorities which favor Θεὸς. Whether we read the only begotten Son, or God only begotten, the sense of the passage is not affected. The latter reading merely combines in one phrase the two attributes of the word already indicated - God (Joh_1:1), only begotten (Joh_1:14); the sense being one who was both God and only begotten.
Who is in the bosom (ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον)
The expression ὁ ὢν, who is, or the one being, is explained in two ways: 1. As a timeless present, expressing the inherent and eternal relation of the Son to the Father. 2. As interpreted by the preposition. εἰς, in, literally, into, and expressing the fact of Christ's return to the Father's glory after His incarnation: “The Son who has entered into the Father's bosom and is there.” In the former case it is an absolute description of the nature of the Son: in the latter, the emphasis is on the historic fact of the ascension, though with a reference to his eternal abiding with the Father from thenceforth.
While the fact of Christ's return to the Father's glory may have been present to the writer's mind, and have helped to determine the form of the statement, to emphasize that fact in this connection would seem less consistent with the course of thought in the Prologue than the other interpretation: since John is declaring in this sentence the competency of the incarnate Son to manifest God to mankind. The ascension of Christ is indeed bound up with that truth, but is not, in the light of the previous course of thought, its primary factor. That is rather the eternal oneness of the Word with God; which, though passing through the phase of incarnation, nevertheless remains unbroken (Joh_3:13). Thus Godet, aptly: “The quality attributed to Jesus, of being the perfect revealer of the divine Being, is founded on His intimate and perfect relation to God Himself.”
The phrase, in the bosom of the Father, depicts this eternal relation as essentially a relation of love; the figure being used of the relation of husband and wife (Deu_13:6); of a father to an infant child (Num_11:12), and of the affectionate protection and rest afforded to Lazarus in Paradise (Luk_16:23). The force of the preposition εἰς, into, according to the first interpretation of who is, is akin to that of “with God” (see on Joh_1:1); denoting an ever active relation, an eternal going forth and returning to the Father's bosom by the Son in His eternal work of love. He ever goes forth from that element of grace and love and returns to it. That element is His life. He is there “because He plunges into it by His unceasing action” (Godet).
He (ἐκεῖνος)
Strongly emphatic, and pointing to the eternal Son. This pronoun is used by John more frequently than by any other writer. It occurs seventy-two times, and not only as denoting the more distant subject, but as denoting and laying special stress on the person or thing immediately at hand, or possessing pre-eminently the quality which is immediately in question. Thus Jesus applies it to Himself as the person for whom the healed blind man is inquiring: “It is He (ἐκεῖνος) that talketh with thee” (Joh_9:37). So here, “the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father - He hath declared Him.”
Hath declared (ἐξηγήσατο)
Or, rendering the aorist strictly, He declared. From ἐκ, forth, and ἡγέομαι, to lead the way. Originally, to lead or govern. Hence, like the Latin praeire verbis, to go before with words, to prescribe or dictate a form of words. To draw out in narrative, to recount or rehearse (see Act_15:14, and on Luk_24:35). To relate in full; to interpret, or translate. Therefore ἐξήγησις, exegesis, is interpretation or explanation. The word ἐξηγητής was used by the Greeks of an expounder of oracles, dreams, omens, or sacred rites. Thus Croesus, finding the suburbs of Sardis alive with serpents, sent to the soothsayers (ἐξηγητὰς) of Telmessus (Herodotus, i. 78). The word thus comes to mean a spiritual director. Plato calls Apollo the tutelary director (πατρῷος ἐξηγητής) of religion (“Republic,” 427), and says, “Let the priests be interpreters for life” (“Laws,” 759). In the Septuagint the word is used of the magicians of Pharaoh's court (Gen_41:8, Gen_41:24), and the kindred verb of teaching or interpreting concerning leprosy (Lev_14:57). John's meaning is that the Word revealed or manifested and interpreted the Father to men. The word occurs only here in John's writings. Wyc. renders, He hath told out. These words conclude the Prologue.
The Historical Narrative now begins, and falls into two general divisions:
I. The Self-Revelation of Christ to the World (1:19-12:50)
II. The Self-Revelation of Christ to the Disciples (13:1-21:23)
Vincent

Why are you running from John 1.1-to 1.18?

Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the one and only, God, the one who is in the bosom of the Father—that one has made him [*Here the direct object is supplied from context in the English translation] known.

Joh 1:18 No one οὐδεὶς has ever seen ἑώρακεν . . . πώποτε· God, Θεὸν [but the] one and only Son, μονογενὴς [who is Himself] God Θεὸς [and] ὁ is ὢν at εἰς the τὸν vvv τοῦ Father’s Πατρὸς, side, κόλπον - ἐκεῖνος has made [Him] known. ἐξηγήσατο.

J.
Satan is called Theos=god at 2 Cor 4:4 While the true God is called Ho Theos=God--same at John 1:1, the Word is called Theos, the True God is called Ho Theos, Why? There is only 1 reason possible--Ho Theos=God--Theos in the same paragraph = god. One cannot translate 2 different paragraphs different. Its the whole reason the Word is not called the same thing as the true God =0 doubt in all creation.
 
Um that is not what your translation states

Joh 1:18 (NWT) No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.
god= has godlike qualities=Gods image in Jesus case., not God.
 
You really don't like Jesus do you? You are incapable of accepting anything that praises Jesus Christ equal to the Father.

Do you expect praise yours

You really don't like Jesus do you? You are incapable of accepting anything that praises Jesus Christ equal to the Father.

Do you expect praise yourself?
I love Jesus, he is my king. Jehovah is my God.
Here is what Jesus teaches on the matter--The Father is greater than i. There is no equality. Jesus lives to do his Fathers will, he only taught what the Father commanded him to teach. Here at Rev 21:1 this occurs=1Cor 15:24-28--Jesus must hand back the kingdom to his God and Father and subject himself.--100% reality= God does not have a God.
 
Satan is called Theos=god at 2 Cor 4:4 While the true God is called Ho Theos=God--same at John 1:1, the Word is called Theos, the True God is called Ho Theos, Why? There is only 1 reason possible--Ho Theos=God--Theos in the same paragraph = god. One cannot translate 2 different paragraphs different. Its the whole reason the Word is not called the same thing as the true God =0 doubt in all creation.
It's clear that English is not your primary language. What is your primary language or mother tongue? Your English communication skills are terrible. Write what you're attempting to communicate in your mother tongue and maybe then we'll understand what you're trying to communicate.
 
Satan is called Theos=god at 2 Cor 4:4 While the true God is called Ho Theos=God--same at John 1:1, the Word is called Theos, the True God is called Ho Theos, Why? There is only 1 reason possible--Ho Theos=God--Theos in the same paragraph = god. One cannot translate 2 different paragraphs different. Its the whole reason the Word is not called the same thing as the true God =0 doubt in all creation.
This is poor exegesis.

J.
 
Back
Top Bottom