Pages

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

JWs are correct about John 1:1, Jesus is not God!

Jehovah's Witnesses are famous for their claim that Jesus in not God, and that John 1:1 confirms this. What most Christians don't realize is that the JWs are actually correct on this point, John 1:1 does not teach Jesus is God. Before people get worried, I assure you that there is a "happy ending" to all this (though not as you might be expecting).
The following are quotes from some of the JW's most authoritative publications, specifically the areas where John 1:1 is being addressed (all red highlights by me; all other formatting is in the original; abbreviations correspond to different translations of the Bible; "NW" is the JW's own "house" translation):
Does John 1:1 prove that Jesus is God?

John 1:1, RS: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [also KJ, JB, Dy, Kx, NAB].” NE reads “what God was, the Word was.” Mo says “the Logos was divine.” AT and Sd tell us “the Word was divine.” The interlinear rendering of ED is “a god was the Word.” NW reads “the Word was a god”; NTIV uses the same wording.

What is it that these translators are seeing in the Greek text that moves some of them to refrain from saying “the Word was God”? The definite article (the) appears before the first occurrence of theos (God) but not before the second. The articular (when the article appears) construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous (without the article) predicate noun before the verb (as the sentence is constructed in Greek) points to a quality about someone. So the text is not saying that the Word (Jesus) was the same as the God with whom he was but, rather, that the Word was godlike, divine, a god. (See 1984 Reference edition of NW, p. 1579.)
(Reasoning from the Scriptures, page 212)

...verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.” Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Heb. 1:3.

Is the rendering “a god” consistent with the rules of Greek grammar? Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, “The Word was God.” But not all agree. In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word theos′ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, JB and KJ both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.”

John J. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.

In harmony with the above, AT reads: “the Word was divine”; Mo, “the Logos was divine”; NTIV, “the word was a god.” In his German translation Ludwig Thimme expresses it in this way: “God of a sort the Word was.” (Reasoning from the Scriptures, page 416)

AT JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Trinitarians claim that this means that “the Word” (Greek, ho lo′gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself.

Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, “The Word was with God.” (Italics ours.) Someone who is “with” another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean “the” God, this “would then contradict the preceding clause,” which says that the Word was with God.

Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:
1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.
1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun theos′ (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was (“and the Word [lo′gos] was with God [a form of theos′]”). This first theos′ is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God (“and the Word was with [the] God”).

On the other hand, there is no article before the second theos′ at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, “and god was the Word.” Yet we have seen that many translations render this second theos′ (a predicate noun) as “divine,” “godlike,” or “a god.” On what authority do they do this?

The Koine Greek language had a definite article (“the”), but it did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.

The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions “with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.” As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo′gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: “The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [theos′] cannot be regarded as definite.”

So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was “divine,” “godlike,” “a god,” but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called “the Word” in his role as God’s Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.
(Should You Believe in The Trinity, pages 26-27)
The JW "New World Translation Reference Bible" (Section 6a, page 1579), the JW encyclopedia "Insight on the Scriptures" (Volume 2, subject "Jesus Christ," pages 53-54), and the Watchtower (4/1/2009, pages 18-19), and many more such official JW references, all repeat or rephrase what was quoted above. (Please ask if you want these quotes!)

The following reading of John 1:1 is an example that will succinctly demonstrate what the official JW position is trying to convey in the above quotes:
In the beginning was the Son, 
and the Son was with the Father, 
and the Son was the Father
With this in mind, note what the official teaching of the Catholic Church is on the Holy Trinity, in summary form:
The Church uses (I) the term "substance" (rendered also at times by "essence" or "nature") to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term "person" or "hypostasis" to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term "relation" to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 255 and surrounding)
In 'plain English', the above quote is saying the Dogma of the Trinity (which all Christians agree upon) teaches that there are Three *distinct* Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each fully possessing the One *nature* of Divine (or Godhood). The *categories* of "person" and "nature" are not the same - and the Church has always noted that most errors regarding the Trinity stem from failing to make the proper distinction between "person" and "nature".

If the above distinction doesn't seem to make sense, consider the following example (and though imperfect, it helps get the point across): Abraham was a distinct *person* from his son Isaac, yet both shared the *same nature* (both were humans by nature). For the JWs to explicitly and repeatedly affirm comments such as "Trinitarians claim that this means that 'the Word' who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself" is utterly false and inaccurate, and reveal a total misunderstanding of the *proper* understanding of the Trinity.

Over and over in JW literature, especially in the above quotes, the JW goal is to attack the notion the Father and the Son are the same person, and in doing so they *project* this incorrect meaning onto the Christian reading of John 1:1c. In short, the JW claims make sense but are ultimately misled, for they *think* that when Christians say "the Word was God" that they *mean* "the Son was the Father." While JWs are *right* to object to this meaning, they fail to realize Christians reject that meaning as well, and that's because it isn't the proper understanding of the Trinity.

Lastly, note that the JWs repeatedly quote scholars and other translations expressly denying the erroneous reading of "and the Son was the Father," and Christians should expect this, for it is an error! At the same time, note the JWs repeately quote scholars and other translations stating the Word (the person of the Son) was Divine, Theos, Godlike, etc, as a quality of the Word's *nature*.

With this in mind, the JWs are doubly exposed: first, as projecting a false understanding of the Trinity on John 1:1 and accusing Christians of teaching this; second, openly (though unknowingly) admitting the true Christian sense of John 1:1, which is that theos (god) is speaking of Divine or Godlike according to the Word's Nature. It is in this (latter) sense that Christians say "Jesus is God," and this is precisely what John is saying in Greek while excluding the error of "the Son was the Father".

When speaking with JWs, be extremely careful and don't engage them unless you really know what you're doing. Also, see my other blog articles on JWs for other arguments against them.

31 comments:

Marco said...

Great post! Greetings from Montreal! You are bang on about the Jehovah's Witnesses and there many attempt at biblical scholarship...unfortunately the Watchtower doesn't let them read Catholic material.

www.prime1-marco.blogspot.com

JohnOneOne said...

Regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you to know that there is soon to be published an 18+ year study (as of 05/2010) in support and explanation of their wording of this verse entitled, "What About John 1:1?"

To learn more of its design and expected release date, we invite you to visit:

http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

Agape, JohnOneOne.

Anonymous said...

John,

You're over thinking the whole situation. Two facts are explicitly admitted by the JW's own dogmatic publications: (1) They misunderstand the actual Christian teaching while accusing Christians of believing it; (2) they explicitly make numerous references as to their intent about what 1:1c really means, applying to the Word's Nature (theos).

Tap said...

you might want to edit this part of you post:

"For the JWs to explicitly and repeatedly affirm comments such as "Trinitarians claim that this means that 'the Word' who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself" is utterly false and inaccurate, and reveal a total misunderstanding of the *proper* understanding of the Trinity."


Jesus is Almighty God, to deny that is to deny Catholic doctrine.

Just because we have the apellation "almighty" does not mean it has to refer to the Father alone. "Almighty" is word referencing to 'Power' which is not in anyway different between father and son. We have really to get over some of this "subordinationist" notions of the Logos. Isaiah did not hesitate to call the Logos 'Almighty"
I understand what you were trying to say, but you wording is problematic.

Nathan said...

Ο Χριστός Παντοκράτωρ

Christ Almighty! Christ Pantokrator: famous icon.

Nick said...

Tap and Nathan,

Thanks for your comments.

Tap, I understand your point, but the JWs are in fact reading "Almighty God" as referencing "God the Father Almighty," which is speaking of the Person. They conflate personhood with nature, which is why there is confusion. I can say "God Almighty" speaking of Nature and say this applies to the Father and Son, but that's not what the JWs are saying. The JWs are speaking only of Personhood, thus creating a false-dillemah and in fact error.

Stephanie said...

Hi Nick,

Sharing with you what Lord revealed to me through meditating the word of Christ in 2008:

John 1-5

In the beginning was the Word,

Lord: 'The Word was spoken by Father God'

And the Word was with God,

Lord: 'Lord Jesus is the Word, He was with Father God'

And the Word was God.

Lord: 'Lord Jesus is the spoken Word of Father God'


He was with God in the beginning.

Lord: 'Lord Jesus and Father God are 1. They are part of each other.'


Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Lord: 'Through Lord Jesus, the Word of Christ, the world was formed. When the Word is spoken, the life of Christ will form into the spoken things (physical things). Holy Spirit is the one who form it. All living things and non-living things are formed by the life of Christ! The Life of Christ holds all things together.'


In him was life,

Lord: 'In Jesus, all things work in order. Without Him, things fall apart.'


And that life was the light of men.

Lord: 'Lord Jesus is the way to heaven. Each step He leads is a step closer to the way to heaven. When you walk closely to Lord Jesus, you will have the heaven-on-earth enjoyment.'


The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it

Lord: 'Father God through His Spoken Word and Lord Jesus, the Spoken Word, has made the whole universe and all the lives in it. The world does not know.'

Nick said...

Hi,

You are largely correct about how to properly read John 1:1. Thanks be to God.

diff said...

I've used a similar argument in the past and was accused of modalism.

larskasch5 said...

Unless I'm hearing you wrong, you're saying that Jesus is God only in nature? He forgave sin Lk 5:20,21; creator Col 1:16; is eternal Jn 8:58; He was always with the Father & Spirit and was God at the same time. Please tell me I heard you wrong.

Nick said...

Hello larskasch,

I am saying Jesus is a Divine Person with a Divine Nature, and that the JWs don't differentiate between the two. This is perfectly orthodox Christology, and doesn't contradict any of those passages.

adthelad said...

Thank you Nick - the JW's are wrong because they refuse to take the implications of John seriously, as they fail to take Jesus telling his followers they must eat his body and frink his blood. There is a very good explanation here http://tinyurl.com/psxyvuh which comes as a download text file from Kevin Alan Lewis of Biola University. When read with the understanding that the passage harks back to Genesis 1:1 and that for all Jews there was only one God, the passage cannot be read as meaning the Word was a separate god. 'In the beginning...' means before everything else. This is why the JW's also add the word 'other' in their translation, as in 'through Him all (other) things were made' i.e.e they add a word which is not there to maintain their 'take' on the Bible. God is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. 3 in 1, but the JW's just don't want to know. Oh well :\
Best wishes,
Adam

Thomas Dickensheets said...

Subtracting From the Deity of Jesus
The Bible is quite explicit when it states that Jesus was God incarnate. The
first verse in the Gospel of John makes this point by stating “the Word [Jesus] was
God.” Other New Testament writers also affirm, in their own way, that Jesus was
fully God. These same authors are also quite forthright about Jesus’ humanity.
Again, the Gospel of John states that this same “Word [Jesus] was made flesh and
dwelt among us” (John 1:18). While the Bible clearly states that within Jesus’
unique nature He was both fully God and fully man, the cults disagree.

Thomas Dickensheets said...

ALL OBJECTIONS TO JESUS BEING JEHOVAH FAIL
"Jesus is `a' god, not `the' God" The Watchtower Society's New World Translation renders Jn 1:1 as "... and the Word was a god." But the original Greek is, kai theos en ho logos ("and God was the Word"). That is, the pre-incarnate Son (Jn 1:14) shared the Father's God-nature. New Testament Greek does not have an indefinite article ("a") as English does, so the absence of the definite article ho ("the") before a noun, e.g. "God," does not mean it is indefinite. In the same chapter the word "God" appears without the definite article in Jn 1:6,12,13,18 but the NWT each time translates it as "God" without the indefinite article "a". The NWT's "a god" translation of John 1:1 makes Jehovah's Witnesses polytheists: those who believe in the existence of more than one true god. That is unless they wish to claim that Jesus is a false god! And the Apostle John, being a devout Jew, was a monotheist: one who believed in the existence of only one true God (Jn 17:3). So the NWT's "a god" translation of John 1:1 cannot be correct, and in fact all mainstream English translations render John 1:1 "... and the Word was God" (e.g. ASV, ESV, KJV, NIV, RSV, NASB & NKJV).

Thomas Dickensheets said...

THE NWT of John 1:1

JW's big God and little god. The Watchtower, in an effort to remove any threat of the Bible teaching the deity of Christ, has ended up in an even worse situation after tempering with this verse. Polytheism is now introduced into its theology, something which time and time again the Bible forbids (Is 43:10; 44:6, 8; 45:21-23). We may ask: "If Jesus is 'a god' why don't you worship him? What are gods for? A: to be worshipped. If Jehovah made this god (Jesus) then he must be a true god (and approved). Therefore, he cannot be false, it must be right to worship him. The why must he not be worshipped? How do you feel about a god you are not allowed to worship?" The outcome is obvious. Jesus Christ can never, ever be a god.

Thomas Dickensheets said...

However, the facts are that the Watchtower Society knew, at least from 1956, that Johannes Greber was involved with demon spirits. They published an article to that effect in the Watchtower of February 15, 1956. With this knowledge, they deliberately used his "translation" of the bible as a basis for their "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures", in 1961.

Thomas Dickensheets said...

We have already established that there is ONE TRUE GOD by nature. Now we ask the Jehovah's Witnesses the key question -- Is Jesus a true god or a false god? They will have to admit that Jesus is a true god. This forces them to believe in more than one true god! You can't believe in two true gods as the J.W.'s do and still be a Christian and a Bible believer! This is a real dilemma for Jehovah's Witnesses.

I remember presenting this concept to one Jehovah's Witness. I then asked, "how many gods do Jehovah's Witnesses believe in?" After thinking over the matter carefully, and pondering at some length, the Jehovah's Witness finally replied, "one and a half!" The explanation was of course, that they believe Jehovah [God one] created Jesus [god two], but Jesus was at the same time the archangel Michael, so Jesus became "sort of a hybrid being, a god/archangel Michael" at the same time! This reasoning also makes them polytheists, as does their rendering of John 1:1 in their "New World Translation" of the bible.

" In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god".

No reputable Bible scholars will endorse this [mis]translation. The text should read "and the Word [Jesus] was God".

Thomas Dickensheets said...

I ask Who was the word with? They reply God the Father, Jehovah. Right I reply, you believe there is only one God right. They reply in the affirmative, of course that’s what the Bible teaches. Now lets look right after "the word was "a" God" how many Gods is that, Jehovah the Father is God (that's one) and now the son is called God, that’s two isn’t it? Here’s where they get into a semantical jungle of an almighty God and a mighty God. Instead of arguing against their interpretation I use their view as if its true to show them the flaw in their logic. I then ask If God says there is only one God it doesn’t matter if one is mighty or almighty, one of them is a false God. Then I ask them is Jesus a false God? They of course would say no. Then my reply is then he must be a a true God. Is Jehovah the Father a false God? They reply, of course not. Then I help them count them again and say Jn.1:1 has two Gods according to your teaching-- two Gods not one, that’s not Monotheism, that is paganism. I’m sorry I didn’t have a camera available for the expressions I’ve seen from this dialogue, but its worth its weight in gold. Reactions can be from them running away and then coming back with an answer such as "at least I’m going door to door, to one woman who looked so perplexed and exasperated that she actually said "so were pagans"!

Thomas Dickensheets said...

So Jesus is false god in NWT John 1:1. Is this true! I ask JW's.

Anonymous said...

How about 1 John 5:20


Roman Karamalak said...

1 John 5;20 States clearly that Jesus is a true God. Folks don't let you faith be shaken by this FalseBlogPost. Here's the proof.

20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

jeremi dalton said...

I agree with JW's rendition of John 1v1 The logos cannot be GOD but a god in light of 1corithians 15vs27&28. I think 1cor put to rest any notion that Jesus is the Almighty God. Even Isiah called him a mighty GOD.

Mickey Smith said...

John 1:1 does say that Jesus is God!
Both you and the JW's are wrong!

What JW's do is IGNORE the prophecies that correlate similarities between Christ and God.
Please study my NEW Prophecy Chart which shows through the scriptures that Jesus is God.
There are 103 scripture references and 267 verses in the chart.

http://JESUSisGOD.com/PROPHECYCHARTJESUSISGOD.htm

Thomas Dickensheets said...

John 1:1, 14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and Word was God. 14. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.

I. This shows that Jesus is God in flesh.

(Cults don't believe Jesus is God in flesh are going to hell)

II. If you say that John should be "a" god, then...

III. If Jesus is "a" god, then isn't that polytheism?

IV. If Jesus is "a" god, then how many gods are there in JW theology?

V. If Jesus is "a" god, then is he a true God or false god since the Bible says there is only one God (Is 43:10; 44:6, 8)?


VI. If Jesus is "a" god, then why does he tell people to come to him and not the Father (Matt 11:28)?

Thomas Dickensheets said...

Jeremiah who was a reliable prophet (not like the WT) says in Jer.10:11 "The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth..." Doesn’t this make Jesus Jehovah ? Remember they have said the only true God is Jehovah! Then what are they to do with Jesus who is called creator and "a god", is he to be eliminated with all the rest. That's a problem if you have two Gods even if one is almighty and the other mighty.What of the Father? If he did not make the heavens and the earth he too will perish !

Isaiah 43:10: "No God was formed before me, nor will be after me. I, I am Jehovah, and there is no other Savior but me." Isn’t Jesus the savior? God knows of no other Gods yet Jesus is another God.

Isaiah 44:6: "I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

Isaiah 45:5, 6: "I am Jehovah and there is no other, there is no other God except me. (this means mighty also) Though you do not know me, I have armed you so that it may be known from east to west that there is no one except me. I am Jehovah and there is no other."

Isaiah 46:9: "for I am God and there is no other."No God spelled with a big G or little g. Any man or spirit being that is called "god" cannot be the true Deity. All others called "god" are false deity.

Thomas Dickensheets said...

For John to have called Jesus "a god" in John 1:1 and meant him to be another true God, a mighty God alongside the almighty would go against everything in the monotheistic teaching of Judaism. The same goes for Thomas calling Jesus "my God" in John 20:28. ln their own publication… Thomas said to him: 'My Lord and my God!'-John 20:28" (Greek Interlinear reading, literally: "The Lord of me and the God of me!") Their own Greek Interlinear shows ho theos. (INTERLINEAR 1985, p. 513)

This is polytheism, more than one god and worse yet they have an angel exalted as "a god." It does not matter if they worship him or not , they call him a god and creator. Jeremiah a reliable prophet said in chpt.10 v.11 "the Gods that have not made the heavens and the earth shall perish…" Then what are they to do with Jesus who is called creator and "a god", is he to be eliminated with all the rest. That's the problem when you have two gods even if one is almighty and the other mighty. What of the Father? According to them he only created one thing, Jesus the angel. If he did not make the heavens and the earth he too will perish! So if Jesus who is called "a god" did not create it all, he goes the away with the rest of the false gods. This isn’t my opinion but Gods!

If Jesus had been claiming to be only "a god" as J.W.'s teach, then He would not have been charged with "blasphemy" as in Jn 10:30 when they tried to stone Him for He made himself to be equal to God. Not another God, but claiming to be united with the one God, as the Greek language bears this saying "we are one"- in nature.

Anonymous said...

This is an argument close to many hearts.
There is so much confusion regarding the use of anathrous nouns in the predicate before the verb and all the scholarly trappings that go with it.
Maybe another line of reasoning might help.
At John 1:1, look at the first phrase, "In the beginning" and ask yourself a simple question - what or whose beginning is it?

Anonymous said...

The Word Was God. This raises the question about the authority of Scripture. Since this author assumes that the Scripture is true, and John assumed that the Scripture is true, we need to keep another truth in mind as we interpret this passage. There is only one God and there is no one beside him (Isaiah 43:11). The gods of the nations are idols (Psalm 96:5). So if John is saying that the Word is God, we cannot allow our interpretation of that to extend beyond that truth. There is only one God. Yet the Word was God. He could not be a god, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses will render this verse.

But of course, doctrine does not render translations. The words do. So the reason that Jehovah’s Witnesses think that this should be rendered, “and the word was a god,” is that there is no article before the word ‘God,’ while there is one before ‘Word.’ However, I would object to that, the presence of the article only goes to show that the Word is the subject of the sentence. John could have put an article in front of God, the verse could have been rendered, ‘God was the Word.’ Thus rendering God and Word interchangeable, hence, teaching modalism. But John was not teaching modalism. What does John 1:1 mean? He put the article exclusively in front of Word because that was the best way to express that the Word was God. [1]

FredT said...

I suppose the translators of the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation (NWT)agree with John McKenzie's translation of John 1:1c..."a divine being". They are seeing and expressing the same nuances in an honest fashion.

It is interesting that the revised NWT offers "divine" as an alternative solution in the footnote.

JWs and Catholics should agree that both McKenzie's translation and the JW alternative rendering are acceptable.

Anonymous said...

First of all God never had a beginning but Jesus did have a beginning and an end, he died for us. God had to GIVE him immortality and GIVE him life within himself (John5:26). So.... When the bible says "in the beginning was the Word" It can't be talking about God. Jesus was the FIRST in all things (Col:1:15,18 Rev 3:14) not God The Almighty Who always was and always will be Everlasting to Everlasting.

Nick said...

Jesus had a beginning in that the Logos (Son) came down from heaven at one point, but the Logos is eternal. You didn't read the main article very carefully, because the point was that the JWs *prove* the Catholic/Nicene teaching, they just don't realize it. Your response just makes the Catholic task of evagelism all the more easier, because you think the Trinity means Father=Son, but that isn't what Christians are saying. So as long as you keep parroting "Father=Son" it will just make JWs look bad.