₦airaland Forum

goodnews201668:
Surely no sane responsible adult talks and behaves this way, not making sense at all.
Leaves thread.

Don't slam the door on the way out.

Of course dolphinheart is such a perverter of the truth, that he called the Christian God:

dolphinheart:
your God is two persons in one!, a two headed God

fake Jw knows I don't have discussions with sectarians and other non believers
but of course fake jw cannot help but lie and say, "they run away from it".
although I do sometimes show them up in their wrongs, we do run away from their lies generally.
fake jw of course deny the truth below and elsewhere, and twist things around, like in saying, God is not God, but is "a god".

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.




[size=14pt]The Word and The Watchtower: An Exegesis of John 1:1[/size]

by Matthew Halsted

Why Such a Task Is Important

"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, ‘Who do people say that the Son of Man is?’" (Matthew 16:13)

This is, by far, the most important question anyone can ask. Is Jesus only a human prophet, or is He God incarnate? To be sure, what one believes about the nature of Christ has eternal consequences. The reason for this is that faith is only as good as its object. If I believe in something that is not true, then my faith, however genuine and sincere, is futile. It does me no good. It would be akin to saying, “I do not believe in gravity.” No matter how sincere the statement, gravity still exists, and I will not begin to float away anytime soon. Gravity, then, exists apart from my belief or non-belief.

Likewise, if one does not believe Christ is the second Person of the Trinity and if it turns out that He truly is, then that person’s faith would have been in someone who is false, namely, a false christ. And a false christ cannot save. This is why sound theology is needed and especially in today’s time. While it is not an end in itself, solid theology leads to the true Christ, and the true Christ is whom we want to adore and worship.

If we are to accurately understand the person of Christ, who He is and what He has done, then we need to dive deep into the Word of God. The ontological aspects of the Godhead may be mysterious but let there be no mistake that the Triune God of the Bible does, indeed, exist. A strong apologetic stems from a true theology, which is rooted and grounded in the revelation of God--the Bible, and it is from within the revelation of the Bible where we get our theology of Christ.
Where to Begin

While this article does not intend to be exhaustive in its treatment of the many important Trinitarian texts that the Bible contains, it is within our scope to look deeply into (arguably) the most principal and foundational of all texts contained in the entire Bible concerning the nature of Christ--John 1:1.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

This text from John’s Gospel is important in light of today’s highly religious and pluralistic atmosphere. The many heretical “offshoots” of Christianity which have appeared throughout recent history (especially in North America) are of significant importance as we consider John 1:1. More specifically, The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, otherwise known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, has from its very inception been unorthodox and heretical in its teaching and theology. For our concerns, then, we will look briefly at what they believe about Christ as well as their interpretation and translation of John 1:1.
Who is Christ for the Jehovah’s Witnesses?

According to The Watchtower Society, Christ was “directly created by God.”1 Moreover, in answering the question--“Is the firstborn Son equal to God, as some believe?”--they answer,

“This is not what the Bible teaches. As we noted in the preceding paragraph, the Son was created. Obviously, then, he had a beginning whereas Jehovah God has no beginning or end.”2

Christ, to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, is not eternal. That is, He had a beginning, and there was a time when He did not exist. Therefore, He is not God, but does this square with the Biblical witness of John 1:1? We maintain that it does not.
The New World Translation

While this article does not have within its scope a detailed treatise on how to pick and choose a good Bible translation, it should be noted that Jehovah’s Witnesses use a very faulty and inaccurate Bible translation known as The New World Translation (NWT). How does their translation render John 1:1? According to the NWT, this verse is translated as,

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

Notice the major difference between the NASB and the NWT’s translation of third clause: “ . . . and the Word was a god.” This is a significant shift between the two translations. The question needs to be asked: Is this variation warranted?

Now, of course, if we want to decide which translation is the best, it only makes sense to go to the original language in which the writers of the New Testament wrote. Since Koine Greek was the language in which John wrote his Gospel, it would do us well to look at how John wrote and arranged his words in this verse.
A Sound Exegesis of the Text

It would be best to look at John 1:1 in parts and taking into account each clause one at a time. Once we understand what the text says and what John meant for it to mean, we can better compare that with what Jehovah’s Witnesses claim about the Person of Christ. What does the Greek say, then?

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Now for many, Greek is still Greek. An arrangement of unknown symbols means nothing to the average Christian, but what we would like to do is take you, the reader, through this simple, yet profound verse--one word at a time--and all the while equipping you with the information needed in order to translate properly.
Clause #1

First, let’s look at the first clause of the verse:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος

If we were to transliterate this Greek clause into English letters, the following would be the outcome:

En archē ēn ho logos

First, it should be noted that this clause is extremely significant and important. Before we begin our in-depth look into the whole of this clause, though, what do these words mean?

First, we will notice the words, “En archē” (Ἐν ἀρχῇ). “En” is a preposition, which is translated as “in." Archē, it should be noted, turns out to be an interesting word in light of the overall context of this passage. Archē can mean “a beginning,” “first place,” and/or “headship.”3 It would not be wrong to render this word as “chief.”

To better illustrate this word, it might be good to recall the word “archbishop.” We’ve often heard this word in church circles and particularly in reference to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox ecclesiastical hierarchy. The word “archbishop” comes from two corresponding Greek words, namely, archē and episkopos (meaning “bishop” or “overseer”). Therefore, “archbishop” means “chief overseer” or “chief bishop.”

So we can see from this example that “archē” is a word which brings the idea of “foundation” or “headship.” Within the context of John 1:1, we can better see from these definitions how this might make sense. “In the beginning was the Word . . . " We see that this part of the text refers to the foundation of the universe--that is, to its origin.4 As we can see, the word, “archē,” actually gives this idea of beginnings a “thicker” meaning than what we English speakers are used to, for it speaks of the “origin” and of the “foundation” of the universe. That is why, given the context of John 1:1, Bible scholars translate “En archē” as “In the beginning.”

The next part of the first clause is “ēn ho logos” (Gk: ἦν ὁ λόγος).

The word “ēn” is, no doubt, loaded with significance. It is a verb that conveys a ton of information and insight into the deity of Christ. As noted above, we have, so far, translated “En archē” as “In the beginning.” So, we see that, at the start of time, something was going on, or, more specifically, Someone existed. That is where “ēn ho logos” comes in. So what was going on “In the beginning?" We find that Christ was.

But first, what does “ho logos” mean? Logos simply but very profoundly means “word.” We also know that “the Word” is speaking about Jesus Christ. (It should be noted that all Biblical scholars hold to the idea that “the Word” is Christ).

The verb, “ēn,” (Gk: ἦν) is in the past tense. It is a third person, singular verb, which means “was." Without going into too much detail, it should be noted that, contrary to the English language, there are a couple of ways of rendering Greek verbs in the past tense.5 The first way is to render a verb in the imperfect tense, and the second way is the aorist tense. William Mounce defines the two tenses:

“The imperfect tense describes a continuous action usually occurring in the past, while the aorist . . . describes an undefined action usually occurring in the past.”6

The word, “ēn,” in John 1:1 by way of Divine inspiration happens to be in the imperfect tense. This means that “the Word” (i.e., Jesus Christ) was “continuously in existence before the beginning.”7 Furthermore, the imperfect tense of was has inherent within it the idea of eternal past existence. That is, there is no beginning to the Word, Jesus Christ.

So far, we have the first clause translated: “In the beginning was the Word . . . ” We have seen that, at the beginning or creation of the universe, the Word was already in existence. He was existing at the creation of the universe and was existing continuously into eternity past. How much significance one little Greek verb makes!
Clause #2

From the previous section, we have shown that Christ--the Word--always existed. In other words, there was never a time when Christ was not in existence. This section draws our attention to the second part of the verse of John 1:1.

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν

Once again, if we were to transliterate this Greek clause into English letters, the following would be the outcome:

kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon

We already know how to translate a few of these words. For example, “ho logos” means “the Word.” The verb, “ēn,” means “was.” But what do the other words mean?

“Kai” is a conjunction that means “and.” Therefore, “Kai ho logos ēn” can be translated as, “and the word was . . . "

But what about “pros ton theon?" “Pros” is another preposition that means “with.” Moreover, “ton theon” means “the God.” We can, therefore, translate this whole clause as “and the word was with God.”

John MacArthur sums up this clause rather well,

“ . . . John took his argument one step further. In His eternal preexistence the Word was with God. The English translation does not bring out the full richness of the Greek expression (pros ton theon). That phrase means far more than merely that the Word existed with God.”8

What, then, does this phrase mean? One commentator has said that the preposition “pros” is hard to translate.9 “It is equivalent to ‘was in relation with God,’ ‘stood over against,’ not in space or time, but eternally and constitutionally.”10

To make this clearer, it would do us well to turn back to John MacArthur, who, in his own commentary, quotes W. Robert Cook as saying,

“ . . . it ‘[gives] the picture of two personal beings facing one another and engaging in intelligent discourse.’”11

We can see, then, that not only was Christ preexistent but also He was in loving fellowship with the Father. “Pros ton theon” actually shows the eternal distinction between the Father and the Son. This text proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Father is not the Son nor is the Son the Father. They are, as it were, eternally distinct.

So far, then, we have translated the first two clauses of John 1:1. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God . . . ”
Clause #3

Finally, we have come to the very last clause of John 1:1:

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

As done in the previous sections, we will transliterate this clause into English letters:

kai theos ēn ho logos

Since we already recognize these words, let’s quickly translate them:

“and God was the word”

Is this a good translation of the Greek? No, it is not. First, it should be observed that “logos” not “theos” is the subject. Why? Because theos does not have an article in front of it like logos does. The clause is not “kai ho theos ēn logos.” John recorded this differently. He, under divine inspiration, writes, “kai theos ēn ho logos.”

“Ho logos,” then, is the subject since it contains the definite article. This is why, in our translation, we would place “logos” before “theos.”12

Furthermore, if John had written, “ho theos ēn ho logos,” then he would be advocating Sabellianism, which basically states that God the Father and God the Son are one and the same, thus denying the Trinity.13 If he would have constructed his sentence that way, we could have roughly translated it as, “The God was the Word.” But this is not what John records. John actually leaves out the article from theos. Even more so, if John had stated, “The God was the Word,” he would have contradicted the second clause, which states that the Word was with God. This would have denied the eternal distinction between the Father and the Son. After all, if the Son was the Father, then how could He have been distinct from Himself?

But since there is no article before theos, does that mean Jesus was “a god” and not “God." After all, John leaves out the article before theos. Should we then translate this as “the Word was divine” or “the Word was a god?" In short, are the Jehovah Witnesses right in doing this? After all, Jehovah’s Witnesses say that, “John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word--that he was 'divine,' 'godlike,' 'a god,' but not Almighty God.”14

This is hardly the case. Under divine guidance, John actually constructs this clause to refute such an idea. As MacArthur rightly notes, if John had wanted “to say that the Word was merely in some sense divine [“a god”], he could have used the adjective theios (cf. 2 Peter 1:4).”15 But, as we can see, he does not use theios at all. John is saying something more than “Jesus was ‘a god.’”

The only resulting conclusion is that Christ, being eternally distinct from the Father (refer to our discussion on clause two), was nonetheless God.
Embracing Mystery, Not Destroying It

There is one God. The Son is God, and the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. However, the Son is not the Father, and the Father is not the Son. Likewise, the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor is He the Son.

What Jehovah’s Witnesses (who are really modern-day Arians) want to do is abolish all mystery about God. Because the Trinity does not make sense, it must be wrong. So, after mistranslating Holy Scripture, they deceive themselves into thinking the Trinity is unbiblical. In the end, human reasoning has the final say for them.

But with the Triune God of the Bible, mystery is a good thing, and it should be embraced. After all, why would we, mere dependant humans, want to serve a God who is exhaustible and as one who can be figured out? To be sure, God has revealed Himself in Scripture, and He is known personally through Christ. But it is our job—as responsible exegetes of Scripture and as obedient children—to not allow that revelation of God to be distorted or repackaged into something nice and tidy.

Any divergence from what we know to be Biblical truth about the nature of the Godhead is heresy. It conveys to the world a false god and ultimately a false christ.

And a false christ does not save.

https://carm.org/the-word-and-the-watchtower-an-exegesis-of-john-1-1

phony jw said some time ago, I think it was joyandfaith:

"you will be handed over to satan for blasphemy"


Your god hasn't been able to do anything to me,
perhaps he needs help

^^^
fake jw supporter has once more been caught in lies
what else can he do but fake laughs. < real ones .

goodnews201668:
Recycler!

These Bible verses which supposed jw said are recycled, are of course true,
and the writer of Hebrews testifies that the Father never called an angel His son etc, and the writer also testifies that Father God called His Son "God", and the writer himself testifies that Jesus is not an angel.
But supposed jw's don't believe the testimony of the writer of Hebrews, and the so called jw's don't believe the testimony of Father God.


Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Heb 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
Heb 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.


Father God said of the angels," who made them spirits"
but to the Son He said,Thy throne "O God" is for ever and ever.

The writer of Hebrewes and Father God show a clear distinction between the angels and the Son in all these verses.

supposed jw's change and twist the plain words, and try to make these sentences say something else.

supposed jw's don't believe the writer of Hebrews and supposed jw's don't believe Father God.

fake dumb paranoid jw gnews needs to have the last post

so go for it
vvv .... and he did

paulGrundy:
But you are funny oh, you are telling blind men to name the color of your shirit, what sort of response are you expecting?

yeah I know, but what can you say to paranoid sectarians

dumb g news, and phony jw mano think I am you

even I can tell the diffrence between you and me
you are intelligent and show fake jw their wrongs
I have many dead brain cells, but still smarter than phony jw

goodnews201668:
Please will you be kind enough to show me where the devil and his demons were begging Jesus not to throw them into hellfire? Because that's what you said. Thanks!

I think she knows you are fake jw by now
and probably has no need to reply.


All those scriptures fake jw gnews posts are not concerning God's Church
buy what would fake jw gnews who blasphemes God saying He is "a god" care
about wrong use of scripture.


fake paranoid jw gnews needs to have the last post

so go for it
vvv .... and he did

goodnews201668:
Right? They have already judged JWs and condemned them even started throwing them inside the lake of fire.

You are partly right, but you have the tense wrong,
fake jw will be judged, and fake jw will be thrown into the LAKE OF FIRE

^^^
fake paranoid jw gnews needs to have the last post

so go for it
vvv .... and he did

^^^
fake paranoid jw gnews needs to have the last post

so go for it
vvv .... and he did

^^^
fake paranoid jw gnews needs to have the last post

so go for it
vvv .... and he did

^^^
fake jw g news obviously need to have the last say,
with all your ridiculous postings after mine and Paul Grundy's posts in every thread,
so go for it again.

Your paranoia is not getting any better, say hello to your fellow sufferer phony jw mano.

analice107:
Like I said, it's a waste of time. Carry on.

Yes it is a waste of time talking with fake jw, they don't answer what you say,
but they expect you to keep answering their questions.

They are deceivers, always twisting things around, including the scriptures that don't agree with what they are told to believe.

That's the way they are taught, they don't think for themselves, whatever watchtower say, they believe.

They have falsely predicted the coming of God's Kingdom many times over the decaded, etc etc.

God bless you.

dolphinheart:
it has been established that God and Jesus are two different persons, there if you make jesus to be that same God, then your God is two persons in one!, a two headed God!.

What absolute garbage and confusion fake jw talks.

Jozzy4:
lol, the guy na dolphinheart friend o , dolphinheart know how to handle him

the johnw guy always repeat the same stanza as if he is programmed , u hear

" duh , u dont understand anything , yet you cant understand " next is " jw speak naturally , those who called themselves jw and are not and do lie "


sometimes reading the guys comment for me is fun , cos u go dey see grammar . honestly, nairaland is fun , too many comic characters here like mr johnw . ask him question , he will reset to his default answer " i dont discuss with those who call themselves jw " or he say " i dont cast pearls before swines, duh ? dummy u hear " yet he will quote you , ironically him no dey discuss .

he even say Jesus is Gods own spirit . he never realize he was saying Jesus is holyspirit with that statement . so confuse fellow

but I like him , he is one comic character

fake jw supporter cannot help but lie, like jw speaking a lie is speaking naturally for him,
look back at his language to me in old posts and discover does he like me? or does he hate me?
you will discover that he, like phony jw doesn't like me, which I'm happy about, because I don't like them, I don't like God blasphemers.
And they so do lie.

goodnews201668:
No be say you talk am oo, the guy can be funny he always repeat the same things over and over again.
That's why I hardly pay attention to people who are just here to mock themselves.

Ha ha fake jw g news hardly pays attention to me, yet he follow and replies to my nearly every post,

when phony jw speak a lie, and they do all the time, they are speaking naturally.

fake Jw all think I'm funny, yeah sure they do,
jw cannot tell the truth if their life depend on it, and it does.

About my not replying to dolphin post,
when do I ever get into discussion with fake jw, or any non believer,
I show them wrong now and then,
but phony jw cannot help but lie.

paulGrundy:
But you are funny oh, you are telling blind men to name the color of your shirit, what sort of response are you expecting?

yeah I know, but what can you say to paranoid sectarians

fake g news, and phony jw mano think I am you

goodnews201668:
Someone will just exhume so much hatred and call themselves genuine Christians.
They create their own threads oo but nobody comments to show you that people know they're only haters and slanders, and it also shows no one is taken them serious any longer.

But once they see JWs thread they'll hijack it.

I certinally do have a hatred for all the lies fake jw say,
for the lying phony prophecies,
for calling God "a god" etc etc
God hates that to.

joyandfaith:
in the end, what if jw are right?
have u ever thought of that?

I have no doubt at all that fake jw is part of satans church,
it started in lies and phony prophecies and it is the very same sect today.

No one in God's Church blasphemes God calling Him "a god"
you will stand before God at your judgment for that alone.

dolphinheart:
it has been established that God and Jesus are two different persons, there if you make jesus to be that same God, then your God is two persons in one!, a two headed God!.

What absolute garbage and confusion fake jw talks.

Izecson3D:
I don't get ur point then, everyone knows jesus is the son of God, what really do you want to prove? No vex

I don't want to prove anything, the Op makes it very clear that the Word is God.
believe it or not, many don't, that's the reason for the OP.

^^^
We already know fake jw doesn't believe the Bible:

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Heb 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
Heb 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Fake jw, who are not jw, but do lie, and are the church of satan
change the inspired written word of God,
and blaspheme God, calling Him "a god"

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Their end is the LAKE OF FIRE

analice107:
Am so. Sorry to have called you a witch. That was way out of line. Pls forgive. Am sorry.

On one hand, out of line as far as forum rules go, but on the other hand, true .

Anyone who talks so vile of God and the Bible is more than a witch.

And Miz Janet is so dumb like fake jw, she has profiled a ([color=#FF00FF]f[/color]) beside her username so as others know she is female

Izecson3D:
After Jesus baptism God said "This is my SON my beloved ." Can a son be the father too?

The Son isn't the Father, you should read the OP again.

And concerning the verse you allude to, you will notice that the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove,
and the Father said from heaven "this is my beloved Son"
There you have the the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit together at the same time,
the three persons in God.
However this thread is about the Word being God, and not about the Son being the Father which He not,
He is God though, as the OP shows.

Not to long, and explains John 1:1 very well.


The Word and The Watchtower: An Exegesis of John 1:1

by Matthew Halsted

Why Such a Task Is Important

"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, ‘Who do people say that the Son of Man is?’" (Matthew 16:13)

This is, by far, the most important question anyone can ask. Is Jesus only a human prophet, or is He God incarnate? To be sure, what one believes about the nature of Christ has eternal consequences. The reason for this is that faith is only as good as its object. If I believe in something that is not true, then my faith, however genuine and sincere, is futile. It does me no good. It would be akin to saying, “I do not believe in gravity.” No matter how sincere the statement, gravity still exists, and I will not begin to float away anytime soon. Gravity, then, exists apart from my belief or non-belief.

Likewise, if one does not believe Christ is the second Person of the Trinity and if it turns out that He truly is, then that person’s faith would have been in someone who is false, namely, a false christ. And a false christ cannot save. This is why sound theology is needed and especially in today’s time. While it is not an end in itself, solid theology leads to the true Christ, and the true Christ is whom we want to adore and worship.

If we are to accurately understand the person of Christ, who He is and what He has done, then we need to dive deep into the Word of God. The ontological aspects of the Godhead may be mysterious but let there be no mistake that the Triune God of the Bible does, indeed, exist. A strong apologetic stems from a true theology, which is rooted and grounded in the revelation of God--the Bible, and it is from within the revelation of the Bible where we get our theology of Christ.
Where to Begin

While this article does not intend to be exhaustive in its treatment of the many important Trinitarian texts that the Bible contains, it is within our scope to look deeply into (arguably) the most principal and foundational of all texts contained in the entire Bible concerning the nature of Christ--John 1:1.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

This text from John’s Gospel is important in light of today’s highly religious and pluralistic atmosphere. The many heretical “offshoots” of Christianity which have appeared throughout recent history (especially in North America) are of significant importance as we consider John 1:1. More specifically, The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, otherwise known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, has from its very inception been unorthodox and heretical in its teaching and theology. For our concerns, then, we will look briefly at what they believe about Christ as well as their interpretation and translation of John 1:1.
Who is Christ for the Jehovah’s Witnesses?

According to The Watchtower Society, Christ was “directly created by God.”1 Moreover, in answering the question--“Is the firstborn Son equal to God, as some believe?”--they answer,

“This is not what the Bible teaches. As we noted in the preceding paragraph, the Son was created. Obviously, then, he had a beginning whereas Jehovah God has no beginning or end.”2

Christ, to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, is not eternal. That is, He had a beginning, and there was a time when He did not exist. Therefore, He is not God, but does this square with the Biblical witness of John 1:1? We maintain that it does not.
The New World Translation

While this article does not have within its scope a detailed treatise on how to pick and choose a good Bible translation, it should be noted that Jehovah’s Witnesses use a very faulty and inaccurate Bible translation known as The New World Translation (NWT). How does their translation render John 1:1? According to the NWT, this verse is translated as,

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

Notice the major difference between the NASB and the NWT’s translation of third clause: “ . . . and the Word was a god.” This is a significant shift between the two translations. The question needs to be asked: Is this variation warranted?

Now, of course, if we want to decide which translation is the best, it only makes sense to go to the original language in which the writers of the New Testament wrote. Since Koine Greek was the language in which John wrote his Gospel, it would do us well to look at how John wrote and arranged his words in this verse.
A Sound Exegesis of the Text

It would be best to look at John 1:1 in parts and taking into account each clause one at a time. Once we understand what the text says and what John meant for it to mean, we can better compare that with what Jehovah’s Witnesses claim about the Person of Christ. What does the Greek say, then?

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Now for many, Greek is still Greek. An arrangement of unknown symbols means nothing to the average Christian, but what we would like to do is take you, the reader, through this simple, yet profound verse--one word at a time--and all the while equipping you with the information needed in order to translate properly.
Clause #1

First, let’s look at the first clause of the verse:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος

If we were to transliterate this Greek clause into English letters, the following would be the outcome:

En archē ēn ho logos

First, it should be noted that this clause is extremely significant and important. Before we begin our in-depth look into the whole of this clause, though, what do these words mean?

First, we will notice the words, “En archē” (Ἐν ἀρχῇ). “En” is a preposition, which is translated as “in." Archē, it should be noted, turns out to be an interesting word in light of the overall context of this passage. Archē can mean “a beginning,” “first place,” and/or “headship.”3 It would not be wrong to render this word as “chief.”

To better illustrate this word, it might be good to recall the word “archbishop.” We’ve often heard this word in church circles and particularly in reference to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox ecclesiastical hierarchy. The word “archbishop” comes from two corresponding Greek words, namely, archē and episkopos (meaning “bishop” or “overseer”). Therefore, “archbishop” means “chief overseer” or “chief bishop.”

So we can see from this example that “archē” is a word which brings the idea of “foundation” or “headship.” Within the context of John 1:1, we can better see from these definitions how this might make sense. “In the beginning was the Word . . . " We see that this part of the text refers to the foundation of the universe--that is, to its origin.4 As we can see, the word, “archē,” actually gives this idea of beginnings a “thicker” meaning than what we English speakers are used to, for it speaks of the “origin” and of the “foundation” of the universe. That is why, given the context of John 1:1, Bible scholars translate “En archē” as “In the beginning.”

The next part of the first clause is “ēn ho logos” (Gk: ἦν ὁ λόγος).

The word “ēn” is, no doubt, loaded with significance. It is a verb that conveys a ton of information and insight into the deity of Christ. As noted above, we have, so far, translated “En archē” as “In the beginning.” So, we see that, at the start of time, something was going on, or, more specifically, Someone existed. That is where “ēn ho logos” comes in. So what was going on “In the beginning?" We find that Christ was.

But first, what does “ho logos” mean? Logos simply but very profoundly means “word.” We also know that “the Word” is speaking about Jesus Christ. (It should be noted that all Biblical scholars hold to the idea that “the Word” is Christ).

The verb, “ēn,” (Gk: ἦν) is in the past tense. It is a third person, singular verb, which means “was." Without going into too much detail, it should be noted that, contrary to the English language, there are a couple of ways of rendering Greek verbs in the past tense.5 The first way is to render a verb in the imperfect tense, and the second way is the aorist tense. William Mounce defines the two tenses:

“The imperfect tense describes a continuous action usually occurring in the past, while the aorist . . . describes an undefined action usually occurring in the past.”6

The word, “ēn,” in John 1:1 by way of Divine inspiration happens to be in the imperfect tense. This means that “the Word” (i.e., Jesus Christ) was “continuously in existence before the beginning.”7 Furthermore, the imperfect tense of was has inherent within it the idea of eternal past existence. That is, there is no beginning to the Word, Jesus Christ.

So far, we have the first clause translated: “In the beginning was the Word . . . ” We have seen that, at the beginning or creation of the universe, the Word was already in existence. He was existing at the creation of the universe and was existing continuously into eternity past. How much significance one little Greek verb makes!
Clause #2

From the previous section, we have shown that Christ--the Word--always existed. In other words, there was never a time when Christ was not in existence. This section draws our attention to the second part of the verse of John 1:1.

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν

Once again, if we were to transliterate this Greek clause into English letters, the following would be the outcome:

kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon

We already know how to translate a few of these words. For example, “ho logos” means “the Word.” The verb, “ēn,” means “was.” But what do the other words mean?

“Kai” is a conjunction that means “and.” Therefore, “Kai ho logos ēn” can be translated as, “and the word was . . . "

But what about “pros ton theon?" “Pros” is another preposition that means “with.” Moreover, “ton theon” means “the God.” We can, therefore, translate this whole clause as “and the word was with God.”

John MacArthur sums up this clause rather well,

“ . . . John took his argument one step further. In His eternal preexistence the Word was with God. The English translation does not bring out the full richness of the Greek expression (pros ton theon). That phrase means far more than merely that the Word existed with God.”8

What, then, does this phrase mean? One commentator has said that the preposition “pros” is hard to translate.9 “It is equivalent to ‘was in relation with God,’ ‘stood over against,’ not in space or time, but eternally and constitutionally.”10

To make this clearer, it would do us well to turn back to John MacArthur, who, in his own commentary, quotes W. Robert Cook as saying,

“ . . . it ‘[gives] the picture of two personal beings facing one another and engaging in intelligent discourse.’”11

We can see, then, that not only was Christ preexistent but also He was in loving fellowship with the Father. “Pros ton theon” actually shows the eternal distinction between the Father and the Son. This text proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Father is not the Son nor is the Son the Father. They are, as it were, eternally distinct.

So far, then, we have translated the first two clauses of John 1:1. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God . . . ”
Clause #3

Finally, we have come to the very last clause of John 1:1:

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

As done in the previous sections, we will transliterate this clause into English letters:

kai theos ēn ho logos

Since we already recognize these words, let’s quickly translate them:

“and God was the word”

Is this a good translation of the Greek? No, it is not. First, it should be observed that “logos” not “theos” is the subject. Why? Because theos does not have an article in front of it like logos does. The clause is not “kai ho theos ēn logos.” John recorded this differently. He, under divine inspiration, writes, “kai theos ēn ho logos.”

“Ho logos,” then, is the subject since it contains the definite article. This is why, in our translation, we would place “logos” before “theos.”12

Furthermore, if John had written, “ho theos ēn ho logos,” then he would be advocating Sabellianism, which basically states that God the Father and God the Son are one and the same, thus denying the Trinity.13 If he would have constructed his sentence that way, we could have roughly translated it as, “The God was the Word.” But this is not what John records. John actually leaves out the article from theos. Even more so, if John had stated, “The God was the Word,” he would have contradicted the second clause, which states that the Word was with God. This would have denied the eternal distinction between the Father and the Son. After all, if the Son was the Father, then how could He have been distinct from Himself?

But since there is no article before theos, does that mean Jesus was “a god” and not “God." After all, John leaves out the article before theos. Should we then translate this as “the Word was divine” or “the Word was a god?" In short, are the Jehovah Witnesses right in doing this? After all, Jehovah’s Witnesses say that, “John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word--that he was 'divine,' 'godlike,' 'a god,' but not Almighty God.”14

This is hardly the case. Under divine guidance, John actually constructs this clause to refute such an idea. As MacArthur rightly notes, if John had wanted “to say that the Word was merely in some sense divine [“a god”], he could have used the adjective theios (cf. 2 Peter 1:4).”15 But, as we can see, he does not use theios at all. John is saying something more than “Jesus was ‘a god.’”

The only resulting conclusion is that Christ, being eternally distinct from the Father (refer to our discussion on clause two), was nonetheless God.
Embracing Mystery, Not Destroying It

There is one God. The Son is God, and the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. However, the Son is not the Father, and the Father is not the Son. Likewise, the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor is He the Son.

What Jehovah’s Witnesses (who are really modern-day Arians) want to do is abolish all mystery about God. Because the Trinity does not make sense, it must be wrong. So, after mistranslating Holy Scripture, they deceive themselves into thinking the Trinity is unbiblical. In the end, human reasoning has the final say for them.

But with the Triune God of the Bible, mystery is a good thing, and it should be embraced. After all, why would we, mere dependant humans, want to serve a God who is exhaustible and as one who can be figured out? To be sure, God has revealed Himself in Scripture, and He is known personally through Christ. But it is our job—as responsible exegetes of Scripture and as obedient children—to not allow that revelation of God to be distorted or repackaged into something nice and tidy.

Any divergence from what we know to be Biblical truth about the nature of the Godhead is heresy. It conveys to the world a false god and ultimately a false christ.

And a false christ does not save.

https://carm.org/the-word-and-the-watchtower-an-exegesis-of-john-1-1

goodnews201668:
The master planted wheat while men were asleep the enemy (devil) came and plant weeds!

Yes, and again you know how supposed jw's change the Masters words (wheat) for something else (weeds),
and how you weeds are good for nothing but to be burned up.

Mat 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
Mat 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

goodnews201668:
The master sowed good seeds while men were asleep the enemy devil came and sow weeds!

once again, yes that's true, and the weeds call the master a created angel, even though the Master created the angels,
and the weeds call the Master "a god"

and the weeds will be gathered up and thrown into the wine press of Almighty God's wrath.

Not for supposed jw's


Jesus Christ is not Michael, is not an angelic being.


the Bible tells us: God said let us make man in our image

supposed jw would say: God said to "a god" let us make man in our image,
one of the problems with that is an angelic being is created by God and is not created in God's image




Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Heb 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
Heb 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.



verse 4 Jesus Christ was made so much better than the angels, showing that the two are diffrent class of beings, and that Jesus is not an angel.

verse 5 God asked the questions: to which of the angels have I said you are my Son, and to which of the angels have I said this day I have begotten you, and to which of the angels did I say I will be a father to you and you will be a Son to me.
Obviously by the other verses, He never said those things to any angel.

verse 6 God said: And let all the angels of God worship him. showing again that Jesus Christ and the angels are two diffrent types of beings.

verse 8 God calls His only begotten Son Jesus christ "God"

supposed jw's blaspheme God, and call His Son Jesus Christ, "a god".