Revised NWT released in Spanish (page 2)

Tenacious

I'd like to get my hands on one just to compare it.

Wonderment

@Tenacious

Thank you for addressing my questions in a serious manner.

I would like to make some observations on Frank Luke's (from the Stack Exchange webstie) explanation on the Greek article.

He writes:

" . . . . While the Greek lacks the definite article on theos in the clause under discussion, that doesn't mean the English should be translated with an indefinite article. Greek and English do not enjoy a one-to-one relationship between their words. There are times in Greek when the article is present but not translated into English. Likewise, there are places where the article is not present in the Greek but the English requires it, or in this case, requires something to show the definiteness of the word.

Example 1: John 18:16 in Greek literally says: "...the disciple, the other, the one known to the high priest..." That's horrible English. So it gets translated (rightly) as "the other disciple, who was known to the high priest." As you can see the word order changed coming into English as well as two definite articles dropping out.

I fully agree with paragraph 1. As for example 1 in the following paragraph, his arrived conclusion is correct. However, it should be pointed out that the construction of this verse is different from that of John 1.1c. We are dealing here with a genitive phrase, not purely nominative, as in John 1.1c.

In example 2, he writes: Example 2: John 1:1 contains another example of a time without an article in Greek but needed in English. It says, "en arche 'en o logos..." that is (literally) "In beginning was the Word." Notice that there is no definite article before arche. However, even the New World Translation puts the article there. That is how it should be. To leave it out would cause confusion in the English "In a beginning was the Word..." That implies that there were multiple beginnings to the universe, but that isn't what the Bible teaches. It's a difference in Greek and English. Likewise, the Septuagint of Genesis starts with en arche.

"en arche 'en o logos..." is a prepositional phrase, and in this type of clause, the definite article can be used in English, but not technically required. Again, the construct is different from the third clause of the same verse.

Luke adds: The reason the clause at the end of John 1:1 lacks the article deals with rules of Greek grammar....

The clause in question (which uses a linking verb) literally reads kai theos 'en 'o logos (literally "and God was the Word" but you won't find it translated that way for good reason). Notice that the word order is switched around with "God" at the front of the clause. Because the verb is a linking verb, the subject and object use the same case ending, the nominative. With a linking verb, the part of the clause that would be the object often drops the article (even though it would use it otherwise), especially when it is in front of the verb (as here). When the object of a clause is a noun like this, it is called the "predicate nominative" and Colwell's Rule allows the translation to indicate the definiteness of the word even when the Greek lacks the article.

In English, we don't put "the" in front of God to show definiteness. We capitalize it. That's what Greek scholars recognize in this verse.

In addressing Frank Luke's conclusion here, I must say first that there is no hard rule of the Greek article that can be applied everywhere. Trinitarians though, have been trying to establish a Greek rule here from the moment that John penned his words. A prominent attempt from last century has been the one from E. C. Colwell, a Protestant. In the few decades after his composition, Colwell' rule was quoted by traditionalists as if it were God's own words. Surprisingly, in the last few decades, Colwell's study has lost some respectability. In fact, other scholars say outright that he was wrong. So, in the last 35 years or so, scholars have shifted from promoting a definite nuance for "theos" in John 1.1c in favor of a qualitative nuance for the predicate noun. Some diehards though, refuse to let Colwell's rule die a quiet death. I will point out three factors why Colwell is wrong.

First, context. The context of John chapter one indicates a marked difference between the Word and God. Verse 2 of the same chapter makes this clear: "This one (the Logos) was in the beginning with the God (that is, the Almighty One)." To imply that the Word was the equal of God by adding a definite nuance by means of English capitalization runs opposite to the repeated message by John, i.e. that the Logos was in good company with the supreme God.

Second, Xenophon's Anabasis has a "parallel" construction to that of Jn ch. 1.

Greek:   εμπóριον     δ’     ην    το       χωρíον         
          market     but    was    the      place

Would you translate this clause following Colwell's rule: "and the place was Market"? A logical translation would then be: "and the place was a market.

Third, biblical Greek also disputes Colwell's conclusions.

At Acts 28.4 we find a similar grammatical construction to John 1.1c:

Πάντως φονεύς ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος = Certainly murderer is the man this.

Again, who would translate this clause as: "Surely this man is Murderer"?

No, most translators render this verse as the ESV does: "No doubt this man is a murderer." Other examples could be cited.

Thus, Luke's conclusion, along with that of Colwell's, are questionable.

Tenacious

@ Wonderment

I was going to write out this lengthy explanation but instead let me just highlight one of your points. The ESV does indeed translate the verse you cite as "No doubt this man is a murderer." But still yet, the ESV also translates John 1:1b as "and the Word was God." So why did the ESV choose not to translate it as "a god"?

Now, I'll address (not really me but I'm definitely in agreement) the validity of Colwell's Rule as selectively applied by NWT translators in order to fit their theology and take away the Deity of Christ. The pressing question is posed by ChristianCourier.com:

“Why is it that the word ‘God’ is translated as ‘a god’ in John 1:1b and 18b of the New World Translation, and yet the identical construction is rendered as ‘God’ in verses 2, 6, 12, and 13 in the same context?”

Maybe you can help resolve this NWT mystery and the ESV mysterious translation as well.

Wonderment

Hi Tenacious!

I will answer the 2nd question first:

Question 2:

Now, I'll address (not really me but I'm definitely in agreement) the validity of Colwell's Rule as selectively applied by NWT translators in order to fit their theology and take away the Deity of Christ. The pressing question is posed by ChristianCourier.com:
“Why is it that the word ‘God’ is translated as ‘a god’ in John 1:1b and 18b of the New World Translation, and yet the identical construction is rendered as ‘God’ in verses 2, 6, 12, and 13 in the same context?”

The criticism above has been prominently championed by Robert H. Countess (Presbyterian), and repeated by legions on the internet. But Countess failed to mention the following:

The "a god expression" in verse 1c appears in a simple nominative clause. The other texts are not.

Verse 2 has God preceded by the definite article, "the God." So, it rightly appears as "God" in the English versions.

Verse 6 has God in the genitive form, the "of" case.

Verse 12 has God in the genitive form.

Verse 13 has God in the genitive form.

A Grammar book explains: “The use of prepositions, possessive and demonstrative pronouns, and the genitive case also tends to make a word definite. At such times, even if the article is not used, the object is already distinctly indicated.” (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 137. Bold & italics added.)

The same idea is expressed by Daniel B. Wallace in the Grammar mentioned below, who also adds:

“The most likely candidate for θεός [at John 1:1c] is qualitative.” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, by Daniel B. Wallace, Zondervan Corporation)

Question 1: The ESV does indeed translate the verse you cite as "No doubt this man is a murderer." But still yet, the ESV also translates John 1:1b as "and the Word was God." So why did the ESV choose not to translate it as "a god"?

Most Bible translations (ESV and NWT being no exceptions) are done by religious individuals who hold specific beliefs, like the Trinity, immortal soul, hellfire, etc., or the opposite. That is, Evangelicals, like the Witnesses have their own agendas as well, if altogether different.

The ESV makes it plain in their Preface that their version is done by trinitarian evangelical believers for orthodox church-goers:

“The doctrinal perspective of the ESV Study Bible is that of classical evangelical orthodoxy, in the historic stream of the Reformation. The notes are written...within the broad tradition of evangelical orthodoxy, the notes have sought to represent fairly the various evangelical positions on disputed topics…..” (Introduction, p. 10, ©2008) “All [the scholars and advisors involved] are committed to historic Christian orthodoxy. […] “And so to our triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), and to his people, we offer our work ….” (p. 12)

Now in answer to question one, Acts 28.4 does not address the deity of Christ, since Paul is the referent. Thus, the translators had no issue applying customary grammatical principles to the clause (NOT a rule, though.) However, at John 1.1 they face the difficulty of whether to describe Jesus simply, qualitatively as "divine," or go further and assuage the reader to believe that Jesus is more than a god or divine, that he must be "God" himself. Hence, their final reading. In the end, our doctrinal preference will dictate which version is preferable.

Gorbatchov

In Holland only publishers got a hard copy.

Strange idea to print hard copy's if they using an app only.

G.

smiddy3

If there ever was an ALMIGHTY GOD who provided the Bible as his instructions for man/woman kind to benefit them and receive instructions for gaining his approval and gain everlasting life , through Jesus , he has done a shit poor job.

GOD has never preserved any originals of the Bible texts we only have copies of copies ,by imperfect men who can make honest mistakes and also men who have their own agendas.

All of the above posts should make it quite plain to blind freddy that after 2000 + years humans are still arguing and debating what was meant in scripture , what GOD was trying to say ,and what did he really mean.

If he exists and he truly loves humanity and he doesn`t want anyone to die ,why doesnt he come out of hiding .

Tell us in plain modern day language the true accurate words of the Bible that he was supposed to give to us in the first place .

And not this mish mash of different interpretations that we have today by imperfect humans telling us what GOD meant.

How about GOD telling us what he meant himself setting the record straight.

Tenacious

@Wonderment:

Do you know of any other bible that translates John 1:1 like the NWT?

I’d be curious to know.

Wonderment

Hello Tenacious!

Tenacious: "Do you know of any other bible that translates John 1:1 like the NWT? I’d be curious to know."

Here is a partial list: Jeremias Ferbinger; Reijnier Rooleeuw; Abner Kneeland; Oskar Holtzmann; James L. Tomanek; Greek Orthodox/Arabic Translation; Lance Jenott from the Coptic, and Origen Adamantius. Some individuals have published lists out there that include many other alternatives, one of them approaching one hundred and fifty (150) instances.

Tenacious, is that you in the photo avatar with the mean look? If so, I'd better be careful how I talk to you.

Just kidding , my friend. Take care!

smiddy3

The word for word Translation of The Christian Greek Scriptures published by the WTB&TS in 1969 read

" In beginning the word was,and the word was with God and the word was God." NWT. KI.

Tenacious

@ Wonderment

Thank you friend. I'll definitely be looking further into these translations.

No, LOL, that's actually John Goodman from the film "The Gambler" with Mark Wahlberg. Very good movie. I liked his character and his demeanor. Great actor. Wahlberg also did a good job.

@ smiddy3

Yes, very true. I actually own a copy of it. Very interesting indeed.

Revised NWT released in Spanish

Share this