Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

by towerwatchman 77 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • towerwatchman

    Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

    The Greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into English as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of. But the Greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the English “a”, or “an”. Often the Grammarians add the English indefinite articles “a” or “an” to give the proper sense of the passage, therefore pointing to an unidentifiable person, someone we do not have prior knowledge of. But this does not mean that every time a noun lacking the definite article occurs in the Greek text it should have an indefinite article in the translation. Depending on the context of the verse, chapter, book, and the main idea that the writer, translators render nouns lacking the definite article, either indefinite, definite, or none.

    The gospel of John is intended to be read based on the thesis which is the first 18 verses, which is anchored on the first verse. If one believes that in the first verse, Jesus is God, then one reads the gospel from that point of view, but if one believes Jesus is a created being based on the first verse, then one will read the rest of the gospel based on that point of view. Therefore the deity of Jesus in John 1:1 should be determined by John 1:1

    Dissect vs 1 into a logical argument [premise 1] In the beginning was the Word, [premise 2] and the Word was with God, [conclusion] and the Word was God [or a god.] Therefore premise 1and or 2 should support either “God” or “a god”.

    In the beginning was (ἐν ἀρχ͂ῃ ἦν)[en- ar•khay eimi].

    If we are able to draw an imaginary line, on a razors edge, where one side there exist only God and the eternal, and the other exists the created and the temporal, this razors edge is what John is opening to. John does not open referring to the beginning of Genesis but prior to it, in fact prior to time itself. Note this imaginary line relates to the eternal and the temporal, and not to the Genesis account of creation, because creation is not mentioned until vs. 3. Notice where John places the Logos in reference to the beginning; if the Logos is a created being then the Logos would be included in the ‘beginning’ or after. Using [ἦν eimi] “was”, which denotes absolute existence instead of [ἐγένετο, egeneto] “came into being”, or “began to be”, which is used in vs. 3, John is placing the Logos prior to the beginning. John is saying that the Logos absolutely existed prior to the beginning, and the only One who existed prior to the beginning is God in the eternal. Therefore the only logical conclusion for John 1:1 is “the Word was God” not “was a god”.

    Any rebuttal should be able to support its position by using John 1:1 only.

  • Fisherman

    You do not understand the Greek idiom which is not like English. Ray Franz explains it in a youtube vid.

    God or god is descriptive in describing the Word. It is hard to understand how in English but it makes sense in Greek. case closed for me.


    Well done TWM. Explained clearly. It may not mean that Jesus is God, but it does mean that John says he is in His written gospel of Jesus.

    There is a Greek linguistic rule which confirms your analysis.

    I think it's called Glanvilles Sharp Rule, but I may have the rule name wrong.

    I hope this OP is a catalyst for others who consider themselves to be bible students to look at more scholarly sources for their research as opposed to limiting their sources to one questionable source.

  • Steel

    John 1:1 is a reference to the beginning of the Genesis ( with in the beginning meaning from without a start or end ) and it references the plurality of god ( let US make man in our own image). The term word is used because several times in the old testament god appears as a man to people as " the word of the lord ".

    Then it goes on to say no one at any time has seen the father , only the son.

    Then it goes on to quote the book of Isaiah when Jesus is coming " make way for the lord etc etc " .

    All of this is in the first freakin chapter of John. Now who did John or the writer of John believe Jesus was ?

    God in the Flesh or " a god " or very important person.

    There is no need to learn koine greek or Hebrew here people. Just read the stupid book.

  • OneGenTwoGroups

    Too bad there was never any explicit explanation of the nature of the god of the bible anywhere in it. Like to read an irrelevant diatribe by Bildad or Zophar? No problem, you got entire chapters. Want to read extensively about the actual nature of God? Sorry, nothing but bank shots and hints.

  • sir82

    I'm certainly no Koine grammarian, but I've had it explained to me that John 1:1 is more about describing what (substance) Jesus is not who he is.

    I.e., he is made of the same "stuff" that God is made of.

  • towerwatchman

    To Fisherman

    Please note that eimi in 1a and 1c are both imperfect, indicative, active, third person singular. Following your reason to a logical conclusion if God is descriptive in 1c then it also applies to beginning would be descriptive in 1a also.

    The imperfect tense shows continuous or linear type of action just like the present tense. It always indicates an action continually or repeatedly happening in past time. It portrays the action as going on for some extended period of time in the past.

  • towerwatchman


    When John places the Logos in the beginning with the imperfect 'was', John is stating that before the beginning commenced the Logos already existed. In other words before time and space existed the Logos existed. And the only one that existed before time and space was God.

  • Finkelstein

    Or from a critical and analytical perspective John 1:1 makes it known that men made god by word alone.

    Come to think about it all ancients made up gods by virtue of their own ignorance of the world in which they lived infused with their own imagination.

  • towerwatchman

    To Steel.

    There are many translation of the the NT, with some in disagreement. Now how do we know what the truth is. How do we know that what is being translated is the authors intent? We go back to the original language, the oldest copies and compare.

    Some of us have invested years in acquiring degrees that would only serve us for several decades, would it be more prudent to invest the same amount of time or more when it comes to the eternal?

Share this