Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,208,831 members, 8,003,937 topics. Date: Saturday, 16 November 2024 at 12:27 AM

Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? - Religion - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? (2930 Views)

The Word And The Watchtower: An Exegesis Of John 1:1 / What You Need To Know About Confession Of Sins From 1 John 1:9 - Gabriel Okocha / Former Prince Of 'ISIS' Turns To Christ After A God Dream: 'I Saw A Love That... (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (Reply) (Go Down)

Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Nobody: 10:32am On Aug 14, 2019
Does John 1.1 mean ‘The Word was a god’?
February 13, 2011 by Ian Paul

This is a question I quite often get asked in relation to conversations with Jehovah’s Witnesses and the New World Translation (NWT). The NWT translates the end of John 1.1 as ‘the Word as a god’ in order to avoid the identification of Jesus with the God of the Old Testament, and avoid seeing Jesus as God incarnate, part of the Trinity, as does orthodox Christian belief.

As we will see, this is an incorrect translation of the Greek text. It is quite straightforward, though sounds a little technical to explain. Here goes.
The Greek of John 1.1 is as follows, transliterated into English letters:
En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos.

If you don’t read Greek, you need to know a couple of things. The first is that the word ho is called the ‘definite article’ which in English would be translated ‘the.’ The second is that Greek does not have an ‘indefinite article’ (English ‘a’), but instead simply omits the article. The term for this is ‘anarthrous’. The third is that, whereas in English we show what words are doing in a sentence by word order, in Greek this is shown by what case a word is in. Each word can be in one of four (or five) cases—the subject of a verb (often the thing doing an action) is always in the
nominative case.

You can see near the end of John 1.1 that we have theos without an article, and logos throughout with the article. The reason is that, in any phrase where the main verb is ‘to be’, there will not be a subject and an object (as in ‘I pat my dog’ where ‘I’ am the subject and ‘my dog’ is the object of the action), but only subjects in ‘apposition’, that is, agreeing with one another. So when I say ‘My pet is a dog’ both ‘pet’ and ‘dog’ are subjects, and in Greek would be in the nominative case.

The question is: how can I tell the difference in Greek between the sentences ‘My pet is a dog’ and ‘My dog is a pet’ which have quite different senses. (The first is telling you which animal I have as a pet, the second is telling what kind of relationship my dog has to me.) In English, we do it by word order, but you cannot do this in Greek since, as an inflected language (ie one with different cases), it is flexible in word order. And you cannot do it by the usual trick of different cases, since both are in the nominative as subjects of the verb ‘to be’.

So Greek does it by making the word in apposition (the ‘dog’ in the first example) anarthrous, that is, without the definite article. In other words, theos en ho logos means ‘the word was God’, which tells us something about the nature of the word, whereas ho theos en logos would mean ‘God was the word’ which is telling us something about the nature of God.
In neither case does being anarthrous correspond to the English sense ‘a’, the indefinite article. So to translate this as ‘The Word was a god’ misunderstands the significance of omitting the article.

As this sounds rather technical, I always find it more fruitful to read with Jehovah’s Witness Romans 10.13 , ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ The Greek here uses the word kurios ; in the Greek Old Testament that Paul is citing here, this refers to Yahweh, the god of Israel. But Paul here clearly means ‘The Lord Jesus.’ The NWT appears to be embarrassed by this, and substitutes the word ‘Jehovah’. But it is very clear that in doing so the NWT is changing the text of Scripture.

Something similar happens in 1 Cor 10.9 , where the word Christos in Greek is also substituted in the NWT by ‘Jehovah’.
Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Preciousgirl(f): 10:43am On Aug 14, 2019
solite3:
Does John 1.1 mean ‘The Word was a god’?
February 13, 2011 by Ian Paul

This is a question I quite often get asked in relation to conversations with Jehovah’s Witnesses and the New World Translation (NWT). The NWT translates the end of John 1.1 as ‘the Word as a god’ in order to avoid the identification of Jesus with the God of the Old Testament, and avoid seeing Jesus as God incarnate, part of the Trinity, as does orthodox Christian belief.

As we will see, this is an incorrect translation of the Greek text. It is quite straightforward, though sounds a little technical to explain. Here goes.
The Greek of John 1.1 is as follows, transliterated into English letters:
En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos.

If you don’t read Greek, you need to know a couple of things. The first is that the word ho is called the ‘definite article’ which in English would be translated ‘the.’ The second is that Greek does not have an ‘indefinite article’ (English ‘a’), but instead simply omits the article. The term for this is ‘anarthrous’. The third is that, whereas in English we show what words are doing in a sentence by word order, in Greek this is shown by what case a word is in. Each word can be in one of four (or five) cases—the subject of a verb (often the thing doing an action) is always in the
nominative case.

You can see near the end of John 1.1 that we have theos without an article, and logos throughout with the article. The reason is that, in any phrase where the main verb is ‘to be’, there will not be a subject and an object (as in ‘I pat my dog’ where ‘I’ am the subject and ‘my dog’ is the object of the action), but only subjects in ‘apposition’, that is, agreeing with one another. So when I say ‘My pet is a dog’ both ‘pet’ and ‘dog’ are subjects, and in Greek would be in the nominative case.

The question is: how can I tell the difference in Greek between the sentences ‘My pet is a dog’ and ‘My dog is a pet’ which have quite different senses. (The first is telling you which animal I have as a pet, the second is telling what kind of relationship my dog has to me.) In English, we do it by word order, but you cannot do this in Greek since, as an inflected language (ie one with different cases), it is flexible in word order. And you cannot do it by the usual trick of different cases, since both are in the nominative as subjects of the verb ‘to be’.

So Greek does it by making the word in apposition (the ‘dog’ in the first example) anarthrous, that is, without the definite article. In other words, theos en ho logos means ‘the word was God’, which tells us something about the nature of the word, whereas ho theos en logos would mean ‘God was the word’ which is telling us something about the nature of God.
In neither case does being anarthrous correspond to the English sense ‘a’, the indefinite article. So to translate this as ‘The Word was a god’ misunderstands the significance of omitting the article.

As this sounds rather technical, I always find it more fruitful to read with Jehovah’s Witness Romans 10.13 , ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ The Greek here uses the word kurios ; in the Greek Old Testament that Paul is citing here, this refers to Yahweh, the god of Israel. But Paul here clearly means ‘The Lord Jesus.’ The NWT appears to be embarrassed by this, and substitutes the word ‘Jehovah’. But it is very clear that in doing so the NWT is changing the text of Scripture.

Something similar happens in 1 Cor 10.9 , where the word Christos in Greek is also substituted in the NWT by ‘Jehovah’.


JW is Satan company

See lies

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Nobody: 10:46am On Aug 14, 2019
Preciousgirl:


JW is Satan company
See lies
No be small my sister
Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Nobody: 10:47am On Aug 14, 2019
Preciousgirl:



JW is Satan company

See lies
Do you know that their founder Taze Russell was a freemason? a corrupt tree can not produce good fruit

1 Like

Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Preciousgirl(f): 10:49am On Aug 14, 2019
solite3:
Do you know that their founder Taze Russell was a freemason? a corrupt tree can not produce good fruit


RReally

Freemason

No wonder
Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by ITbomb(m): 10:57am On Aug 14, 2019
solite3:
Do you know that their founder Taze Russell was a freemason? a corrupt tree can not produce good fruit
I don't know if your premise is bad feeling about JW or scriptural exposition
If it is the later, please get hold of the Holy Bible, American Standard Version AD 1901, printed and distributed by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

That was the version JW used before the new world translation was published

That version of the Bible is what I consider the most complete Bible. The name of God is used where it should be used and Lord is used elsewhere. It even has a reference to what the original tongue meant. I suggest you get a hold of it

What I'm saying here is that the issue is not about Russell, JW underwent various revivals just like any other faith and in the case of 1 Cor 10:9, the early JW used Lord (as in the version of the Bible they used then), so heaping the blame on Russell, Freemason and stuff is not a valid objective reasoning.

3 Likes

Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Nobody: 10:59am On Aug 14, 2019
Preciousgirl:


RReally
Freemason
No wonder
it is an open secret. If you should research about their history you would be shocked.
Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Barristter07: 7:50pm On Aug 14, 2019
Solite3 , We are focusing on John 1:1
solite3:
Does John 1.1 mean ‘The Word was a god’?
February 13, 2011 by Ian Paul

This is a question I quite often get asked in relation to conversations with Jehovah’s Witnesses and the New World Translation (NWT). The NWT translates the end of John 1.1 as ‘the Word as a god’ in order to avoid the identification of Jesus with the God of the Old Testament, and avoid seeing Jesus as God incarnate, part of the Trinity, as does orthodox Christian belief.


Neither does the scripture teach Jesus is God of Old testament - Act 3:13 .




As we will see, this is an incorrect translation of the Greek text. It is quite straightforward, though sounds a little technical to explain. Here goes.
The Greek of John 1.1 is as follows, transliterated into English letters:
En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos.

If you don’t read Greek, you need to know a couple of things. The first is that the word ho is called the ‘definite article’ which in English would be translated ‘the.’ The second is that Greek does not have an ‘indefinite article’ (English ‘a’), but instead simply omits the article. The term for this is ‘anarthrous’. The third is that, whereas in English we show what words are doing in a sentence by word order, in Greek this is shown by what case a word is in. Each word can be in one of four (or five) cases—the subject of a verb (often the thing doing an action) is always in the
nominative case.

You can see near the end of John 1.1 that we have theos without an article, and logos throughout with the article. The reason is that, in any phrase where the main verb is ‘to be’, there will not be a subject and an object (as in ‘I pat my dog’ where ‘I’ am the subject and ‘my dog’ is the object of the action), but only subjects in ‘apposition’, that is, agreeing with one another. So when I say ‘My pet is a dog’ both ‘pet’ and ‘dog’ are subjects, and in Greek would be in the nominative case.

The question is: how can I tell the difference in Greek between the sentences ‘My pet is a dog’ and ‘My dog is a pet’ which have quite different senses. (The first is telling you which animal I have as a pet, the second is telling what kind of relationship my dog has to me.) In English, we do it by word order, but you cannot do this in Greek since, as an inflected language (ie one with different cases), it is flexible in word order. And you cannot do it by the usual trick of different cases, since both are in the nominative as subjects of the verb ‘to be’.

So Greek does it by making the word in apposition (the ‘dog’ in the first example) anarthrous, that is, without the definite article. In other words, theos en ho logos means ‘the word was God’, which tells us something about the nature of the word, whereas ho theos en logos would mean ‘God was the word’ which is telling us something about the nature of God.
In neither case does being anarthrous correspond to the English sense ‘a’, the indefinite article. So to translate this as ‘The Word was a god’ misunderstands the significance of omitting the article.

As this sounds rather technical, I always find it more fruitful to read with Jehovah’s Witness Romans 10.13 , ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ The Greek here uses the word kurios ; in the Greek Old Testament that Paul is citing here, this refers to Yahweh, the god of Israel. But Paul here clearly means ‘The Lord Jesus.’ The NWT appears to be embarrassed by this, and substitutes the word ‘Jehovah’. But it is very clear that in doing so the NWT is changing the text of Scripture.

Something similar happens in 1 Cor 10.9 , where the word Christos in Greek is also substituted in the NWT by ‘Jehovah’.

Explain the Red , Is it wrong to translate Theo's as " a god " ?
Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Nobody: 8:54pm On Aug 14, 2019
Barristter07:

Solite3 , We are focusing on John 1:1


Neither does the scripture teach Jesus is God of Old testament - Act 3:13 .



Explain the Red , Is it wrong to translate Theo's as " a god " ?
slowly reread op again, this time take your time to read thoughtfully.
Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Barristter07: 3:28pm On Aug 19, 2019
solite3:
slowly reread op again, this time take your time to read thoughtfully.

I have, and the Op suggest " a god " is a wrong translation for Theos , Is it ?

2 Likes

Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Janosky: 8:16pm On Aug 19, 2019
Preciousgirl:


RReally
Freemason
No wonder
solite3:
it is an open secret. If you should research about their history you would be shocked.

What a pathetic solite3 LIAR !
It's a well documented FACT that Mr C.T.Russell is NOT a Freemason.

1 Like

Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Janosky: 9:14pm On Aug 19, 2019
solite3:
Does John 1.1 mean ‘The Word was a god’?
February 13, 2011 by Ian Paul


@1)
This is a question I quite often get asked in relation to conversations with Jehovah’s Witnesses and the New World Translation (NWT). The NWT translates the end of John 1.1 as ‘the Word as a god’ in order to avoid the identification of Jesus with the God of the Old Testament, and avoid seeing Jesus as God incarnate,


*@2)

The Greek of John 1.1 is as follows, transliterated into English letters:
En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos.

You can see near the end of John 1.1 that we have theos without an article, and logos throughout with the article.


@3)

In other words, theos en ho logos means ‘the word was God’, which tells us something about the nature of the word,



.
Solite3 shot himself on his foot.
You simply copy and paste what you don't even understand.....

@3) Solite3 have proved that his claims @1) is FALSE...
In effect, John1:1c
" theos en ho logos means ‘the word was God’, which tells us something about the nature of the word,"
In other words, the Word is a god (meaning "godlike or divine nature"wink.

Las, las, the word is of the nature of God, but is NOT God in person because
"the Word was with ton theon (the God)"
That is what John 1:1c is saying & that is what JWs believe ....
.

John 1:1 Emphatic Diaglott

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

1 Like

Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Janosky: 9:58pm On Aug 19, 2019
solite3:




I always find it more fruitful to read with Jehovah’s Witness Romans 10.13 , ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ The Greek here uses the word kurios ; in the Greek Old Testament that Paul is citing here, this refers to Yahweh, the god of Israel. But Paul here clearly means ‘The Lord Jesus.’ The NWT appears to be embarrassed by this, and substitutes the word ‘Jehovah’.



’.

** Solite3 LIAR twisting the truth with well packaged sophistry.
Romans 10:13 is a copy or quote of Joel 2:32....

Joel2:32
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Then everyone who calls on the name of
Yahweh will be saved, "

American Standard Version
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever
shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be
delivered;

@ Young's Literal Translation
And it hath come to pass, Every one who
calleth in the name of Jehovah is delivered",

As you can clearly see, Jehovah or YHWH was replaced with LORD (capital letter).
( Anywhere you see Lord capitalized,
Go read the Preface in your copy of the Bible. God's name Jehovah or YHWH was removed there.)
Paul referred to Jehovah quoting Joel 2:32, not to Jesus.
NWT is correct.
.

3 Likes 1 Share

Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Nobody: 4:48am On Aug 27, 2019
Barristter07:


I have, and the Op suggest " a god " is a wrong translation for Theos , Is it ?
depends on context
Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Nobody: 4:50am On Aug 27, 2019
ITbomb:

I don't know if your premise is bad feeling about JW or scriptural exposition
If it is the later, please get hold of the Holy Bible, American Standard Version AD 1901, printed and distributed by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

That was the version JW used before the new world translation was published

That version of the Bible is what I consider the most complete Bible. The name of God is used where it should be used and Lord is used elsewhere. It even has a reference to what the original tongue meant. I suggest you get a hold of it

What I'm saying here is that the issue is not about Russell, JW underwent various revivals just like any other faith and in the case of 1 Cor 10:9, the early JW used Lord (as in the version of the Bible they used then), so heaping the blame on Russell, Freemason and stuff is not a valid objective reasoning.
a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.
How can corrupt tree (rusell) produce good fruit?
Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Nobody: 4:52am On Aug 27, 2019
Janosky:



What a pathetic solite3 LIAR !

It's a well documented FACT that Mr C.T.Russell is NOT a Freemason.

You know little of watch tower history try know about it.
You eternal fate depends on it.
Dont just follow know what you are following
Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Nobody: 4:58am On Aug 27, 2019
Janosky:


** Solite3 LIAR twisting the truth with well packaged sophistry.
Romans 10:13 is a copy or quote of Joel 2:32....

Joel2:32
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Then everyone who calls on the name of
Yahweh will be saved, "

American Standard Version
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever
shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be
delivered;

@ Young's Literal Translation
And it hath come to pass, Every one who
calleth in the name of Jehovah is delivered",

As you can clearly see, Jehovah or YHWH was replaced with LORD (capital letter).
( Anywhere you see Lord capitalized,
Go read the Preface in your copy of the Bible. God's name Jehovah or YHWH was removed there.)
Paul referred to Jehovah quoting Joel 2:32, not to Jesus.
NWT is correct.
.

The name of Jesus of Jesus is the only name given to men to call upon


Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Meaning If you call upon Jehovah for salvation, you are not saved

1 Like

Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by ITbomb(m): 6:41am On Aug 27, 2019
solite3:
a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.
How can corrupt tree (rusell) produce good fruit?
Rehab the Harlot


But then, it's obvious that your beef with Russell is personal and not just how the Bible was written

2 Likes

Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by nutarious(f): 9:19am On Aug 27, 2019
Janosky:

Solite3 shot himself on his foot.
You simply copy and paste what you don't even understand.....

@3) Solite3 have proved that his claims @1) is FALSE...
In effect, John1:1c
" theos en ho logos means ‘the word was God’, which tells us something about the nature of the word,"
In other words, the Word is a god (meaning "godlike or divine nature"wink.

Las, las, the word is of the nature of God, but is NOT God in person because
"the Word was with ton theon (the God)"
That is what John 1:1c is saying & that is what JWs believe ....
.

John 1:1 Emphatic Diaglott

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

Would it now mean the Word that ypu said has a form of god has his beginning with God.

How would you explain a god coexistence with God from the Beginning.

Before you respond, this Beginning given to John the beloved was not same as the Beginning of Moses revelation, Moses saw the beginning of Creation but John saw the Beginning of the Godhead.

So if the Wors were in the beginning then you need to explain to us how a god was in Existence with God from the beginning?

Lemme learn from you? Thanks!
Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Janosky: 6:52pm On Aug 30, 2019
solite3:


The name of Jesus of Jesus is the only name given to men to call upon


Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Meaning If you call upon Jehovah for salvation, you are not saved

Lying Pharisee solite3 with falsehood, the name "given among men" by whom?
Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Nobody: 7:07pm On Aug 30, 2019
ITbomb:

Rehab the Harlot


But then, it's obvious that your beef with Russell is personal and not just how the Bible was written
Rehab didnt continue to be an harlot, did she?
Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Nobody: 7:07pm On Aug 30, 2019
undecided
Janosky:


Lying Pharisee solite3 with falsehood, the name "given among men" by whom?
Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Janosky: 7:10pm On Aug 30, 2019
nutarious:




@1)
Would it now mean the Word that ypu said has a form of god has his beginning with God.
How would you explain a god coexistence with God from the Beginning.

@2)
Before you respond, this Beginning given to John the beloved was not same as the Beginning of Moses revelation, Moses saw the beginning of Creation but John saw the Beginning of the Godhead.

@3)
So if the Wors were in the beginning then you need to explain to us how a god was in Existence with God from the beginning?

Lemme learn from you? Thanks!

Your questions/enquiries, @1) is similar to @3), pls if you mean @3) is different, pls refraime @3).

@1) John5:26, what did Jesus say about his own beginning?
Jesus says his Father GRANTED LIFE to him.
(You can ONLY be granted what you don't have, Ok!)
Pls reason on this fact.
Jesus in heaven calls YHWH "my Father", my God" (Rev3:5,12) and on earth (John14:28. 20:17).


John16:28.
New King James Version
I came forth from the Father and have come
into the world. Again, I leave the world and
go to the Father.”

(Compare Matt 2:6. Numbers 24:19.).
"Came Forth" is the key word here...
'Nutarious' came forth from her father/mother.... "I came forth from my Father", it's meaning is crystal clear enough....


@2)
It's the same..... Moses was given phase by phase Genesis account of YHWH's creative operation.
But ,John was given the revelation that YHWH made it possible ("THROUGH" =Greek 'Dia antou", John1:3. 1 Cor8:6. Heb:1,2. Col1:16) through Jesus...
John revealed the info that Moses did not give in Genesis account.

@3)
Trinitarians fabricated the concept of the son as coequal, self-existent ,coeternal blah blah blah....
As you have seen,
Jesus spoiled that coequal, coeternal, self existing fairytale. Rev3:5,12. and John5:26 .
If Trinitarians admit Rev3:5,12 and John5:26. 16:28 is gospel truth, their market done spoil be that....
Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Nobody: 7:13pm On Aug 30, 2019
Janosky:


Pls, be patient.
I will respond soon.
Shalom
I m waiting to bust your lies

1 Like

Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Nobody: 11:31pm On Aug 30, 2019
Glory be to JEHOVAH for fulfilling his words through the activities of his people today!

There is no more controversy of any kind again, Jehovah's Witnesses are the only Christian organization worldwide!

Jesus said "a city located on the hill can not be hidden" Matthew 5:14

If all of you are seeing Jehovah's Witnesses at all times but all your own different religions with contradicting teachings and conflicting doctrines remains in the dark, then ONLY Jehovah's Witnesses are the visible organization upon which all eyes are fixed!

Jesus said you'll be an object of hatred everywhere on account of my name! Matthew 10:22, John 17:14-16

So it's now clearer than ever that this one and only vilified group is Jesus' true organization!

Jehovah's Witnesses, thank you oooooooooooo! smiley

1 Like

Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Janosky: 12:16am On Aug 31, 2019
solite3:
I m waiting to bust your lies
Janosky:

Solite3 shot himself on his foot.
You simply copy and paste what you don't even understand.....

@3) Solite3 have proved that his claims @1) is FALSE...
In effect, John1:1c
" theos en ho logos means ‘the word was God’, which tells us something about the nature of the word,"
In other words, the Word is a god (meaning "godlike or divine nature"wink.

Las, las, the word is of the nature of God, but is NOT God in person because
"the Word was with ton theon (the God)"
That is what John 1:1c is saying & that is what JWs believe ....
.

John 1:1 Emphatic Diaglott

"In a beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with the God, and a god
was the Word."
You and your copy paste partner KILLED your mumu doctrine and PROVED JWs to be true.
Solite3 & his confused Pharisee LIAR, Ian Paul have confessed that Trinity is a FRAUD.
They said :
"theos en ho logos means ‘the word was God’, which tells us something about the nature of the word,"
In other words, the Word is a god (meaning "godlike or divine nature"wink. "
In simple language, Solite3 admitted that Ian Paul and himself agreed that John1:1c "TELLS US SOMETHING ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE WORD" ,that the Word is godlike or divine nature, ( Every one following this thread, pls ,go and check the meaning of "godlike" or "divine", then come and show us the meaning/definition....)
Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by johnw47: 12:32am On Aug 31, 2019
Maximus69:
Glory be to JEHOVAH for fulfilling his words through the activities of his people today!

There is no more controversy of any kind again, Jehovah's Witnesses are the only Christian organization worldwide!

Jesus said "a city located on the hill can not be hidden" Matthew 5:14

If all of you are seeing Jehovah's Witnesses at all times but all your own different religions with contradicting teachings and conflicting doctrines remains in the dark, then ONLY Jehovah's Witnesses are the visible organization upon which all eyes are fixed!

false jw mad™ max
all eyes are fixed on false jw's, ha ha what delusion, and lies, of course:

Joh 8:44  Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Maximus69:
Jesus said you'll be an object of hatred everywhere on account of my name! Matthew 10:22, John 17:14-16

So it's now clearer than ever that this one and only vilified group is Jesus' true organization!

Jehovah's Witnesses, thank you oooooooooooo! smiley

christians thank God, you false jw antichrists thank your sect

false jw's are the only vilified group, laugh, christians are vilified and persecuted right around the world
the drop in the bucket vilification of false jw's is because of your preaching that the Lord and Saviour
is "a god"-"a angel" etc. funny, and continued delusion, and of course continued lying oh habitual liar mad™ max

1 Like

Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Janosky: 5:23pm On Sep 18, 2019
solite3:
Does John 1.1 mean ‘The Word was a god’?
February 13, 2011 by Ian Paul.

**@1)
This is a question I quite often get asked in relation to conversations with Jehovah’s Witnesses and the New World Translation (NWT). The NWT translates the end of John 1.1 as ‘the Word as a god’

##@2)
The Greek of John 1.1 is as follows, transliterated into English letters:
En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos.

If you don’t read Greek, you need to know a couple of things. The first is that the word ho is called the ‘definite article’ which in English would be translated ‘the.’ The second is that Greek does not have an ‘indefinite article’ (English ‘a’), but instead simply omits the article. The term for this is ‘anarthrous’.


You can see near the end of John 1.1 that we have theos without an article,
In other words, theos en ho logos means ‘the word was God’, which tells us something about the nature of the word,'’
.

***@1).

Yes. That's correct.

****#@2).

"theos en ho logos means ‘the word was God’, which tells us something about the nature of the word,'’

CONFIRMATION : "theos en ho logos " tells us the Logos was divine nature.
That is, the Logos was a god, (A godlike being)

*** Simply put, Ian Paul CONFIRM. **@1),
the logos was divine nature. The Logos is a god, was divine nature.
NWT is VERY CORRECT.
Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Nobody: 6:09pm On Sep 18, 2019
Janosky:


***@1).

Yes. That's correct.

****#@2).

"theos en ho logos means ‘the word was God’, which tells us something about the nature of the word,'’

CONFIRMATION : "theos en ho logos " tells us the Logos was divine nature.
That is, the Logos was a god, (A godlike being)

*** Simply put, Ian Paul CONFIRM. **@1),
the logos was divine nature. The Logos is a god, was divine nature.
NWT is VERY CORRECT.

Jesus is not a god but God Almighty since he has the very nature of God almighty.

1 Like

Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Janosky: 7:25pm On Sep 18, 2019
solite3:
Does John 1.1 mean ‘The Word was a god’?
February 13, 2011 by Ian Paul



The Greek of John 1.1 is as follows, transliterated into English letters:
En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos.

In other words, theos en ho logos means ‘the word was God’, which tells us something about the nature of the word"


.

divine
/dɪˈvʌɪn/
adjective
1. of or like God or a god.
"heroes with divine powers"
synonyms: godly, godlike,



***DIVINE | meaning in the Cambridge English
Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org › divine
8 days ago
· divine definition: 1. connected with a god,
or like a god:

Wayo Solite3, you see your life?
.
solite3:
Jesus is not a god but God Almighty since he has the very nature of God almighty.


You too sabi lie.
The Logos was divine nature, (theos, a god) NOT his Father "ho theon" (the God).
The Logos was face to face with "ho theon" (the God, his Father).

**John17:3, what did Jesus call his Father?
Let the Bible further burst Solite3 LIE.
Compare Genesis 5:3 & Genesis 1:26.


Genesis 1:26 , KJV: "And God said, Let us
make man in our image, after our likeness: "
Genesis 5:2,3.
…"2 Male and female He created them, and He
blessed them. And in the day they were
created, He called them “man.” 3 When Adam
was 130 years old, he had a son in his own
likeness, after his own image; and he named
him Seth.

FRAUD man Solite3, Genesis1:26, if Jesus is Almighty God, who was speaking?

John20:17, Who is the God & Father Jesus Almighty?
Based on Solite3 'Jesus is Almighty God' FRAUD theory ,Genesis 5:3 "Seth was in the likeness and image of Adam, therefore, Seth is Adam....

1 Corinthians 15:49,50.
And just as we have borne the likeness of
the earthly man, so also shall we bear the
likeness of the heavenly man."

** 1 Cor15:49, what's the likeness of the earthly man? how does it differ from the likeness of the heavenly man."?

1 Cor15:24 says Jesus is NOT God Almighty.
Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by Nobody: 10:05am On Sep 19, 2019
solite3:
Do you know that their founder Taze Russell was a freemason? a corrupt tree can not produce good fruit Matthew 7:15-20

Jesus was a common Jewish Carpenter!

In the first century, anyone who never passed through any rabbinic school can't become a Rabbi (a teacher of God's word)!

Jesus never studied in any of the rabbinic schools of his time! No wonder all the rabbinic schools of the first century taught their students to continue asserting that Jesus was a demon possessed guy! Matthew 12:24, Mark 3:22, Luke 11:18

Now concerning your quote "a corrupt tree cannot produce good fruit" Jesus himself said so because he knew and also foresee that during the last days his true followers will also be accused as been demon possessed! Matthew 10:25

But today only Jehovah's Witnesses are living proof that Jesus' prayer to his father has been granted, as they are the one and only group able to form a happy global family of peace loving worshipers! John 17:20-23

So definitely Charles Taze Russell (though you're trying to tarnish his good image) was chosen by Jesus to start this one and only reputable global group.

Saul was a member of the Pharisees { Act 22:3, 23:6} a group known for so many spiritistic acts during the first century. Even Jesus himself confirmed it! Luke 11:19

Yet Jesus called Saul out of darkness {Act 9: 4} and made him a special apostle to take the good news of God's kingdom to all other nations {1Timothy 2:7} and Saul became Paul a preacher, teacher and writer whose work surpasses all other INSPIRED Bible writers and Christians of the first century! Act 9:15-16,

So thank you Sir for reaffirming the authenticity of our beloved brother CHARLES TAZE RUSSELL whom Jesus personally used to start a global family of peace loving worshipers today!

Jesus himself said "wisdom is justified by all her children" {Luke 7:35} therefore you can present a better performing group of worshippers doing good as one body having LOVE amongst themselves! John 13:34-35

God bless you Sir! smiley
Re: Does John 1.1 Mean ‘the Word Was A God’? by bingbagbo(m): 10:28am On Sep 19, 2019
Jw is a cult!

(1) (2) (3) (Reply)

How Old Is Jesus This Year? / (part 4).TRAITS OF OGBANJE SPIRITS. / Angry And Aggressive Atheism - Why ?

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 90
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.