Four times the word other is introduced and every time without justification. In contrast to Genesis 1:1, the creation comes into existence not directly from God, but from the Logos. His emphasis on the distinction between theos and ho theos is to safeguard against modalism, not Trinitarianism."The bottom line is that "The Word was a god" is exactly what the Greek says.Ph 2:6 becomes Christ Jesus, who, although be was existing in Gods form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.] It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest (The Expositor, Oct 1953, Vol 65, bold and brackets added; brackets indicate ellipsis on all pro-NWT websites that I'm aware of using Google 8/14/12). Burnett, Thank you very much indeed for your letter of 16th April. "The Word was divine" is a possible meaning of this Greek phrasing.
The Watchtower and Jehovah's Witness apologists have often cited scholars in support of the New World Translation in general, and particularly its rendering of John 1:1c ("and the Word was a god").
Scholarly citation is a form of an "argument from authority." Such an argument cannot establish the truth or falsity of a given assertion; it can merely lend credence or cast doubt.
If they missed from their answer the translation of Kenneth Wuest and the N. B., they missed the whole point" (A letter to Donald P. Joh 1,1 states at the very point of the Originating Expression this fact: That the Logos was in the Beginning; that is, at the creation of the world, he already was...
Shoemaker, 8/26/1977.)The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. V 1 does not speculate about pre-existent things, but declares: The world which we know (V 3) came about by the creative mediation of the Logos, who was with God already before the universe came to be" (Becker, Becker does see a hyper-subordination of the Logos to ho theos in John's Gospel, and says the Father and the Son are not of the same rank (German: Stufe).
All other things have been created through him and for him. But Becker goes on to say that the Logos deserves to be called "God" due to his divine nature (Gottlicher Art). Thus, Becker does not understand his translation to imply that the Logos was a created being.
Also he is before all other things and by means of him all other things were made to exist. He is a divine Person who is, "at the same time the only Mediator of the one God." And, if one considers his comments in context, Becker does not mean "divine" to mean anything less than eternal and coeval with God: Through this Mediator all things came to be. When Becker says that the Logos has a "divine Nature" and is a "divine Person," he means the Son has the same eternal nature as God.
This authority represents the best in modern scholarship, and if you wish to differ with it, you bear the burden of 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass. In Mosaic and Gr-Rom traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one's society. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: h OS h A One should not rest theological conclusions on tersely written lexicon entries, especially when those terse comments are problematic. Doing so would not compromise any form of monotheism because it would be modalistic. tou/ qeou/ la,bwne;cei, tau/ta toi/j evpideome,noij corhgw/n, qeo.j gi,netai tw/n lambana,ntwn one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients (cp. Such understanding led to the extension of the mng. Again, as I explain above, describing Christ as God in the highest sense would not violate the Shema or the First Commandment UNLESS one understands this description to mean that he is a second, separate God. To run to Exodus 7:1 to explain John 1:1 is simply indefensible. Therefore both Trinitarians and Witnesses should reject his conclusions, for they are based on presuppositions with which we cannot agree.
Also, contrary to your assertion, BDAG often fails to reflect "the latest Greek scholarship." Case in point: your quotation of BDAG. Does the author mean treating Christ as a second God equal in status to the Father? If that is what he meant, I would agree with his statement but would point out that it doesn't challenge the orthodox position. Unfortunately, it appears that the author(s) of this entry have the first meaning in mind (see below), which shows they are simply confused. traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one's society. Likewise, the claim that designating Christ as QEOS in Romans 9:5 would contradict 1 Corinthians -28 is unsupported by any argument and theologically prejudicial. The LOGOS is called QEOS in a context where there do not yet exist any physical beings to which he might have appeared as representing God (the usual spin based on Exodus 7:1). Finally, Be Duhn prefers the translation "and the Word was divine." Dr. Be Duhn's views would require interaction with Harris' thorough survey and analysis in his book, Jesus as God (see particularly Harris' comments regarding "the Word was divine," p. Be Duhn sees "divine" as merely meaning a non-physical being, which may be the true God or lesser spirit beings, such as angels.
It was, after all, a brief article written just 3 years after the release of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures. If a period is placed before o` w'n ktl., the doxology refers to God as defined in Israel (so EAbbot, JBL 1, 1881, 81-154; 3, 1883, 90-112; RLipsius; HHoltzmann, Ntl. A special consideration in favor of this interpretation is the status assigned to Christ in 1 Cor -28 and the probability that Paul is not likely to have violated the injunction in Dt 5:7. Urchristentum 1917, 363; WWrede, Pls 1905, 82; CStrmman, ZNW 8, 1907, 319f)." It appears from this part of the entry that the author(s) assume that designating Christ as "QEOS over all" would violate the First Commandment (Deut. This is a bizarre claim in a work supposedly produced to service the Christian community. 1, 229f; JGriffiths, ET 62, '50/51, 314-16; BMetzger, ET 63, '51/52, 125f), 18b." The scholarship is somewhat more recent here, extending up to the early 1950s (a half century after the latest edition! That's still far too behind the times to support your characterization. He tells us that Paul does not "control" what John meant and vice versa.
At the time, he may well have been convinced by the so-called Colwell's Rule (see here for more details) and thought it was grammatically impossible, but over the intervening years, revised his opinion."The upgraded 3rd Edition of the Baur, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon (BDAG) supports our view of Jesus as 'a god' 100%. to Christ (without necessarily equating Christ with the Father, and therefore in harmony w. Mk and 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass. It assumes without argument or explanation that equating Christ with the Father would be out of harmony with the Shema. Does the author mean *identifying* Christ *as* the Father _per se_? Theol.(2 ) II 1911, 99f; EGnther, St Kr 73, 1900, 636-44; FBurkitt, JTS 5, 1904, 451-55; Jlicher; PFeine, Theol. If a comma is used in the same place, the reference is to Christ (so BWeiss; EBrse, NKZ 10, 1899, 645-57 et al.; NRSV text; RSV mg. It proves theological bias has influenced the reference work here (as it does elsewhere). I have commented at length elsewhere on the tendentious and misleading nature of these comments. However, those who hold to the harmony of Scripture - as do Jehovah's Witnesses - do not accept this necessary presupposition.
I'm not suggesting that no scholars may be found in support of the NWT or its translation of John 1:1, but these are in the minority and often are not as qualified in their field as the scores of scholars who advocate the traditional translation.