JOHN
1:1
Perhaps,
with out a doubt, in my experience, the single biggest objection that
most people have to what the Witnesses believe, and the Bible
translation that they use, is the way that the New World Translation
translates John 1:1.
Most
people are used to seeing "In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Where as the NWT
says "and the Word was a
god".
Many religionists feel, that, in rendering the text in this way, it
takes the deity away from Jesus.
To
start to understand why it is translated like that, lets look at how
it was written in the early Greek. Below I have tried to recreate the
Greek as printed in The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson as
published in 1942. The Greek work is according to Dr J.J. Greisbach
with a literal rendering into English directly under each word. (I have tried to use Greek fonts)
En
arch hn O1
Logos
cai
O
Logos
hn
proz Ton2
Qeon3
cai
qeoz4
hn
O
Lagos5IN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD AND THE WORD WAS WITH THE GOD AND GOD WAS THE WORD
(The English rendering above is all in capitals because the oldest Greek manuscripts are all in capitals)
The
first thing to note is that in the Greek that the Bible was written
in, there is no indefinite article. The indefinite article is the
word "a". The definite article is the word "the".
Look at the difference in the two Greek words for ‘the’. You will
notice that they look different. O
Ton.
Even though these words are
the
same, they are rendered "slightly different" when
translated into English because of the different ways Greek words are
used to show what kind of word a word is. The ending of a word can
express Gender, Tenses or one of five cases such as Nominative,
Vocative, Accusative, Genitive and Dative. You will also notice the
same difference in the words used for "God" Qeon, (theon) qeoz (theos)
Please
note the slight differences in the table below of key words used in
John 1:1.
1O
Nominative
case of the word "The"….. Expressing the doer
2Ton
Accusative
case of the word "The" …. Expressing the Object
3Qeon
Accusative
case of the word "God" …. Expressing the Object
4qeoz
Nominative
case of the word "God"….. Expressing the doer
5Lagos
Nominative
case of the word "Word"….. Expressing the doer
To
try to explain what that means, let's assume you are going to sit at
a table with 8 chairs around it. Assume that everyone has been
assigned a seat in which to sit, and you have been assigned the seat
at the head of the table. Now you know exactly which chair you have
to go to... The chair
at the head of the table. Now take the same situation where nobody is
assigned a chair, you now have a choice of 8 seats to go to. So, you
are going to sit on a chair at the table and not just the chair at
the head
So,
the word "the"
points to a specific item or person where as the word "a"
points to one of many.
You
will have noticed that the NWT inserts the letter "a". Now
the problem that arises is, are they correct in doing so? I will
attempt to explain this by looking at the sentence construction, as
well as seeing how it fits into the context of the chapter.
Is
It Grammar or Interpretation?
WHEN
translating the "New Testament" from its original Greek
into any modern tongue there are terms that can be rendered in more
than one way. How shall the right translation be determined? In such
cases, obviously something other than Greek grammar determines what
wording the modern scholar will use in translating the original.
This
rendering is strongly criticised by some, since it appears to make
the Word (Jesus in his prehuman existence) a lesser god and not God
Almighty himself. These critics often appeal to Greek grammar to try
to dislodge this latter rendering.
Thus
one theologian says regarding the New
World Translation handling
of this verse: "It overlooks entirely an established rule of
Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering, ‘. . . and the Word
was God.’" Another comments that the translation "a god"
is "erroneous and unsupported by any good
Greek scholarship . . . rejected by all recognised
scholars of the Greek language." And yet another notes that it
shows "ignorance of
Greek grammar."—Italics
added.
I
found the following information that I thought was interesting,
especially since it comes from a work that supports the Trinitarian
way of rendering John 1:1
Regarding
the use of articles, Ray Summers states on page 129 in "Essentials
of New Testament Greek":
"The
Greek had no indefinite article. The words tis and eis many times are
close to the English use of the indefinite article "a" and
"an." The Greek definite article o, h, to was much used and
is tremendous importance in the interpretation of the the New
Testament. ... The basic function of the Greek article is to
identify. At this point an important differentiation should be
observed. When the article is used with a construction, the thing
emphasized is "identity"; when the article is not used, the
thing emphasized is quality of character. ...The difference is
clearly seen in the use of o theos and theos. o theos is used of the
divine Person "God." theos is used (generally) of the
divine character or essence of God. Thus "in the beginning was
the Word and the Word was with God (ton theon) and the Word was
divine (theos)" gives the sense. ... An extensive discussion of
this usage is found in Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek
New Testament." ( I will discuss the use of "divine"
later on.)
Concerning
articles, Spiros Zodhiates on pages 862 and 863 of The Complete Word
Study New Testament with Parallel Greek states: (next page)
5. Anarthrous
(an) refers to a word or group of words which appear without a
definite article (o,e, to, the). Greek has no
indefinite article "a" or "an" in English.
Sometimes it is best to translate an anarthrous word by supplying "a"
or "an" before it. In fact, due to reasons of English style
or Greek idiom, the word "the" is even an appropriate
translation in some cases. However, there are many times
when supplying an article would be incorrect. Anarthrous
constructions are most often intended to point out the quality of
something.... See also 24. (Italics in this
paragraph mine)
The
Definite Article (art) in Greek is sometimes translated with the
English definite article "the." However, the function of
the two is quite different. In English, the definite article serves
merely to particularize, to refer to a particular object. In Greek,
however, it serves to emphasize, in some way, the person or thing it
modifies. Hence, in most cases, the definite article in Greek serves
to identify: ... The term "articular" refers to a group of
words which appear with a definite article ... The is perhaps no
other part of Greek grammar where the Greek idiom differs so greatly
from the English. For instance, an English grammarian would never
place the definite article before a proper noun (e.g., the "Thomas"),
though in Greek it is very common. Recognizing the significance of
the presence or absence of the definite article requires the most
intimate knowledge of the Greek language. Contrast the use of
articular constructions with anarthrous constructions which refers to
quality. …"
I
found it interesting that a person would include those quotes to
support the trinitartian idea especially with these words included
" The
difference is clearly seen in the use of o theos and theos. o theos
is used of the divine Person "God." theos is used
(generally) of the divine character or essence of God. Thus "in
the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God (ton theon) and
the Word wasdivine (theos)"
gives the sense. ..." and
"However,
there are many times when supplying an article would be incorrect.
Anarthrous constructions are most often intended to
point out the quality of something...." as
well as "Contrast
the use of articular constructions with anarthrous
constructions which
refers to quality.
..." This
last quote says what we say, and that is that "god was the word"
shows a quality or "nature" of Jesus.
In
regard to this, please note the following quote from Appendix 6A in
the NWT study Bible
Following
is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where various
translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns
occurring before the verb (Just as in John 1:1) with
an indefinite article to denote the indefinite and qualitative status
of the subject nouns:Scripture Text
Colour Coded
MARK l NWT JKV NIV AAT RSV TEV
Mr 6:49 | an apparition a spirit a ghost a ghost a ghost a ghost
Mr 11:32| a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a real prophet a prophet
JOHN |
Joh 4:19 | a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet
Joh 6:70 | a slanderer a devil an informer a devil a devil a devil
Joh 8:44 | a manslayer a murderer a murderer a murderer a murderer a murderer
Joh 8:44 | a liar a liar a liar a liar a liar a liar
Joh 9:17 | a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet
Joh 10:1 | a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief
Joh 10:13| a hired man an hireling a hired man a hired hand a hireling a hired man
Joh 10:33| a man a man a mere man a mere man a man a man
Joh 12:6 | a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief
Does
the above table not show that other translators will use that
particular grammar occurrence in the same as the NWT uses it at John
1:1. May I ask, who is being consistent?
In
the experience that I have had with Trinitarians, reference has often
been made to a rule of Greek grammar formulated by E. C. Colwell.
There are other scholars that comment on this passage, but Colwell's
rule is the one that has been shown to me on several occasions.
Usually the rule that was quoted to me, comes from a Book entitled
"The Kingdom of The Cults" by Walter Martin. He puts
Cowells rule this way in the book. "Cowells rule clearly states
that a definite predicate nominative (Theos -
God) never takes an article when it precedes the verb (was) as in
John 1:1" Kingdom
of the cults 1975, 75. Mr
Martain goes on to say, "There can be no direct object
following was since
according to grammatical usage intransitive verbs take no objects but
take instead predicate nominatives which refer bach to the subject,
in this case word
(Logos)". I
have had this pointed out to me to show that the "Word"(logos)
is directly related to Ho Theos. Interesting to note that JWs do not
say that a direct object follows was. For
me that makes Mr Martins assertions invalid.
But
the Question still has to be asked, Does his rule (Colwell's) really
prove their point? Consider what Colwell himself has actually said.
In
1933, he published an article in the Journal
of Biblical Literature entitled:
"A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New
Testament." Toward the close of his article he discusses John
1:1. The latter part of this verse reads literally in the Greek: "AND
GOD WAS THE WORD." Notice that a definite article "THE"
appears before "WORD," while no "THE" appears
before "GOD." Colwell’s rule regarding translation of the
Greek says: "A
definite predicate nominative [for
example, "GOD" at John 1:1] has
the article ["THE"] when
it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes
the verb."
In other words, if always true, the rule says that at John 1:1 a
"THE" before "GOD" is implied in the original
language and should therefore appear in modern translations.
His
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.
So
in spite of the strong, assertive language on the part of some,
Colwell’s "rule" of itself or other rules do not
‘necessitate’ one rendering over another at John
1:1.
Rather, how the translator interprets the surrounding verses
and, indeed, the rest of the Bible—this is what would determine how
he translates John
1:1.
Now
take notice of the context of the chapter John
1- 4 This
rendering comes from the New World Translation , but take notice of
the highlighted words and check them in other versions "1 In
[the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God.
3 All things came into existence through him,
and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has
come into existence 4 by
means of
him was life, and the life was the light of men."
Also
note John
1:18 "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. " All the words that
are initalics and underlined,
show that there was more than one individual being talked about here.
(In my discussions with Trinitarians, it amazes me as to how many do
not comprehend these words and their significance). This is further
verified by Col
1:15-17. "15
He is the image of
the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by
means of
him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the
earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether
they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All
[other] things have been createdthrough him
and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by
means of
him all [other] things were made to exist " (I discuss Col
1:15-17 further down the page as many people object to the insertion,
even in brackets of the word [other])
The
[ ] denote words inserted by the New World Translation to complete
the sense of the text.
That
is why those above-quoted writers are so dogmatic in their
statements. To them, Jesus is God himself. One of them refers to
"Jesus Christ, who is truly God and truly man." Another
observes that "Christ claimed equality with Jehovah."
Obviously, given a choice, would they not want John
1:1 translated
to give apparent support to their own views?
On
the other hand, a person who accepts Jesus’ plain statement that
"the Father is greater than I am" will realise that Jesus
is not equal to the Almighty Jehovah. (John
14:28)
Yet, this does not mean that Jesus cannot be referred to as "god"
in some sense of the word. Recall Exodus
4:16;
does not Jehovah there say to Mosses, "And thou shalt be to
[Aaron] instead of God"? (AV) But this did not make Mosses God
Almighty, did it? The term "god" is applied even to the
Devil, since he is a mighty creature controlling the existing system
of things. (2
Cor. 4:4)
Certainly, then, Jesus, who has been exalted over all other creation
and granted the exercise of great power in heaven and earth by his
Father, can be referred to as "a god." Such a rendering
conveys the dignity and respect Jesus is due while at the same time
it avoids giving any reader the impression that Jesus is God Almighty
himself.
The
assumed grammatical "rule" in connection with John 1:1 is
only one of many that is appealed to for apparent support of certain
religious ideas. But it serves to illustrate the point: the real
issue involves more than grammar.
Grammatical
rules are necessary to understand a language. But they have
limitations. As the Encyclopedia
Americana states:
"Everywhere we find grammar working upon a language already made
. . . the office of grammar has been, not to fix what a language
should be, or must be, but to explain what an already existing
language is. Grammar is explanatory and not creative."
Accordingly,
even with regard to living languages it should be remembered that, in
the last analysis, their ‘grammar’ does not come from ‘grammar
books.’ As a professor of English at the University of Chicago
notes: "In the usage of native speakers, whatever is, is right."
Those who speak a language, especially the ‘better educated’
people—not arbitrary rule makers—ultimately determine what is
‘correct’ or ‘incorrect.’
This
same principle holds true with regard to the grammar of Biblical
Greek. Its purpose is to explain how things are said and not to try
to impose on the original language what the modern grammarian
thinks should be
said. Such ‘grammar’ must be drawn from what the Biblical Greek
text itself actually says. Even other writings in the Greek language,
but of a different age or from another part of the world, are of only
limited value in arriving at an understanding of the Scriptures. As
prominent Greek grammarian A. T. Robertson once put it: "What we
wish to know is not what was good Greek at Athens in the days of
Pericles, but what was good Greek in Syria and Palestine in the first
century A.D." Yes, the Bible’s text itself in particular must
reveal what is acceptable in the matter of its grammar.
Thus,
the person unschooled in the original Bible languages need not be
overawed by those who cite grammatical rules. No rule of grammar will
contradict the overall message of the Bible. Similarly, the honest
Biblical teacher knows that it is the text
of the Bible that
is inspired. Grammatical rule books are not, though they are helpful.
Now
lets change a couple of words so as to take the text out of a
Biblical setting, but leave the sentence construction the same. Note
the following example:
In
[the] beginning was the apprentice and the apprentice was
with THE BUILDER and builder was
the apprentice.
When
I look at that sentence I see two individuals
mentioned, the builder who is in charge and the apprentice who takes
direction from the builder. The word "builder" in lower
case letters is what is known as a predicate noun, it describes
a quality of the apprentice, he is doing the work of a
builder without
being THE BUILDER.
Just
as the "builder" in lower case letters is what is known as
a predicate noun, it describes a quality about the apprentice,
the words "a god" describes a quality of the
Logos. Some Bibles render that last clause as the Word
was divine or godlike.
(with
the above example some people have thought I was saying Jesus was an
“apprentice” god – that is not what I am saying it is for an
illustration purpose only)
Another example that I use, is as follows (the first part is written in
all capitals and same grammar as the oldest Greek texts – then in
English according to our gramma)
IN BEGINNING WAS THE BOY AND THE BOY WAS WITH THE MAN AND BOY WAS MAN.
In
(the) beginning was the boy and the boy was with the man and the boy
was a man.
It
does not make complete sense in English to say “the boy was man”,
even if we do, we naturally understand that they are two separate and
distinct individuals. Just as the boy has the same nature as the man
– both are human, the Word and God have the same nature – Both
are spirits – see John
4:24
“God
is a Spirit” and after his resurrection we are told that Jesus
“became a life-giving spirit” 1
Corinthians 15:45
Now
lets take a moment to consider what the word God means. It is NOT a
name but a title to describe a quality of the one with the
title. Among
the Hebrew words that are translated "God" is ´El, The New
Strongs Concordance links EL (reference number 410) with ELOHEEM
(Ref. Nu. 430) and ELOAH (Ref. Nu. 433). The base word El meaning
"strength" and or "mighty". Rightly so then, the
base for the words translated God means "Mighty One".
To
expand on the apprentice and builder further, in the state where I
live, (South Australia), when a builder is doing a job, he has to put
a sign up saying who he is. Lets call this Builder "Allan Brooks
Construction". Now lets assume he builds 100 homes a year. With
a large building firm, the person with their name on the sign
does all
the organising, directing and takes responsibility for a project,
but may never actually turn up on the job.. He delegates the work to
his workers. Anyone walking past the construction site will see the
name of Allan Brooks and will associate that project with that
person. Even though Mr Brooks may never show up on that site he
is totally responsible for
the job. If it is good, he gets the praise, and if there are
problems, he takes the responsibility for them. Anyone walking past
the building site will automatically associate the job with the name
on the sign.
If
asked, both the workers on the building site, and THE BUILDER (in
this case Mr Brooks), can rightly say (or be referred to as the one),
that they built a certain house. One for actually doing the work, and
the other for PLANNING and ORGANISING the project. In my knowledge of
the building industry, if Mr Brook, as
the one being totally responsible,
was describing to someone else a job that he was responsible for, he
can rightly say, that he alone with no one to help did a given
project, and his listener would understand the context of his
statement.
Now
both the builder and his workers can say that they built a certain
project. The builder for his INSTIGATING and ORGANISING the project,
and the workers who actually did the work. The same principle we can
apply to Jesus and his father. Jehovah
INSTIGATES and ORGANISES certain
actions, (creating, saving, judging) and Jesus carries these through.
Both can be said to do the same action. (As a side line here, with
reference to the previous paragraph, Jehovah can rightly say as he
did in Is.
44:24 "I,
Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself,
laying out the earth. Who was with me?" For more details on this
Text see the Trinity Exposed web site)
The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly,
Vol. XIII, No. 4, October 1951, observed: "Grammar alone cannot
prove how the predicate in this verse should be translated, whether
‘God’ or ‘a god.’" And indicating propriety for the
rendering "a god," The
New American Bible (1970)
in its section "Biblical Terms Explained" says under the
word "God": "In Jn 1:1, the Word is called ‘God’
but the original Greek term used here, theos [God],
is not the usual word for God, ho
theos [the
God]."
The
truth is, just how John 1:1 should be translated cannot be definitely
determined solely by rules of Greek grammar. As Divinity Professor
John Martin Creed noted: "The Prologue [John 1:1] is less
explicit in Greek with the anarthrous [theos without
the article ho (the)]
than it appears to be in English."
Thus
this text alone is inconclusive in identifying whether Jesus is truly
"God," or is a subordinate, lesser "god." Do the
few other texts where "Jesus is, or might be, alluded to as
‘God’" prove that he is really Almighty God? Some of these
will be dealt with later.
Originally,
this page finished here, but, due to e-mail that I received, there
were many who said that the reasoning's I had presented did not fit
the context of such Scriptures as Isaiah
43:10 .
Yes I must admit that context involves more than just surrounding
texts. The whole Bible must be considered in order to see what God
really has imparted to us, so we will consider Isaiahs words in light
of what opposers have to say and try to examine the original meanings
of that text. Isaiah
43: (RSV)
says "Before
me no God was formed, nor shall there be any after me"
Also
this reasoning has been put forward as to why the way John 1:1 is
treated in the NWT . The following quote comes from a paper prepared
by Larry Ingram in his discussion on John 1:1 as found on the net
"….To
further substantiate point 5 above, The New Treasury of Scripture
Knowledge points out, translators and translations which choose to
render this phrase `a god' or `divine' are motivated by theological,
not grammatical, considerations. The phrase `a god' is particularly
objectionable, because it makes Christ a lesser god, which is
polytheism, and contrary to the express declaration of Scripture
elsewhere (Deut. 32:39).[This text says as per NWT "SEE now
that I—I am he And there are no gods together with me"] For
clearly if Christ is `a god,' the he must be either a `true god' or
`false god.' If `true,' we assert polytheism; if `false,' he is
unworthy of credence."
Some
have posted the question to me, HOW CAN JESUS CHRIST BE "a god"
when even the New World Translation states,
"you are my
witnesses, is the utterances of Jehovah, even my servant whom [I]
have chosen, in order that you may know and have faith in me, and
that you may understand that I am the same One. Before
me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none.
I ----- I am Jehovah and besides me there is no Savior"
(Isaiah 43:10, NWT)?
Before
we start to examine the CONTEXT of this verse lets see something
about what the Hebrew language says about the words "god".
It is important to understand the usage of these old words in
translating into a modern language. It is also important to recognise
the settings. The nation of Israel come out of a land full of false
gods (Egypt) and were to take possession of a land where the people
worshiped many gods. So the people of Israel were well accustomed to
various "gods". With their exit from Egypt they experienced
the might of this God of their forefathers, but they were so
accustomed to the other gods that He had to keep reminding them as to
who he was.
I
am going to repeat something I said earlier and then build on it.
Most of what is written here is not mine but sourced from other
places, and rearranged.
Among
the Hebrew words that are translated "God" is ´El, The New
Strongs Concordance links EL (reference number 410) with ELOHEEM
(Ref. Nu. 430) and ELOAH (Ref. Nu. 433). The base word El meaning
"strength" and or "mighty". Rightly so then, the
base for the words translated God means "Mighty One". It is
used with reference to Jehovah, to other gods, and to men. It is also
used extensively in the make up of proper names, such as Elisha
meaning "God Is Salvation" and Michael ("Who Is Like
God?"). In some places ´El appears with the definite article
(ha·´El', literally, "the God") with reference to
Jehovah, thereby distinguishing him from other gods.-Ge
46:3; 2Sa 22:31; see NW appendix, p.
1567. At Isaiah
9:6 Jesus Christ is
prophetically called ´El Gib·bohr', "Mighty God" (not ´El
Shad·dai' [God Almighty], which is applied to Jehovah at Genesis
17:1).
The
plural form, ´e·lim', is used when referring to other gods, such as
at Exodus 15:11 ("gods"). It is also used as the plural of
majesty and excellence, as in Psalm
89:6: "Who can resemble Jehovah
among the sons of God [bi·beneh' ´E·lim']?" That the plural
form is used to denote a single individual here and in a number of
other places is supported by the translation of ´E·lim' by the
singular form The·os' in the Greek Septuagint; likewise by Deus in
the Latin Vulgate.
The
Hebrew word ´elo·him' (gods) appears to be from a root meaning "be
strong." ´Elo·him' is the plural of ´eloh'ah (god). Sometimes
this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge
31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it
is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ´Elo·him'
is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to
angels, to idol gods(singular and plural), and to men.
When
applying to Jehovah, ´Elo·him' is used as a plural of majesty,
dignity, or excellence. (Ge
1:1) ( What does the term a plural
of majesty, dignity, or excellence mean. In English we have a term
that closely resembles that and that is what we call the "ROYAL
WE". It was used by royalty to refer to them selves. Eg we may
have seen old movies about Queen Victoria, and she would often use
phrases like "We are not amused". That phrase referred to
herself and not the people with her.) Regarding this, Aaron Ember
wrote: "That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely
given up the idea of plurality in . . . [´Elo·him'] (as applied to
the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost
invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a
singular adjectival attribute. . . . [´Elo·him'] must rather be
explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty,
being equal to The Great God."-The American Journal of Semitic
Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.
The
title ´Elo·him' draws attention to Jehovah's strength as the
Creator. It appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation,
and every time the verb describing what he said and did is in the
singular number. (Ge
1:1-2:4) In him resides the sum and
substance of infinite forces. At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also
referred to as ´elo·him', as is confirmed by Paul's quotation of
the passage atHebrews
2:6-8. They are called beneh'
ha·´Elo·him', "sons of God" (KJ); "sons of the true
God" (NW), at Genesis
6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1. Lexicon in
Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page
134, says: "(individual) divine beings, gods." And page 51
says: "the (single) gods," and it cites Genesis
6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence,
at Psalm
8:5 ´elo·him' is rendered
"angels" (LXX); "godlike ones" (NW).
The
word ´elo·him' is also used when referring to idol gods. Sometimes
this plural form means simply "gods." (Ex
12:12; 20:23) At other times it is
the plural of excellence and only one god (or goddess) is referred
to. However,
these gods were clearly not trinities.-1Sa
5:7b (Dagon); 1Ki
11:5 ("goddess"
Ashtoreth); Da
1:2b (Marduk).
At Psalm
82:1, 6, ´elo·him' is used of men,
human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John
10:34, 35. They were gods in their
capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly
Moses was told that he was to serve as "God" to Aaron and
to Pharaoh.-Ex 4:16
In
many places in the Scriptures ´Elo·him' is also found preceded by
the definite article ha. (Ge
5:22) Concerning the use of
ha·´Elo·him', F. Zorell says: "In the Holy Scriptures
especially the one true God, Jahve, is designated by this word; . . .
'Jahve is the [one true] God' De
4:35; 4:39; Jos 22:34; 2Sa 7:28; 1Ki 8:60 etc."-Lexicon
Hebraicum Veteris Testamenti, Rome, 1984, p. 54; brackets his.
The
Greek Term. The usual Greek equivalent of ´El and ´Elo·him' in the
Septuagint translation and the word for "God" or "god"
in the Christian Greek Scriptures is the·os'.
First,
let's deal with the context of the majority of the previous chapters
of Isaiah leading up to, and well past the 43 chapter of Isaiah. Upon
a close study, we find that these chapters are dealing primarily with
the false idol gods the nation of Israel was getting involved with,
verses the one True God of Israel, namely Jehovah. Notice that
Jehovah says: "....before me there was no God formed, and after
me there continued to be none [formed] "
Is
it not surprising then, that Jehovah would make a statement as he did
at Isaiah 43:10.
Even calling the nation of Israel "witnesses" to his
Godship. They witnessed marvellous acts of Jehovah on behalf of his
people. Let's look at Isaiah
43:2,3 of the same chapter:
"When you pass
through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they
shall not overwhelm you. when you walk through the fire, you shall
not be burned, and the flame shall not consume you. For I am Jehovah
your God, the Holy One of Israel your Savior. I have given Egypt as a
ransom for you, Ethiopia and Se'ba in place of you."
Yes,
from Jehovah's standpoint, all the dungy idols of the pagan nations
that were surrounding Israel and being brought into the pure worship
of Jehovah were something detestable to him. He consistently reminded
his people to "make
no graven images" before him.
The gods of the nation's time after time proved powerless as compared
to Jehovah's awesome demonstrations of the miraculous protection he
showed to his people. Yet, Israel continued to be involved in false
worship by means of making and worshipping idols.
With
this having been said, how is it that ANY god could be formed before
or after Jehovah? The fact is, there could NOT be any god formed
before or after Jehovah because the gods being mentioned and spoken
about that the nation of Israel could identify with were FALSE IDOL
GODS! Yes, the "CONTEXT" IS DEALING WITH THE FALSE IDOLS
THE NATION OF ISRAEL HAD BEEN INVOLVED WITH! Lets see proof of this.
Isaiah
40:18 reads: "And
to whom can YOU people liken God, and what likeness can YOU put
alongside him? The craftsman has cast a mere molten image, and with
gold the metalworker overlays it, and silver chains he is forging. A
certain tree as a contribution, a tree that is not rotten, he
chooses. A skillful craftsman he searches out for himself, to prepare
a carved image that may not be made to totter."
Isaiah
40:25 reads: "But
to whom can YOU people liken me so that I should be made his equal?"
says the Holy One."
Isaiah
41:28 reads: "And
I kept seeing, and there was not a man; and out of these there was
also no one that was giving counsel. And I kept asking them, that
they might make a reply. Look! All of them are something nonexistent.
Their works are nothing. Their molten images are wind and unreality."
Isaiah
42:17 reads: "They
must be turned back, they will be very much ashamed, those who are
putting trust in the carved image, those who are saying to a molten
image: "YOU are our gods."
Isaiah
44:8,9,10 reads: "Do
not be in dread, YOU people, and do not become stupefied. Have I not
from that time on caused you individually to hear and told [it] out?
And YOU are my witnesses. Does there exist a God besides me? No,
there is no Rock. I have recognised none.'" "The formers of
the carved image are all of them an unreality, and their darlings
themselves will be of no benefit; and as their witnesses they see
nothing and know nothing, in order that they may be ashamed. Who has
formed a god or cast a mere molten image? Of no benefit at all has it
been."
Isaiah
44:15,16,17 reads: "And
it has become [something] for man to keep a fire burning. So he takes
part of it that he may warm himself. In fact he builds a fire and
actually bakes bread. He also works on a god to which he may bow
down. He has made it into a carved image, and he prostrates himself
to it. Half of it he actually burns up in a fire. Upon half of it he
roasts well the flesh that he eats, and he becomes satisfied. He also
warms himself and says: "Aha! I have warmed myself. I have seen
the firelight. "But the remainder of it he actually makes into a
god itself, into his carved image. He prostrates himself to it and
bows down and prays to it and says: "Deliver me, for you are my
god."
Thus
we can see that the gods Jehovah is being compared to,
are IDOLS formed
or made by man and worshipped instead of Jehovah. Therefore NO God
(that is, an idol made or formed by man) was formed BEFORE Jehovah
THAT WAS REAL or ALIVE or ABLE to deliver them, and after Jehovah
there continued to be none! For they never existed! Yes, the nation
of Israel (along with the nations round about) made idols, but they
were stone, or wood, and NOT alive or REAL or able to provide any
salvation for them ever! Thus how foolish the nation was when they
had a God like Jehovah to protect them.
Though
some man-made idols may seem lifelike-often with a mouth, eyes, and
ears-they cannot speak, see, or hear, and they can do nothing for
their devotees. (Psalm
135:15-18) This was shown in the
eighth century B.C.E., when God's prophet recorded at Isaiah
43:8-28 what is, in effect, a
court case between Jehovah and idol-gods. In it God's people Israel
were on one side, and the worldly nations on the other. Jehovah
challenged the false gods of the nations to tell "the
first things," to prophesy
accurately. Not one could do so. Turning to his people, Jehovah said:
"You are my
witnesses .. . . and I am God." The
nations could not prove that their gods existed ahead of Jehovah or
that they could prophesy. But Jehovah foretold Babylon's ruin and the
release of his captive people.
Just
for interest, here is a list of other translations and the way they
translate John 1:1. I sourced this list from a public forum in June
1998
* 1768 and was himself a divine person ....... Harwood * 1808 and the word was a god .....................Newcome * 1829 the Logos was a god ..........................Thompson * 1864 and a god was the Word .....................Wilson (Int) * 1939 the Word was divine ..........................Goodspeed * 1947 the Word was god ............................. Torrey * 1961 what God was,the Word was ............. New English * 1972 the Logos was divine ........................ Moffatt * 1973 The Word was with God and shared his nature .................................... Translator's NT * 1976 the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God ................ Barclay * 1978 and godlike sort was the Logos ........ Schneider * 1985 the Word was divine ......................... Schonfield * 1989 what God was, the Word was ............ Revised English * 1993 The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was .......Scholars Version * 1994 the Word was a divine Being ............................ Madsen * 1979 ein Gott war das Logos [a God/god was the Logos/logos] ...........................Becker * 1907 Das Wort war selbst go:ttlichen Wesens [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being] . Stage * 1910 Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being] ............................... Bhmer * 1919 Gott von Art war das Wort [God of Kind/kind was the Word/word] ............... Thimme * 1920 Gott (von Art) war der Logos [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] ........................................... Baumgarten et.al * 1926 ein Gott war der Gedanke [a God/god was the Thought/thought] ..................Holzmann * 1938 selbst ein Gott war das Wort [itself a God/god was the Word/word] ................ Rittelmeyer * 1945 Ordet var av guddomsart [the Word was of divine kind] ........................... Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology) * 1949 war von go:ttlicher Wucht [was of divine Kind/kind] ...................................Pfa:fflin * 1957 go:ttlichen Wesen hatte das Wort [godlike Being/being had the Word/word] ….......... Albrecht * 1960 verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen [the word of the world was a divine being] ..............Smit * 1961 Gott (= go:ttlichen Wesens) war das Wort [God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word) .. Menge * 1980 Gott (von Art) war der Logos [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] …......... Haenchen * 1982 r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich [He was with God and in all like God] ............... Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch * 1984 divine (of the category divinity) was the Logos Haenchen ..................................... (tr. by R.Funk) * 1987 ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word] ............................................. Schultz
I
hope all the above has shed some light on the subject, and
demonstrates that the way the NWT translates John 1:1 is DIFFERENT
and not WRONG
No comments:
Post a Comment