John 1:1 EXPOSING the JWs LIES

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

John 1:1 EXPOSING the JWs LIES

In an appendix in their publication, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation, the Jehovah’s Witnesses quote as authorities on Greek grammar, from Drs. H E Dana and J R Mantey, Dr Samuel Green, and Dr A T Robertson. These scholars works have been MISQUOTED to give the IMPRESSION, that they actually support their demonic reading of John 1:1, “and the Word was a god”. I am here providing direct evidence from the actual works of these scholars, so that all can see the LIES that the Jehovah’s Witnesses use, to continue to promote their evil teachings on the Lord Jesus Christ.

The first image is from The Kingdom Interlinear Translation appendix, to show their FALSE claims:



Now I will give the three Greek authorities that are quoted in this appendix, do DISPROVE the LIES

H E Dana and J R Mantey



Samuel Green



A T Robertson




It is VERY CLEAR from each work, that these Greek authorities, are in full agreement, that John 1:1 reads in English, “and the Word was God”.

WHY the need to provide FALSE evidence, if what you believe and teach, is FACT?

I have elsewhere exposed the LIES by @tigger 2 "The word was a god"? On the FALSE information given from works quoted, that are supposed to support the HERETICAL reading, "and the Word was a god"

 

[Aunty Jane]

It is VERY CLEAR from each work, that these Greek authorities, are in full agreement, that John 1:1 reads in English, “and the Word was God”.

You really are on a vendetta aren't you?

Can we just get one thing clear.....we agree that John 1:1 says...
"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos." (Mounce Interlinear)

We can see that Jesus is indeed referred to as "theos" (god) but as with the first mention of "theos" you can plainly see the definite article before the first "theos" which is omitted in the English translation, but why? It is clearly seen with reference to Yahweh and the Word.....obviously ho theos is Yahweh....but "ho" is absent from the second "theos", meaning that he is not Yahweh....but a god-like or divine individual.

It was "ho logos" who became flesh (John 1:14) not "ho theos". "Ho logos" was "with ho theos"....so was God with himself?

Now, John 1:18 says clearly...(Mounce)
"No one oudeis has horaō ever pōpote seen horaō God theos. The only monogenēs Son , himself God theos, the ho one who is eimi in eis the ho bosom kolpos of the ho Father patēr, he ekeinos has made him known exēgeomai."

"No one has ever seen God" (no definite article) meaning that John knows that this is not Jesus....because thousands saw Jesus. So this "theos" is Yahweh. He is not always identified by the definite article, but when he needs to be distinguished from other 'gods" he is.
Yet, what do we see next? "The only monogenēs Son, himself God theos has made him known"....wait a minute.....there are some superfluous words in that translation. Where does it say "the only Son himself God"? "Monogenes theos" is "only begotten god".....Is Jesus an only begotten "theos"? Yes he is because "theos" is not a word that only means Yahweh.

The primary definition of "theos" is..."a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities". So calling Jesus "theos" doesn't make him Yahweh....if human judges can be called "theos" because of their divine appointment as his representatives in Israel, then Jesus can also be called "theos" because of his divine appointment as his Father's representative.
Angels too can be called "gods". The context is clear to those who take it at face value from the Greek definition....but can we trust the Greek scholars not to bring in their own pre-conceived ideas...as the Mounce obviously did.

The issue is not about Greek grammar or phrasing, but the meaning of the word "theos" itself......Jesus was correctly called "a god" because he was not "ho theos". Nowhere is Jesus quoted as saying that he was "God" or that he was his Father's equal.

Jesus has a God whom he worships....even in heaven.
Revelation 3:12....
"He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name." (NASB)

Four times in that one verse Jesus called his Father "my God".....can God have a God in heaven? Please explain....

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

You really are on a vendetta aren't you?

Can we just get one thing clear.....we agree that John 1:1 says...
"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos." (Mounce Interlinear)

We can see that Jesus is indeed referred to as "theos" (god) but as with the first mention of "theos" you can plainly see the definite article before the first "theos" which is omitted in the English translation, but why? It is clearly seen with reference to Yahweh and the Word.....obviously ho theos is Yahweh....but "ho" is absent from the second "theos", meaning that he is not Yahweh....but a god-like or divine individual.

It was "ho logos" who became flesh (John 1:14) not "ho theos". "Ho logos" was "with ho theos"....so was God with himself?

Now, John 1:18 says clearly...(Mounce)
"No one oudeis has horaō ever pōpote seen horaō God theos. The only monogenēs Son , himself God theos, the ho one who is eimi in eis the ho bosom kolpos of the ho Father patēr, he ekeinos has made him known exēgeomai."

"No one has ever seen God" (no definite article) meaning that John knows that this is not Jesus....because thousands saw Jesus. So this "theos" is Yahweh. He is not always identified by the definite article, but when he needs to be distinguished from other 'gods" he is.
Yet, what do we see next? "The only monogenēs Son, himself God theos has made him known"....wait a minute.....there are some superfluous words in that translation. Where does it say "the only Son himself God"? "Monogenes theos" is "only begotten god".....Is Jesus an only begotten "theos"? Yes he is because "theos" is not a word that only means Yahweh.

The primary definition of "theos" is..."a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities". So calling Jesus "theos" doesn't make him Yahweh....if human judges can be called "theos" because of their divine appointment as his representatives in Israel, then Jesus can also be called "theos" because of his divine appointment as his Father's representative.
Angels too can be called "gods". The context is clear to those who take it at face value from the Greek definition....but can we trust the Greek scholars not to bring in their own pre-conceived ideas...as the Mounce obviously did.

The issue is not about Greek grammar or phrasing, but the meaning of the word "theos" itself......Jesus was correctly called "a god" because he was not "ho theos". Nowhere is Jesus quoted as saying that he was "God" or that he was his Father's equal.

Jesus has a God whom he worships....even in heaven.
Revelation 3:12....
"He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name." (NASB)

Four times in that one verse Jesus called his Father "my God".....can God have a God in heaven? Please explain....

The Father calls Jesus Christ GOD in Hebrews 1.8

 

[JohnPaul]

Nothing but hatred from certain so called Christians, always mocking another’s beliefs and only their’s is right.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Nothing but hatred from certain so called Christians, always mocking another’s beliefs and only their’s is right.

don't you like the TRUTH? do you prefer LIES?

 

[JohnPaul]

don't you like the TRUTH? do you prefer LIES?

You can’t handle the truth!

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

You can’t handle the truth!

you do talk a load of RUBBISH!

The JW's have LIED in what the present on John 1:1, and I have shown this from the actual works that they MISQUOTE, that they are really FALSE WITNESSES!"

It is clear that you are one of them!

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

You can’t handle the truth!

you say that I can't handle the truth

Now I want you to disprove what I have said in the OP, and the evidence that I have provided. if you cannot, then don't try to make me the one who is lying

 

[JohnPaul]

you say that I can't handle the truth

Now I want you to disprove what I have said in the OP, and the evidence that I have provided. if you cannot, then don't try to make me the one who is lying

You seem like your guilty of something.

 

[JohnPaul]

you do talk a load of RUBBISH!

The JW's have LIED in what the present on John 1:1, and I have shown this from the actual works that they MISQUOTE, that they are really FALSE WITNESSES!"

It is clear that you are one of them!

I am not but admire God’s witnesses, I am not up to their standard because I can’t give up my human habits, therefore I had to stop, they would never act like you and others act, unChristian.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

I am not but admire God’s witnesses, I am not up to their standard because I can’t give up my human habits, therefore I had to stop, they would never act like you and others act, unChristian.

it is "unchritian" to say that those who use LIES to promote their ideas? Then when Jesus daily sharply rebuked the Jews with very strong denouncements, was also very "unchristian"!

You admire LIARS!

 

[JohnPaul]

it is "unchritian" to say that those who use LIES to promote their ideas? Then when Jesus daily sharply rebuked the Jews with very strong denouncements, was also very "unchristian"!

You admire LIARS!

I admire God Jehovah and his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

I admire God Jehovah and his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is GOD JEHOVAH!

 

[Enoch111]

Nothing but hatred from certain so called Christians, always mocking another’s beliefs and only their’s is right.

Exposing and rejecting heresy is NOT hatred for people but hatred for lies and the promotion of lies. Does Christ hate false doctrine and those who promote it? Absolutely.

But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate... So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. (Rev 2:6,15)

So both deeds and doctrines connected with false teachers are hated by Christ. And the denial of the deity of Christ (that Jesus is God) is blatantly false.

 

[JohnPaul]

Exposing and rejecting heresy is NOT hatred for people but hatred for lies and the promotion of lies. Does Christ hate false doctrine and those who promote it? Absolutely.

But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate... So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. (Rev 2:6,15)

So both deeds and doctrines connected with false teachers are hated by Christ. And the denial of the deity of Christ (that Jesus is God) is blatantly false.

If Jesus is God he wouldn’t Have begotten himself.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

If Jesus is God he wouldn’t Have begotten himself.

The Greek word monogenes has nothing to do with begetting but means one of a kind unique

The Lexical Meaning of "Monogenes"

(Monogenes" (from, monos=only, single; and, genos=kind. Lit., of a single kind; unique)

"Lit. it means 'of a single kind', and could even be used in this sense of the Phoenix (1 Clem.25.2). It is only distantly related to gennao, beget. The idea of 'only begotten' goes back to Jerome who used unigenitus in the Vulg. to counter the Arian claim that Jesus was not begotten but made" (Colin Brown, Ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol.II, p. 725)

"Single of its kind, only; used of only sons or daughters...used of Christ, denotes the only son of God or one who in the sense in which he himself is the son of God has no brethren" (J H Thayer; Greek-English Lexicon, p.417)

"only...Also unique (in kind) of someth. that it the only example of its category...'unique and alone'" (W F Ardnt and F W Gingrich; A Greek-English Lexicon, p.529)

"the only member of am kin or kind: hence, generally, only, single, unique" (H G Liddell and R Scott; A Greek-English Lexicon, p.1144. Revised Edition)

"Monogenes, is literally “one of a kind,” “only,” “unique” (unicus), not “only-begotten,” which would be monogennetos, (unigenitus), and is common in the LXX in this sense" (J H Moulton & G Milligan; Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament. pp. 416-417)

" The Usage outside the NT. In compounds with genēs, adverbs describe the nature rather than the source of derivation. Hence monogenēs is used for the only child. More generally it means “unique” or “incomparable.” The LXX has the first sense in Judg. 11:34 and the second in Ps. 22:20. agapētós occurs in Gen. 22:2, 12 where monogenḗs might have been used (cf. Mk. 1:11), but while the only child may be “beloved,” the terms are not synonymous." (G Kittel and G Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 607. single vol ed)

 

[JohnPaul]

The Greek word monogenes has nothing to do with begetting but means one of a kind unique

The Lexical Meaning of "Monogenes"

(Monogenes" (from, monos=only, single; and, genos=kind. Lit., of a single kind; unique)

"Lit. it means 'of a single kind', and could even be used in this sense of the Phoenix (1 Clem.25.2). It is only distantly related to gennao, beget. The idea of 'only begotten' goes back to Jerome who used unigenitus in the Vulg. to counter the Arian claim that Jesus was not begotten but made" (Colin Brown, Ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol.II, p. 725)

"Single of its kind, only; used of only sons or daughters...used of Christ, denotes the only son of God or one who in the sense in which he himself is the son of God has no brethren" (J H Thayer; Greek-English Lexicon, p.417)

"only...Also unique (in kind) of someth. that it the only example of its category...'unique and alone'" (W F Ardnt and F W Gingrich; A Greek-English Lexicon, p.529)

"the only member of am kin or kind: hence, generally, only, single, unique" (H G Liddell and R Scott; A Greek-English Lexicon, p.1144. Revised Edition)

"Monogenes, is literally “one of a kind,” “only,” “unique” (unicus), not “only-begotten,” which would be monogennetos, (unigenitus), and is common in the LXX in this sense" (J H Moulton & G Milligan; Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament. pp. 416-417)

" The Usage outside the NT. In compounds with genēs, adverbs describe the nature rather than the source of derivation. Hence monogenēs is used for the only child. More generally it means “unique” or “incomparable.” The LXX has the first sense in Judg. 11:34 and the second in Ps. 22:20. agapētós occurs in Gen. 22:2, 12 where monogenḗs might have been used (cf. Mk. 1:11), but while the only child may be “beloved,” the terms are not synonymous." (G Kittel and G Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 607. single vol ed)

I just speak English.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

I just speak English.

The Bible was not written in English

 

[JohnPaul]

The Bible was not written in English

That’s the only language I speak and understand, it’s why it was translated so people could understand it, Greek is the same as Chinese for me.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

don't you like the TRUTH? do you prefer LIES?

How truth is shared matters a ton. To paraphrase Paul, you can speak all man of goodness with the tongue of angels, but if you don’t do so lovingly, it amounts to nothing. This type of approach doesn’t show love, but instead is just fighting. It doesn’t bring anyone closer to Christ.