In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. – John 1:1 (ESV)
Compare: In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. – John 1:1 (New World Translation [Jehovah’s Witnesses])
I don’t know why I was thinking about this – maybe it was because I recently met a Jehovah’s Witness or because we passed by a Kingdom Hall the other day on the way home. At any rate, I was thinking about their translation of John 1:1 – the infamous ‘the Word was a god’ passage. Now there is more to the story with how the Jehovah’s Witnesses treat Christ, treat the Bible, view future events, what they do with the Old Testament, view grace, etc., but this translation touches on issues we deal with so I thought some clarity would be good.
First is the verse itself. There is a part of speech called the article. For us English speakers, there are two types of articles: the definite article (the word ‘the’) and the indefinite article (the word ‘a’ or ‘an’). In Biblical Greek, there is only one article. But because the article is there (such a word is called articular) in front of a substantive, it doesn’t mean that the article is definite. And the reverse is true as well; if there is no article (such a word is called anarthrous), then it doesn’t mean the substantive is indefinite. Now, the New World Translation (NWT) adds the English definite article when there is a Greek article and, in the absence of a Greek article, it adds an indefinite article – even if it makes the English impossibly difficult.
In John 1:1, there is no definite article before God, so the NWT puts an ‘a’ in front of (g)od. The problem is that they break this rule, because it does not make sense. Not only do they break it frequently, but they break it in John 1:1. The word ‘beginning’ is anarthrous; but they didn’t say, “In a beginning.” No, instead they put brackets, but yet they did translate a word that was anarthrous in the Greek with an English article. If ‘beginning’ needed an English definite article couldn’t God? I understand that this doesn’t prove that ‘God’ in John 1:1 requires a definite article, but the point is that English articles just don’t work like the Greek articles. This sort of dishonesty with the language shown by the New World ‘Translation’ of John 1:1 is leading millions and millions astray.
Secondly, there is the question of how we treat the Bible. I was just reading a journal of how one pastor slowly did away with the Bible – it was just too much for him, especially on a particular issue. The point is we cannot make the Bible say anything we want and this pastor apparently understood that. Yes, there are difficult passages and yes there are different ways to treat certain passages based on how you view the whole of scripture, but that does not mean that we are without limits when it comes to listening to Scripture. We must deal with what it says.
Language is a covenant: the author/speaker forms an agreement with the reader/listener that the reader/listener would attempt to understand what the author/speaker means. When we become so hardened by convictions that come from outside of Scripture or misunderstandings of Scripture and then, in turn, label them as ‘of the Lord,’ we are guilty of the same crime as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. At these times, we do not treat the Lord, the one who ‘breathes out scripture,’ with integrity; we fashion His words into what we want Him to say. But when we let Scripture sing and sting, allowing it to have its say (rather than letting our biases change what it says), we are endeavoring to do our part in honoring this covenantal relationship.
[For those who don't like to read long posts: read Scripture with honesty. Deal with what it says and don't change it.]
