John 1:18 - New International vs New World Translation

by besty 21 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  besty

  I tried to get an answer on this on the Trinity thread

  So I thought I would give the question its own thread.

  My 3 questions on John 1:18 are:

  New International Version: No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

  New World Translation: No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.

  Why did the New World Translation Committee see fit to translate John 1:18 with two different renderings of theos in the same verse?

  Why did they add the word [position] to the text?

  How did the NIV manage a much more elegant translation with 20% less words than the NWT?

  Answers on a postcard please.
• 

  Chalam

  Hi besty,

  Cool find!

  Of course the answer is that once again, they do not want to acknowledge Jesus is God.

  Check the original greek for yourself http://biblos.com/john/1-18.htm

  The verse has two entries which mean God θε?ν θε?ς

  No reason why one should be rendered "God" and the other "god" save their own doctrine.

  However, the greek doesn't have the word position at all. There is something they want to dilute or smokescreen.

  There is something important when Jesus says this John 10:38 John 14:10 John 14:11 It is to do with their Spirit, the Holy Spirit. Once again, it is totally Trinitarian and the WT hate that.

  Here's a selection of other renderings of the same verse.

  International Standard Version (©2008) No one has ever seen God. The unique God, who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him. New American Standard Bible (©1995) No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) No one has ever seen God. God's only Son, the one who is closest to the Father's heart, has made him known. King James Bible No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. American King James Version No man has seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him. American Standard Version No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him . Bible in Basic English No man has seen God at any time; the only Son, who is on the breast of the Father, he has made clear what God is. Douay-Rheims Bible No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Darby Bible Translation No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. English Revised Version No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Webster's Bible Translation No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Weymouth New Testament No human eye has ever seen God: the only Son, who is in the Father's bosom--He has made Him known. World English Bible No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him. Young's Literal Translation God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare.

  All the best,

  Stephen
• 

  JosephMalik

  Of course the answer is that once again, they do not want to acknowledge Jesus is God.

  Chalam,

  Of course Jesus is God but this word was not used of the Supreme Being in the verses shown. Theos is not identity like a name is, and God is also used in scripture and here by John as an appointed position. Paul and Peter would use it that way as well. It means among other things Viceregent, ruler, someone in authority. It applies to the Kings of Israel and Judges just as it applies to the human Jesus. John 1:1 brings this out clearly as John is showing that in the genealogy of man, this Word was God to the human race created by him under the direction of the God that this Word was with. This theme of John is carried throughout his Gospel and supports a pre-human existence of the Word. The verses all make perfect sense as our Lord said of Thomas' remark to the human Jesus before him, calling him his God. 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. So seeing such a God or Viceregent and Son of God which is well within the definition of the word theos which Thomas would know as it was recorded in scripture which he now grasped does not contradict verses that say: Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. OR, 1Jo 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Why? Because the word theos is now being applied to the Supreme Being and not someone sent by Him like it was to our chief Apostle. We have to think a little I agree but that is not difficult in this case. Now how could such a God or human being be the only begotten as some verses teach? Well the Word imparted life to Adam in the beginning of the human race as God directed and as the scrptures clearly show but God imparted the Word's life to Mary personally and/or specifically. So unlike Adam, this human Son became the only begotten human God or Son of the Father. Not complicated at all.

  Joseph
• 

  cabasilas

  An interesting article written with JWs in mind on this subject is entitled "Is Jesus Christ Our Great God?" It deals with the "only-begotten god" as part of the article. It can be downloaded at:

  http://www.archive.org/details/AwaitAnti-jehovahsWitnessTract
• 

  Leolaia

  John 1:18 is a very difficult passage to translate on account of its uncertain textual basis and ambiguous grammatical form, and the difference between the NIV and NWT involves a lot more than simply using a lower-case "god" instead of "God". Even if we accept the originality of theos over huios, is the phrase ho monogenés theos or monogenés theos? Is monogenés substantival in apposition to theos or is it adjectival, modifying theos? What is the sense of monogenés in this context and how does this contribute to the understanding of theos as applied to the Logos? Each translation seems to turn on how these questions are answered. The NIV takes monogenés in monogenés theos as appositional and as a substantive ("God, the One and Only") whereas the NWT takes it as adjectival paralleling ho monogenés huios elsewhere ("the only-begotten god"). The NIV takes it as referring to the uniqueness of a referrant as the sole member of its class, making the Son uniquely God (as there is no other theos than "the one and only"), whereas the NWT takes it (inappropriately?) as referring to the unique begetting of the Son as the only "god" that is begotten.

  Why did the New World Translation Committee see fit to translate John 1:18 with two different renderings of theos in the same verse?

  There is nothing wrong with using two different renderings of the word if it is justified by the context. We have seen in v. 1 that theos occurs with different nuances in this passage (definite in reference to the Father, and qualitative in reference to the Son), and if v. 18 forms an inclusio with v. 1, then there may be contextual reasons for expecting theos in reference to the Son to be qualitative or in some sense different than theos in reference to the Father (a point made by Barnabas Lindars). Some have pointed to the anarthrous (article-less) nature of the theos as consistent with a qualitative force, such that theos in v. 18 refers to the nature of the Son as that of God. The lower-case "god" of the NWT seems to take as its point of reference the inclusio with v. 1 (where lower-case "god" was already used in the translation) and the interpretation of monogenés as referring to a unique begetting than a nature unique to God. Understanding monogenés theos as "unique God" or "God the One and Only" by definition does not allow for the kind of translation that the NWT has in v. 1.

  Why did they add the word [position] to the text?

  This is a rather minor point. I suppose the intent is to avoid the anthropomorphism of the metaphor (God has a bosom or chest?), but it reduces the imagery to that of mere position as opposed to the personal intimacy implied by the expression. BTW, "him" is added in both the NIV and NWT, as the verb lacks any direct object.

  How did the NIV manage a much more elegant translation with 20% less words than the NWT?

  Because the NWT did not aim at elegance or economy of expression, just look at Philippians 2:6 for a good example of clunky wordiness.
• 

  reniaa

  Leolaia you acept it is a difficcult passage to translate but automatically fault NWT?

  Jesus is in the bosom postion.

  For trinity to work theologically they have to debate this as a non-emotive postion which I hate! you lose the context and theme of of father and son love.

  has anyone realised that Jesus is refer to being born from God in at least 4 different passages and yet trinity has to explain them all away?

  Colossians 1:15
  He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

  Revelation 3:14 (New American Standard Bible)

  14 "To the angel of the church in (A) Laodicea write: (B) The Amen, (C) the faithful and true Witness, (D) the [a] Beginning of the creation of God, says this:

  John 1:18 (New American Standard Bible)

  18 (A) No one has seen God at any time; (B) the only begotten God who is (C) in the bosom of the Father, (D) He has explained Him.

  Proverbs 8:22-24 (New International Version)

  22 "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, [a] , [b]
  before his deeds of old;

  23 I was appointed [c] from eternity,
  from the beginning, before the world began.

  24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth,
  when there were no springs abounding with water;

  Trinitarian have to explain a whole bible theme of Jesus being born of God as his beloved son the Firstborn of creation and to fit what they believe that God is 3 in one, which doesn't even appear as a doctrine in the bible!

  Luke 3:22
  and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."
• 

  quietlyleaving

  reniaa, I thought Leo was being very even handed in her analysis. she allows for different interpretations. I thought this was a nice point and I see it as a point in favour of the NWT

  I suppose the intent is to avoid the anthropomorphism of the metaphor (God has a bosom or chest?), but it reduces the imagery to that of mere position as opposed to the personal intimacy implied by the expression.

  Personally I prefer the anthromorphism.

  Also regarding clunkiness, I'm sure the WTS does say somewhere that they sacrificed elegance in their pursuit of "truth".
• 

  reniaa

  oops your right quietleaving i didn't see the ? on the end of innapropiately. I apologise leolaia.
• 

  Chalam

  Hi reniaa,

  What is your understanding of these verses which show the relationship of the Father and Son?

  John 14:10 (New International Version)

  10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?

  John 14:11 (New International Version)

  11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

  To me it is ironic that you say the Trinity is not in the bible and then the next sentence you quote a trinitarian verse.

  Luke 3:22 (New International Version)

  22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven [the Father]: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

  Obviously our eyes see different things, especially the ones on our hearts Ephesians 1:18

  Anyhow, just to reiterate about the "firstborn", I do not find the doctrine of the Trinity "explains it all away" at all. Once again, our understand of the firstborn is totally different. Once again, the firstborn is spiritual, not physical as the WT claim. If Jesus is the firstborn in the physical sense, why was He conceived only 2000 years ago, at the least 4000 years after Adam?! I think the answer lies in one of the verses you have quoted.

  Proverbs 8:23 (New International Version)

  23 I was appointed from eternity,
  from the beginning, before the world began.

  What is "eternity"? Infinite, beyond time. Who is beyond time? God.

  See for me, this verse is one again with shows Jesus is God, Jesus and the Father are one, Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega and so is the Father.

  Anyhow, have a great day. The sun is shining so we shouldn't spend all day on here :)

  All the best,

  Stephen
• 

  reniaa

  hi quietlyleaving I too prefer clunkiness if it is nearer the biblie truths.

  Just because a thing can be twisted to be translated a certain way it doesn't mean the context allows for it.

  with both begotten and firstborn trinity knows they have to take away the born aspect to keep their doctrine so they look for exceptions but the exceptions they use are faulty because the born thought is still there.... ephraim was still born of Jeseph. isaac was still born of abraham but its that it's the first part that can be given to another that is still BORN of the Father.

  But there is nothing to show Jesus is an exception quite the contrary the overwheming theme of birth and Born of God right down to him being called God's son shows he isn't an exception that he fits right in with the first meaning of firstborn and beginning and begotton.

  Trinitarians come from the point of view that their doctrine can only work if he is an exception so they try and twist it to make him an exception.

  Reniaa