Thursday, January 1, 2009

Presto Change-O! Part 1


John 1:1 - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” NASB

But the WT teaches that Jesus was created. He had a beginning. No way can he be God! What is the WT to do with John 1:1?  Presto Change-O! “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” The New World Translation (See my blog, “Is the JW Bible (The New World Translation) Reliable?” which is here.)

What is the WT justification for this change? The WT states that in John 1:1 in the original Greek (look for this in the WT’s “Kingdom Interlinear Translation”) it says, “In beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God and god was the Word.” The WT says “the God” refers to the one true God and “god” by itself, without the word “the” in front of it, means “the Word was godlike, divine.” (“Reasoning from the Scriptures,” pg. 212.) Thus the WT says it is justified in translating John 1:1, “and the Word was a god.

However, look further (in the KIT) to John 1:6, 12, 13, 18. All these verses (on the Greek side) have only the word “god” by itself, without “the” in front of it but in each case the WT has translated the word “god” as being “the God”--the one true God--as you can see by looking at the right side of the page (the NWT side) where they have God, capital “G.” In John 1, God without ‘the’ in front of it occurs five times and four times it is translated, by the WT, as God, and once as ‘a god’ at John 1:1. Why the one exception? Does the WT conform their doctrine to the Bible or change the Bible to conform to their doctrine?

In addition, the Bible is quite clear that there is only 1 true God--all other gods are false Gods (see Isaiah 43:10; 44:6, 8; 45:5, 6, 21). Since the WT states that Jesus is not the true God but “a god” then this Jesus--this “a god”--must be a false God OR if he is not a false god then the WT would be teaching polytheism. 

To further justify their John 1:1 translation, the WT points to Isaiah 9:6, "For a child (Jesus) will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace," (NAS) The WT says that it is clear that Jesus is only “a Mighty God,” not “Almighty.”

However, the WT fails to mention that in Isaiah 10:20-21 (NWT) “Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel,” is called “Mighty God.” Also, Jeremiah 32:18 reads, “ . . . the [true] God, the great One, the mighty One, Jehovah of armies being his name.” Why this oversight on the part of the WT? Because pointing out these verses would contradict their point about Isaiah 9:6.

In addition, if you take their statement that “the God” refers to the “One True God” and apply that to John 20:28 (KIT see below) (see my blog on “Twisted Scripture and other Shenanigans Part 2,” which is here). where Thomas says to the risen Lord, after Thomas has put his fingers in Jesus’ side and seen the nail prints in Jesus’ hands, “the Lord of me and the God of Me,” (Greek Side of the KIT). You have, in effect, Thomas saying to Jesus, you are “the Lord of me and the ‘one true’ God of me.”




















Presto Change-O! Part 2 is here.

1 comment:

JohnBoy said...

All of the examples cited by JohnOneOne (Mark 6:49, Mark 11:32, etc.) where the word “a” or “an” has been added as justification for adding “a” at John 1:1 fail because in each case, if you were to read the verse, with or without the added word “a” or “an,” the meaning of the verse would be unaffected. For example Mark 6:49: “At catching sight of him walking on the sea they thought: It is an apparition!” Would the meaning be changed if it read, “At catching sight of him walking on the sea they thought: It is apparition.” Look at John 8:44a and 8:44b. “. . . that one was a manslayer, . . . because he is a liar.” The meaning stays the same if it reads. “ . . .that one was manslayer, . . . because he is liar.” Each verse you cite is the same as the examples I have just given. The word “a” or “an” has been added to make the sentence read correctly and fluidly in English—the addition of “a” or “an” does not affect the meaning of the sentence. However, the addition of “a” at John 1:1 greatly changes the meaning of the verse. Without “a” the “Word” (Jesus) is God, with “a” He is not. No bigger gap exists in the universe than the one between God and not God. Serious stuff.

The Holy Spirit, through John, wanted to make sure that the meaning of John 1:1 would be properly understood thus John 1:3 states, “All things came into existence through him (Jesus), and apart from him (Jesus) not even one thing came into existence.” The Holy Spirit tells us in two different ways, first positively that “all things came into existence through Jesus,” then negatively that without Jesus “not even one thing came into existence.” Watchtower doctrine teaches that, one thing came into existence without Jesus—that thing being Jesus Himself—who the WT claims was created by Jehovah God. Jesus, the master workman and with blue prints from Jehovah, then created everything else—according to the Watchtower.

Hebrews 3:4 states, “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.” The Greek word for “all things” used at Hebrews 3:4 is the exact same Greek word used in John 1:3. “All things” that God created (Hebrews 3:4) are the exact same “all things” created by Jesus (John 1:1). The implication and logic is compelling. God created all things, Jesus created all things, therefore . . .

Back to John 1:1. Knowing John 1:3, that Jesus created “all things,” makes the rendering of John 1:1, “and the Word was God,” the only possible interpretation that harmonizes John 1:1, John 1:3 and Hebrews 3:4.