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

S

synergy

Well-known member
Just below this paragraph is John 1:1 in the Greek. I will focus on the Greek word "Θεὸς" and how the JWs have deviously translated Θεὸς incorrectly to “a god”, thus brewing up the phrase “the Word was a god” which demotes Jesus to just a man.

(John 1:1) ᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

First Failure by JWs:

The word Θεός (Theos) translates to God, plain and simple.

Second Failure by JWs:

Theses are the Indefinite Articles in Greek:

Singular Indefinite Articles, all of them translate to “one”
– Masculine: ένας
– Feminine: μία
– Neuter: ένα

Plural Indefinite Articles, all of them translate to “several”
– Masculine: μερικοί
– Feminine: μερικές
– Neuter: μερικά

Now, where does anyone see any of these Greek indefinite articles in John 1:1? Where?!?!

Conclusion: The JW dirt poor understanding of Greek has been exposed. Their attempt to desecrate Jesus and the Trinity will not succeed.
 
.
FAQ: Why does the Watchtower Society translate the second Greek word theós per
John 1:1 as a deity in lower case instead of upper case?

REPLY: The Watchtower Society's translation is based upon a self-imposed rule of
grammar, to wit:

When theós is modified by the definite article "ho" the Society translates it in upper
case, viz: in the Society's theological thinking; ho theós pertains to the one true
God, while theós alone is somewhat flexible; for example John 1:18 and John 20:17
where the Society translates theós in upper case though it be not modified by ho.

However, according to Dr. Archibald T. Robertson's "Grammar Of The Greek New
Testament", page 767: in regards to nouns in the predicate; the article is not
essential to speech. In other words: when theós is in the predicate, ho can be
either used, or not used, without making any real difference.

So then; a translator's decision whether to capitalize the second theós in John 1:1
or not to capitalize it, is entirely arbitrary rather than dictated by a strict rule of
Greek grammar.

Of course the Society prefers that the Word be a lower case deity because that
spelling is agreeable with their version of his status; whereas most conventional
Christians prefer the upper case because that spelling is agreeable with their
version of the Word's status; whereas according to Robertson, either spelling is
acceptable.

For that reason I do not recommend debating with JWs over the spelling in John
1:1 seeing as how the grammatical ground they stand on is just as solid as ours.
_
 
Olde Tymer said:
.
FAQ: Why does the Watchtower Society translate the second Greek word theós per
John 1:1 as a deity in lower case instead of upper case?

REPLY: The Watchtower Society's translation is based upon a self-imposed rule of
grammar, to wit:

When theós is modified by the definite article "ho" the Society translates it in upper
case, viz: in the Society's theological thinking; ho theós pertains to the one true
God, while theós alone is somewhat flexible; for example John 1:18 and John 20:17
where the Society translates theós in upper case though it be not modified by ho.

However, according to Dr. Archibald T. Robertson's "Grammar Of The Greek New
Testament", page 767: in regards to nouns in the predicate; the article is not
essential to speech. In other words: when theós is in the predicate, ho can be
either used, or not used, without making any real difference.

So then; a translator's decision whether to capitalize the second theós in John 1:1
or not to capitalize it, is entirely arbitrary rather than dictated by a strict rule of
Greek grammar.

Of course the Society prefers that the Word be a lower case deity because that
spelling is agreeable with their version of his status; whereas most conventional
Christians prefer the upper case because that spelling is agreeable with their
version of the Word's status; whereas according to Robertson, either spelling is
acceptable.

For that reason I do not recommend debating with JWs over the spelling in John
1:1 seeing as how the grammatical ground they stand on is just as solid as ours.
_
Click to expand...
My main point is the indefinite article. If there is no indefinite article in the Greek then there should not be one in the English.
Therefore the JW "a" indefinite article gets thrown out the window and that leaves the question of upper case or lower case for the word "God".

As for capitalization or not, the decision has already been made in Koine Greek. Notice how Θεὸς is written with a capital in Greek within John 1:1:

(John 1:1) ᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

This is opposed to θεὸν (Ex 7:1) or θεος (2Cor 4:4) which are not capitalized in Koine Greek because they do not refer to God.
 
Olde Tymer said:
.
FAQ: Why does the Watchtower Society translate the second Greek word theós per
John 1:1 as a deity in lower case instead of upper case?

REPLY: The Watchtower Society's translation is based upon a self-imposed rule of
grammar, to wit:

When theós is modified by the definite article "ho" the Society translates it in upper
case, viz: in the Society's theological thinking; ho theós pertains to the one true
God, while theós alone is somewhat flexible; for example John 1:18 and John 20:17
where the Society translates theós in upper case though it be not modified by ho.

However, according to Dr. Archibald T. Robertson's "Grammar Of The Greek New
Testament", page 767: in regards to nouns in the predicate; the article is not
essential to speech. In other words: when theós is in the predicate, ho can be
either used, or not used, without making any real difference.

So then; a translator's decision whether to capitalize the second theós in John 1:1
or not to capitalize it, is entirely arbitrary rather than dictated by a strict rule of
Greek grammar.

Of course the Society prefers that the Word be a lower case deity because that
spelling is agreeable with their version of his status; whereas most conventional
Christians prefer the upper case because that spelling is agreeable with their
version of the Word's status; whereas according to Robertson, either spelling is
acceptable.

For that reason I do not recommend debating with JWs over the spelling in John
1:1 seeing as how the grammatical ground they stand on is just as solid as ours.
_
Click to expand...
Their addition of the indefinite article however is a more solid ground on which to argue
 
synergy said:
Just below this paragraph is John 1:1 in the Greek. I will focus on the Greek word "Θεὸς" and how the JWs have deviously translated Θεὸς incorrectly to “a god”, thus brewing up the phrase “the Word was a god” which demotes Jesus to just a man.

(John 1:1) ᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

First Failure by JWs:

The word Θεός (Theos) translates to God, plain and simple.

Second Failure by JWs:

Theses are the Indefinite Articles in Greek:

Singular Indefinite Articles, all of them translate to “one”
– Masculine: ένας
– Feminine: μία
– Neuter: ένα

Plural Indefinite Articles, all of them translate to “several”
– Masculine: μερικοί
– Feminine: μερικές
– Neuter: μερικά

Now, where does anyone see any of these Greek indefinite articles in John 1:1? Where?!?!

Conclusion: The JW dirt poor understanding of Greek has been exposed. Their attempt to desecrate Jesus and the Trinity will not succeed.
Click to expand...
"Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος" - "In the beginning was the Word."
"καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν" - "and the Word was with God."
"καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος" - "and the Word was God."

ὁ Λόγος" (the Word) is equated with "Θεὸς" (God) which would indicate a divine nature. The phrase "καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος" can be understood as stating that the Word possesses a divine quality or essence, which would mean "the Word is a god" because the Word is with "τὸν Θεόν" (The God.)

Bottom line is, whether you like it or not, the Word is not The God in John 1:1. Definite articles mean something and it's in John 1:1 before the God the Word is with. Your argument seems to be that we should all pretend it doesn't exist. Yet it's there. There are some significant theological implications for you so I can understand why you would just deny it all and pretend it doesn't exist.

It can be proven that the Word is not God Almighty. A God who is not God Almighty is not God and is therefore a god. There is not a different option here theologically and contextually. The context of the Bible is a great influence on how it is translated. Since you haven't figured out the Word is not God yet, you just aren't going to be able to see otherwise.
 
Runningman said:
"Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος" - "In the beginning was the Word."
"καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν" - "and the Word was with God."
"καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος" - "and the Word was God."

ὁ Λόγος" (the Word) is equated with "Θεὸς" (God) which would indicate a divine nature. The phrase "καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος" can be understood as stating that the Word possesses a divine quality or essence, which would mean "the Word is a god" because the Word is with "τὸν Θεόν" (The God.)

Bottom line is, whether you like it or not, the Word is not The God in John 1:1. Definite articles mean something and it's in John 1:1 before the God the Word is with. Your argument seems to be that we should all pretend it doesn't exist. Yet it's there. There are some significant theological implications for you so I can understand why you would just deny it all and pretend it doesn't exist.

It can be proven that the Word is not God Almighty. A God who is not God Almighty is not God and is therefore a god. There is not a different option here theologically and contextually. The context of the Bible is a great influence on how it is translated. Since you haven't figured out the Word is not God yet, you just aren't going to be able to see otherwise.
Click to expand...
You still do not get it

No trinitarian believes the word is the person he is with

Rather he is what the God is

deity

But now you have become a polytheist having two gods, a big God and a lesser god

so much for the unitarian designation

You should give it up as the term does not fit your theology
 
Runningman said:
"Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος" - "In the beginning was the Word."
"καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν" - "and the Word was with God."
"καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος" - "and the Word was God."

ὁ Λόγος" (the Word) is equated with "Θεὸς" (God) which would indicate a divine nature. The phrase "καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος" can be understood as stating that the Word possesses a divine quality or essence, which would mean "the Word is a god" because the Word is with "τὸν Θεόν" (The God.)
Click to expand...
Look at the actual Greek word "Θεὸς" (God) that is in the Greek text. It is an uppercase word, not a lowercase "θεος" (god) word. Many people don't immediately see the difference because they're not used to the Greek letter Θ/θ and it's upper/lower case variance, but that's no excuse for those who translate the word of God.

Also, where did the "a" come from as in "a god"? There is no corresponding indefinite article whatsoever in the Greek before the word "Θεὸς" that would warrant the indefinite article "a" in the English translation. Looks like the JWs pulled the "a" out of their b*tt and presented it to the world in their NWT edition.

Therefore, the word "Θεὸς" is properly translated as God.
Runningman said:
Bottom line is, whether you like it or not, the Word is not The God in John 1:1.
Click to expand...
Only Modalists would claim that the Word is the God. We are not Modalists. You're barking up the wrong tree.
Runningman said:
Definite articles mean something and it's in John 1:1 before the God the Word is with. Your argument seems to be that we should all pretend it doesn't exist. Yet it's there. There are some significant theological implications for you so I can understand why you would just deny it all and pretend it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
We are perfectly fine with "the Word was with God" which proves that there are 2 separate entities: the Word who is God by nature and God who is no other than the Father. You failed miserably to prove that the Word is a god so it's not surprising that you would fail here too.
Runningman said:
It can be proven that the Word is not God Almighty. A God who is not God Almighty is not God and is therefore a god. There is not a different option here theologically and contextually. The context of the Bible is a great influence on how it is translated. Since you haven't figured out the Word is not God yet, you just aren't going to be able to see otherwise.
Click to expand...
Jesus already explicitly declared himself the "I Am" God of the OT.l in John 8:58. Now you wouldn't want to go against his words, now would you? :unsure:

Conclusion: The JW dirt poor understanding of Greek has been exposed. Their attempt to desecrate Jesus and the Trinity will not succeed.
 
TomL said:
You still do not get it

No trinitarian believes the word is the person he is with

Rather he is what the God is

deity

But now you have become a polytheist having two gods, a big God and a lesser god

so much for the unitarian designation

You should give it up as the term does not fit your theology
Click to expand...
I say let's take that "addition of the indefinite article" and make some Universalism beef jerky.
 
The first verse of John establishes several important facts. It also introduces an important term. Jesus is referred to as "the Word," from the Greek word logos. Christ is the Logos: the definition, the meaning, the "Word" of God. This is the first of John's seven names for Jesus: "the Word." The rest of the gospel is John's attempt to prove this through various forms of evidence, with an emphasis on Jesus' miracles.

The first eighteen verses of John counter many false beliefs about God. This verse establishes that the universe had a beginning, contrary to the idea that it is eternal. It also states that God has existed from that beginning. Later verses will show that God, in fact, created all that exists. This verse also makes it noticeably clear that this Logos, Jesus, is identical to the Creator: the Word was God. This begins to establish the concept of the Trinity, where God is one being in three distinct persons.

BibleRef
 
synergy said:
Just below this paragraph is John 1:1 in the Greek. I will focus on the Greek word "Θεὸς" and how the JWs have deviously translated Θεὸς incorrectly to “a god”, thus brewing up the phrase “the Word was a god” which demotes Jesus to just a man.

(John 1:1) ᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

First Failure by JWs:

The word Θεός (Theos) translates to God, plain and simple.

Second Failure by JWs:

Theses are the Indefinite Articles in Greek:

Singular Indefinite Articles, all of them translate to “one”
– Masculine: ένας
– Feminine: μία
– Neuter: ένα

Plural Indefinite Articles, all of them translate to “several”
– Masculine: μερικοί
– Feminine: μερικές
– Neuter: μερικά

Now, where does anyone see any of these Greek indefinite articles in John 1:1? Where?!?!

Conclusion: The JW dirt poor understanding of Greek has been exposed. Their attempt to desecrate Jesus and the Trinity will not succeed.
Click to expand...
To: @Keiw1 What do you say about all the butchering of John 1:1 that JWs are guilty of? See above.
 
synergy said:
To: @Keiw1 What do you say about all the butchering of John 1:1 that JWs are guilty of? See above.
Click to expand...
JW,s didnt butcher it. Trinitarians did. Its 100% fact. the true God at both John 1:1 and 2 Cor 4:4 was called a different Greek word than the Word and satan were called, Why to show a difference of God and god-- You have god at 2 Cor 4:4 for the same exact word the Word is called at John 1:1-WHY? Please show us the Greek to English rule where the same word is translated different when in the same paragraph with Ton Theon to the true God. I already know you cant.
At least 20 translations in history by Greek scholars has a god at John 1:1-3 has was divine( Moffatt, Schoenfield, Goodspeed) 1 has was godlike.
1822 Abner Kneeland in his NT translation, he compared Greek to English side by side to prove to the world a god was correct.
All those translations were rejected by the ones using the error translations because that single letter alteration proves them all to be false religions.
 
Keiw1 said:
JW,s didnt butcher it. Trinitarians did. Its 100% fact.
Click to expand...
I see you offered not even one counterargument against how your Butcher colleagues butchered John 1:1, as list in Post #1. That's because no JW knows Greek, you included.

I could easily end the conversation here but let's continue to see how a Greek language Butcher thinks.
Keiw1 said:
the true God at both John 1:1 and 2 Cor 4:4 was called a different Greek word than the Word and satan were called, Why to show a difference of God and god-- You have god at 2 Cor 4:4 for the same exact word the Word is called at John 1:1-WHY?
Click to expand...
There is a difference between 2 Cor 4:4 and John 1:1. John 1:1 contains an uppercase Θεὸς for God and 2 Cor 4:4 contains a lowercase θεος for the god of this world. Do you see the difference? The decision to capitalize or not has already been made in Koine Greek. You must follow the Koine Greek, not the JW heretics script.

Many people don't immediately see the difference because they're not used to the Greek letter Θ/θ and it's upper/lower case variance, but that's no excuse for those who translate the word of God. That's why they're called Butchers.
Keiw1 said:
Please show us the Greek to English rule where the same word is translated different when in the same paragraph with Ton Theon to the true God. I already know you cant.
Click to expand...
Give an example. I can't read your mind.
Keiw1 said:
At least 20 translations in history by Greek scholars has a god at John 1:1-3 has was divine( Moffatt, Schoenfield, Goodspeed) 1 has was godlike.
1822 Abner Kneeland in his NT translation, he compared Greek to English side by side to prove to the world a god was correct.
Click to expand...
I will give all those people a special Butcher of the Year Award. Happy now?
Keiw1 said:
All those translations were rejected by the ones using the error translations because that single letter alteration proves them all to be false religions.
Click to expand...
Speaking of single letter alterations, where did the JWs get the letter "a" come from as in "a god"? There is no corresponding indefinite article whatsoever in the Greek before the word "Θεὸς" that would warrant the indefinite article "a" in the English translation. Looks like the JWs pulled the "a" out of their b*tt and presented it to the world in their NWT edition.
 
Last edited:
Keiw1 said:
JW,s didnt butcher it. Trinitarians did. Its 100% fact. the true God at both John 1:1 and 2 Cor 4:4 was called a different Greek word than the Word and satan were called, Why to show a difference of God and god-- You have god at 2 Cor 4:4 for the same exact word the Word is called at John 1:1-WHY? Please show us the Greek to English rule where the same word is translated different when in the same paragraph with Ton Theon to the true God. I already know you cant.
At least 20 translations in history by Greek scholars has a god at John 1:1-3 has was divine( Moffatt, Schoenfield, Goodspeed) 1 has was godlike.
1822 Abner Kneeland in his NT translation, he compared Greek to English side by side to prove to the world a god was correct.
All those translations were rejected by the ones using the error translations because that single letter alteration proves them all to be false religions.
Click to expand...
Sorry it is the same root word

Ending are determined by the function of the term in the sentence. A direct object has a different ending than say the subject

And you have never been able to produce 20 translations which say a god
 
Keiw1 said:
At least 20 translations in history by Greek scholars has a god at John 1:1-3 has was divine( Moffatt, Schoenfield, Goodspeed) 1 has was godlike.
1822 Abner Kneeland in his NT translation, he compared Greek to English side by side to prove to the world a god was correct.
Click to expand...
As promised, I am awarding the World's Best Butchers Award collectively to Moffatt, Schoenfield, Goodspeed, and Abner Kneeland. Their Butchering of John 1:1 went far and above their normal JW butchering call of duty. Give them a hand. 👎


1000001565.jpg
 
Keiw1 said:
JW,s didnt butcher it. Trinitarians did. Its 100% fact. the true God at both John 1:1 and 2 Cor 4:4 was called a different Greek word than the Word and satan were called, Why to show a difference of God and god-- You have god at 2 Cor 4:4 for the same exact word the Word is called at John 1:1-WHY? Please show us the Greek to English rule where the same word is translated different when in the same paragraph with Ton Theon to the true God. I already know you cant.
At least 20 translations in history by Greek scholars has a god at John 1:1-3 has was divine( Moffatt, Schoenfield, Goodspeed) 1 has was godlike.
1822 Abner Kneeland in his NT translation, he compared Greek to English side by side to prove to the world a god was correct.
All those translations were rejected by the ones using the error translations because that single letter alteration proves them all to be false religions.
Click to expand...
Four is not 20 is it?

and divine is not a god

PS and you continue in ignorance for it is the same root word

Here are the Greek root and the Greek root transliterated for the received text of John 1:1


aεναρχωειμιbολεγω,καιολεγωειμιcπροςο θεος,καιολεγωdειμιθεος.
enarchōeimiolegōkaiolegōeimiproso theoskaiolegōeimitheos
The Holy Bible: King James Version (Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version.; Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Jn 1:1.




y
 
.
The very fact that the JWs recognize the Word as a god at all is problematic
because there is no middle classification of deities in the Bible between the true god
and the false gods; just as there is no middle between fools and wise, nor good and
evil, nor righteous and unrighteous. So then, if the Word isn't the one true deity,
then he is by default a lesser deity. For example:

● Ps 82:1-6 . . God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the
gods-- and said: You are gods.

Now the thing is: a true deity is an immortal being. But the deities in that Psalm
were on track do lose their lives as mortal creatures.

● Ps 82:7 . . But you shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

Ergo: the deities in Psalm 82 were not true deities, viz: they were figureheads. In
other words; the Psalm accounted the mighty as divine beings though of course in
reality they weren't.

Jesus applied that Psalm to himself at John 10:33-36 which is very useful in the
hands of someone who understands his interpretation of it. Well; a number of Jews
that day apparently didn't "get it" because they attempted to stone him again.
_
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom