Posts Tagged ‘Bible’



(An Analysis Based on Grammar Syntax and Meaning)

One of the debatable topics in the Bible is John 1:1. Some Bible scholars translated the verse of John 1:1c as “the word was God” while the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT) version translated it as “the Word was a god.” In this article we would find out whether it is possible to render it as “a god” as well as to know whether “God” in John 1:1c is correct. Many scholars say that if the subject and predicate has definite article (the), then both nouns are interchangeable.  As an example of this consider the study in Greek text of Matthew 13:38 which states, “the world is the field.” This would mean also as “the field is the world” which is true in the English grammar rule. However when the article is absent in the predicate then it would mean that they are not interchangeable. For example “the 144,000 people are chosen ones” could not mean as “the chosen ones are the 144,000 people.” In the previous example when using the concept of logic, one can say that all 144,000 people are chosen ones but one can never say that “the chosen ones are the 144,000 people” which would mean that the chosen ones are only 144,000 people and this is because we know that a lot of persons in the Bible are chosen people of God but not part of the 144,000. In studying logic, the validity of a sentence depends on how it is being delivered or structured. Thus, the sentence “the teacher is male” cannot mean as “the male is teacher” which would sounds bad definitely. So as with the sentence “the valedictorian was girl” (if for example it was written as the same as in Greek without article) cannot mean as “the girl was the valedictorian”. The first sentence states that the valedictorian was [a] girl (showing indefinite characteristics as of a girl and an indefinite noun who belongs from the class of girls), while the second sentence shows identity (a definite noun which was being identified from among the other students). The first sentence defines the characteristic of the valedictorian [i.e. the valedictorian has a nature of a girl] and that the valedictorian belongs to a group or class of girls while the second sentence identifies the valedictorian as the only girl who is different from the other students. This is true in the statement “the Word was God” which cannot mean as “[the] God was the Word” and “the Word is Man” which also cannot mean as “The Man is the Word” which is not in the rule of grammar (whether it could be in English or Greek) for the word God has no article and that it falls as a quality and not an identity – being an indefinite noun and not a definite noun. Unlike in the statement “the Word was a god’, it can mean definitely as “A god was the Word” which shows both sameness to “the valedictorian was girl” and “a girl was the valedictorian”. The statement “the valedictorian was girl” is almost the same as “the valedictorian was a girl”. The first statement shows that the valedictorian has a nature of a girl while the second statement shows the valedictorian is a girl [identified as a girl physically who has a nature of a girl and is belong to a group called girls]. To have a clear illustration of the thought let us have another example. Suppose the statement is “the model is girl”. How could we sense the sentence? The statement shows the model has a nature of being a girl. However, when you say “the model is a girl”, it really identifies as to what class or group of model it belongs i.e. it belongs from girls and on the other hand it also shows that the model has qualities like of a girl. The statement “the model is girl” is not really identifying the model as a literal girl but rather describing the model as it has the characteristics or attributes of a girl. Thus, when a model (suppose to be a male cross dresser is identified as “the model is girl./!”, it would definitely shows that he has a quality or nature of being a girl in the sense of fashion modeling and not that he is a girl (literally). Likewise, the statement “the model is a girl” shows that the model is identified as being literally a girl [someone who has the qualities or nature of being a girl] and is belong to the class or group of girls. So “the word was God” doesn’t really mean that the Word is the God Almighty but rather the Word is a god who has the quality or nature of God. The word “God” in John 1:1 that refers to the “Word” really refers only to someone who looks like a god. If we will not take the Word as “a god” and we take it as “God”, still the “Word” is described as someone who has the qualities or nature of a god therefore he is really a god. For if we say in a statement “Michael is spirit” we would always arrive in one conclusion – that is, Michael has the quality of being spirit (qualitative noun) and that he is a spirit from among many spirits (indefinite noun).

An example verse in the Greek Scriptures (NT) where Paul is identified as “theon” (god) without article is below. Here, Paul is being considered as a god and not the God. Someone who has a quality of a god because the power of God is manifested through him by the miracles he had performed in the eyes of many people. You can check the interlinear link of Acts 28:6 here ( Paul is described as GOD (THEON) without article therefore it shows qualitative and that he may be a god also.  Thus, we can say that if the subject is defined by a noun then it has an important and necessary force of meaning within that noun. However, we can only get the right and exact interpretation of the word based on the context of the whole sentence. We would not interpret the word that identifies the subject as it would contradict the other phrases. Thus, in getting the meaning of the word that identifies the subject, we have options on how to deal with the grammar structure of the whole sentence. These options that we may take vary on the degree of relevance of the word that defines the subject. Thus, when a sentence is translated into English we may have to look back for the original writings of that sentence whether it could be in Hebrew, Greek, Latin or Coptic and others. Basically, this is important and does matters especially when the word which is being identified has no related phrases to further support its identity. However, when the English translation is so obvious in its context we would need a little process on how we would deal with the words to interpret. In John 1:1b it is clear and obvious as it was said that the Word was with God. The preposition “with” when use in English varies differently according to its usage but basically all the usage of “with” when connected to the subject generally refers to something which is present with or within the subject. An example of this is: “I have come to this idea with my knowledge in English.” It means that I have known an idea because of the knowledge I have in English. Thus, my idea is presented with the knowledge I have. Another example using “with” as external objects is this: “He brought up this study with his colleagues.” Therefore, this means the person brought up a study together with his colleagues or it could be in this way, he and his colleagues brought up a study. Thus, there are two objects which are present with the brought up study. To have a plain example let us have this statement: “I went out with my friend” or “I am with my mother.” Obviously, a grade one American student could understand this plainly. That the two sentence means that I and my friend went out and I and my mother are together at the same time. Both suggest that there are two distinct subjects who are both present at a particular time.

In another example of the Watchtower in their magazine, the study presented in one example verse in Greek words “ho theos phos” which means “God is light” would not mean as “Light is God”. “Ho” is a definite article before theos but notice phos has no preceding definite article thus they are not interchangeable. They say this is also true in a Bible verse such as “God is a Spirit” which cannot be written interchangeably as “Spirit is God”. Take note the use of indefinite article (a) in that verse by the NWT translators to emphasize that God is a kind or sort of spirit. Some bible translation uses “God is Spirit” which made them conclude that Spirit is God (a person) and so likewise they would interchange it as “Spirit is God” (Holy Spirit is God). But this is not proper way to do so. The same also with “God is love” which is wrong to say as “Love is God”. These examples show that whenever God is describe by another noun which shows quality (that is abstract noun) or a noun that shows nature of God then the writer does not use article for the nouns that describes God. In John 1:1b it says that the “Word was with God” thus there are two separate beings that are together. Actually when you indicate definite article (the) before the word “God” in John 1:1b which makes it “the Word was with the God”, it would definitely mean very explicit that the Word is present with the God having a clear distinction of the two objects or subjects. Another example, “The Secretary was with the President.” It would mean that the Secretary is together with the President. In writing sentences in English which begins with God we usually don’t write the definite article “the” before God. Instead, we say like “God created everything” not “The God created everything” for we mean there is only one God that would stands for God – the Almighty. Now consider these examples:

1.      The Word was the King. (This is interchangeable – meaning the King is also the Word which is not acceptable in relation to verse we are talking because it would teach equality thus saying Jesus is Jehovah. Many scholars disregard this kind of translation in relation to John 1:1 but still they follow the doctrine of Sabellianism or the belief in a triune God that God became Jesus as a God-Man and died. The above example shows definiteness.)

2.      The Word was King. (Although it sounds not as good to the hearer, this clearly state a state of showing attribute or quality of being a king thus we may say in the verse above that we are talking that the Word was divine or having a godlike nature. This shows indefiniteness. This example really shows the meaning of John 1:1c. “The Word was King” shows that the word is a king who has the quality or attributes of being a king. This example shows not a definite king but rather indefinite from a group of kings. The Word is being described as a king who can compare to other kings but not the definite king who may be above and incomparable to other kings.)

3.      The Word was a king. (This indicates that the Word was one of a king from the class of kings. This would tell that the Word has the attributes of being a king and can have same nature as the other kings.)

Consider also the following statements in which the noun “man” is use by some scholars:

1.      “HE IS MAN.” – This really means that he is a man – a physical qualities and inner qualities that shows of being man. It does shows that the spoken about is human. For example: “Volta is man”. The peculiar name tells the hearer or reader as to what nature Volta has. Thus it suggests Volta has a nature like of a man therefore he is a man. The same suggests in the words “THE WORD IS GOD” in John 1:1c which really suggests “THE WORD IS A GOD”.

2.      “HE IS A MAN” – This really means that he has the good nature of being man; it shows attributes of a person that shows good qualities as man and that he is a man literally and belongs to a class of man.

3. “HE IS THE MAN” – This really means that he is identified as being “The Man” and would only refer to him as his identity who is distinct from all other men.

Thus you may render John 1:1c as “God” ONLY because the “Word” was divine in nature or having a godlike nature or is describe as being divine like of God but not to identify it as an identity as God (the Almighty) and it is also possible to translate it as “a god” for the Word is a kind or sort of god (that belongs to the class of gods) who is lower than the Almighty God Jehovah and has the qualities or nature of being god. It says in the Bible that the head of Christ is God and that he is going to give his kingdom to his Father after he defeated all his enemies and he will subject himself to God – 1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:27 – 28) These shows that they are not equal (Jesus ≠ Jehovah). Other translations use “The Word is God” to say that he is the God himself or equivalent to Jehovah but in John 1:1b and verse 2 it does shows that they are not equal but distinct who are both present at the same time. One thing would fail in the nature of Jesus with Jehovah is Jesus was created and has beginning while the God Almighty has no beginning and no ending or cannot die. – Proverbs 8:22-31 (Jesus is called the master worker or the craftsman); Colossians 1:15, John 1:14, 18; Habakkuk 1:12; Psalms 90:2

If the reader would insist the Word is God (Jehovah) then he would be violating the truth in the second phrase which states, “the Word was with God”. Take note the Greek term used here is “TON THEON” which would refer to Almighty God. Now, using the verse as “the Word is a god” would sense very acceptable because it clearly distinguishes the two persons discuss in John 1:1b which is “the Word was with God” and also with verse 2 which states “This one was in [the] beginning with God”. In this verse it does not only suggests two subjects but also suggests the presence of the two subjects at the same time. The verse that would prove that Jesus is “a god” and not the “God” is John 1:14 and John 1:18: Let us see some of the different Bible versions.

14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth. – NWT

14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.  – NASB

18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him. – NWT

18No man has ever seen God at any time; the only [e]unique Son, or [f]the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known]. – AMP

Footnote:  f John 1:18 Marvin Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament: This reading is supported by “a great mass of ancient evidence.”

18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. – KJV

18No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him – NASB

The evidence that it has the word “only-begotten” in Greek (which is monogeneses) from the early manuscripts would definitely show that Jesus was created by his Father or was begat by his Father but not literally. It only shows Jesus was brought up by his Father or in the same sense that someone has brought him in existence. He had just not existed by his own but someone had caused him to exist. Thus, he did not exist eternally but rather he existed from a definite time or from a very long and particular time ago. Some scholars say it should be translated as “one and only” for the root word of gennao was from “genos” which means “type” or “kind’ thus they say it could be “one of a kind” or simply “unique” and so the NIV and TNIV renders it as “one and only”. Even this word is going to use in the translation above, still it does not prove faulty that God is distinct and separate with the Word for the subject “only-begotten” or “only child” or “only one” is being described as the one who is in the bosom [position] of the Father that is the Word is in the presence of the Father literally because of the use of preposition “with” (NWT) but sadly, it is not the way it is written in other bible versions. However, when I say “the baby is in the bosom of the mother” how would it mean to a person? There is no other meaning of it than to say that the baby is in the close position (literally) of the mother. It cannot be the same as in a close relationship with someone because the Greek word for bosom which is “Kolpon” means place or position which requires a literal closeness of position of the two subjects spoken about. There is in no way to say that the Word (the begotten god) is equal with God (the Father) for they are described as they are both present at a particular time. Below is a quote that was taken from a commentator in one blog regarding John 1:1:

“As an aside to the discussion is the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c (Auw ne-u-noute pe p-shaje). The Coptic uses the indefinite noun possibly to refer to the abstract, or essence. More than likely the failure to use the article is possibly due to recognizing the previous phrase (Auw p-shaje ne-f-shoop n-nahrm p-noute) as contradictory if they did. Please note Horner’s Coptic translation (need this New Athena Unicode font) says, “[a] God was the word.” While he recognizes “a god” as a possible English translation of the Coptic, it is not the probable translation, based on the Greek.”

Notice that the commentator said that Horner statements said that “a god is not a probable translation based on Greek”. But how come the Coptic translated it as “a god”. The fact this was made in this translation is that the translators of the Coptic were really knowledgeable about the distinction of Jehovah and Jesus and that they see other texts on that chapter that identifies the separateness of God and Jesus in a same particular time. Many verses in the bible do not use article in Greek but when translated in English they use an indefinite article (a) to represent that the word is not definite or unique or simply to say that it belongs to a group or class of something.

Actually when a person said “HE IS GOD!”, it does shows that the person spoken about is like a god or that he is the God. To get the real meaning of what the speaker is trying to say is to see how it is being written. If this is translated in Greek and the speaker refers the person spoken about is the God then he would have to write an article before God and if the speaker refers the person spoken about as a quality and an indefinite noun then he have to leave the article before the word God showing that it is not an identity but rather a quality and an indefinite noun. Of course in English grammar the statement “He is God!” provide us two meanings. One is that he is [a] god showing a nature of God and the second is that He is God (the Creator). This now reveals our topic.  With this we can see that the first meaning applies to John 1:1c – that is the Word is a god [someone who belongs to gods] who has the nature of God but not the second meaning for it would show that Jesus is God (the Almighty) which is not in concordance with many verses in the Bible that speaks Jesus is not God (identity). Thus in order not to have misconception with the English translation of John 1:1c it should be necessary to render it as “a god” to emphasize that the word is not the God but a god who has the nature of God making it clear with the distinction of the Father and Son. In addition to this, God was addressed as the “Father” and Jesus as the “Son” in the Bible. Although Jesus was addressed also as a “Father”, God was never addressed as a “Son”. Likewise Jesus was addressed as a “brother” but God was never addressed as a “brother”. Moreover, God addressed his chosen ones as his “children” but Jesus addressed the little flock as to be his “brothers” and also Jehovah is identified as “Almighty God” but Jesus is only address as “Mighty God” and never as “Almighty God”.

rmnnoute shared a good comment on this post and he shared this link:

For discussion about the Trinity Doctrine please see the link below:

For articles concerning about NWT please see the links below.

FOR IN-DEPTH discussion about qualitative, definite and indefinite nouns please see this link below.


Concerning about qualitative noun let us have examples again.

1.      “That boy is star!” and “That boy is a star.”

2.      “He is gay.” and “He is a gay.”

The first person in the first number indicates that the boy is describe as to being a star, suggesting he is famous and showing a quality of being a star while the second sentence in the first number indicates that he is a star who belongs to a group of stars. In the second example, the first person in the second number who is spoken about indicates a quality of being gay and so he may be therefore a gay. The second person in the second number indicates that he is a gay and belongs to a class of gays.  Both first examples in the two numbers show that the qualitative noun shows also as being an indefinite noun.

Now let us consider an example that is related issue to the Trinitarians.

“You are my princess.”

There are two meanings that implies here. The first one could be that she portrays the qualities of being a princess but never a literal princess in real life. Thus, it shows only qualitative but not definite or indefinite. The other one is, it implies that she is a literal or real princess in true life and she possesses the qualities of being a real princess and thus she belongs to a class of princess. Therefore, it suggest both qualitative and indefiniteness.

This is the thing that arises in theology in relation to John 1:1c. Some Trinitarians insist that the word “THEOS” is only qualitative and not definite nor indefinite because to say by them that “THEOS” is definite would mean the “Word” is “God [the Father]” but it prohibits them because of Greek grammar rule and to say the “Word” is indefinite means the “Word” is a god who belongs to a class of gods also dislike by them. Some still insist that “God” here is definite and would mean as “God” as being an identity even an anarthrous article (ho) is absent before the word “God”. However, this doesn’t hold true in Greek language when it comes to grammar rule and thus weakens the Colwell’s rule. If however, Trinitarians would not accept the word “THEOS” pertaining to the “Word” as indefinite noun but cannot accept it also as a definite noun because of the fact in the Greek grammar rule, and believing it is only a qualitative noun then there are two questions for them to be answered. One, if “THEOS” here in John 1:1c is qualitative only and they believe that Jesus is God as a definite being and consider no other gods, is it not true that being a qualitative noun as for a definite person (identity) means that the qualitative noun is also a definite noun? If yes, can you cite an example of qualitative noun in the Bible that suggests of being a definite noun or even in the English grammar? Second, if the qualitative noun is not a definite noun then how come it is not an indefinite noun?

Let us go back with the sentence “He is gay.” Obviously, the word ‘gay” is a qualitative noun. This shows not definite for there is no one consider as “the Gay” who is distinct from among the gays and so it is indefinite (a gay) who belongs to the class of gays. Trinitarians might use the point I have discussed in the examples above (as to the model and to the princess) that qualitative here maybe also refer to a definite noun but clearly in these two examples they are not have the legitimate characteristics to be called as a true girl and a true princess. In relation to “THEOS” in John 1:1c, some Trinitarians as those who claim it is both qualitative and definite noun only based their belief on assumptions on the belief that Jesus is God (the Almighty) founded back in the Nicene Creed and Athanasian Creed without really understanding the real truth presented in the Bible. On the other hand the Jehovah’s Witnesses asserted they belief based on what the Scriptures states alongside with the logic of reasoning and understanding plus the evidence of the factual information written by the early people in the early history of Christianity.

Some Trinitarians (as I am not sure if all of them) believe that there are no other gods to be considered because they believe there is only one true God and all the other gods are false gods. True Christians (the JW) believes that there is only one true God (John 17:3) yet they believe that there are other called gods but never to be considered as false gods. Read Psalms 97:9; 136:2 and 1 Corinthians 8:5. Remember the word “Almighty God” would not be meaningful and worthy of the title itself unless there are called other gods. (Compare Psalms 135:5; Deuteronomy 10:17) Being Almighty God means being the most powerful God among the other gods.

So the word “THEOS” in John 1:1c implies it is qualitative and indefinite. Trinitarians can only say it is qualitative and definite only in a sense of assumption of the belief that the “Word” is also the Almighty God. Yet, when force by grammatical standard rules in Greek language and by the supporting verses that identifies Jesus as the Son of God, it does not cope with the truth that the “Word” is “a god” (indefinite identity) who belongs from among the other called gods. What does the Greek Scriptures portend grammatically? Because of vast examples of showing definite nouns with anarthrous article before the nouns itself, it thus shows that the Greek writers are really aware and applied the knowledge of identifying the definite and indefinite nouns. Now, is a NWT version a valid and truthful translation with regards to John 1:1? Really it is. To say that a person is “a god” is to say that he has qualities of being god. What is implicit in John 1:1c shows explicitly by the NWT translators. Therefore, the sentence “THEOS EN HO LOGOS” implies that the Word is a person who has divine qualities like of God.

The word “THEOS” in John 1:1c suggests explicitly of being qualitative but implicitly indefinite and the translation word “a god” for “THEOS” in John 1:1c implies explicitly that it is indefinite (i.e. he belongs from a class of gods) and implicitly shows qualitative (i.e. he has the qualities as of being a god). A vice-versa rule indeed!


(Note: This applies to some qualitative nouns and some indefinite nouns. But what matters here is that most qualitative nouns can be indefinite nouns. While not many indefinite nouns can be qualitative nouns.)

For a final example, let us consider these statements.

1.      “HE IS DEVIL.” (if however written in Greek)

Should we mean that he possesses the qualities of Devil and that he is the devil or that he is a devil that possesses the qualities of the Devil? This is another example in the Bible that does not have definite article and so in one verse it is translated as “a devil”. I have an explanation of like this in one of my blogs about John 1:1.

2.      “Enjoy the power of majesty.

Basically, majesty is a qualitative noun merely an abstract noun. We know that majesty is used for a high class of persons and this could be used for a king or god such as in the expression as “Your majesty”. Thus, the word “majesty” shows qualitative and that it shows also of being indefinite from among those called “majesty”.

Regarding Isaiah 45:5 and 44:8 and among others saying that there is no God other than Jehovah, this does not mean literally that there is no other gods apart from Jehovah since he himself told in many verses in the Bible that there are other gods just for example he said in Deuteronomy 10:17 which he said He is God of gods. Literally, he is God of gods (those who possess his nature of course i.e. love, wisdom, power and justice) and so it involves gods in heaven and on earth and this is true in 1 Corinthians 8:5 in relation to Psalms 82:6 and Psalms 8:5* [*see the word used in Interlinear which suggest of being godlike because of the root word which suggest of being god]. Therefore, when Jehovah said that there is no God other than him, it is not literally but lexically with deeper sense, he is implying that there is no one like him being identified as the only true God (John 17:3) i.e. no other gods can be equated to him for all those gods are just like dust to him though he give importance with those gods he created and belongs to him and for him. He is identifying himself as someone who is unique and is incomparable with the other gods. We must interpret the words of Jehovah not as we understood it in literal way but through its lexical force of meaning and beyond what we thought plainly but according to his thought and not by our own understanding.

Regarding Isaiah 44:24 and among other verses, it is true that Jehovah who is Almighty God claim that he alone stretches the heavens and made the earth yet this doesn’t mean Jesus Christ is not with him. Although he asked who is with him and said no god is beside him, which would sound that he is alone by that time and he is alone when he stretches the heavens and made the earth, this doesn’t mean of literal interpretation. What he is saying that subject by himself alone (i.e. through HIS AUTHORITY, POWER AND SPIRIT) all of the things in the universe were created because of himself alone. When I say, “I, by myself  built this good system of government.”, would it not mean that I may have used someone or others who have helped me to built the good system of government I have planned to have? Also in this statement, “I by myself created this movie.” Does it only limit to myself or rather it may mean that there are persons involved when I created the movie? It only means that subject to the original thought of the creator of the movie as well as being part of the creation of the movie, he gave his authority, power and direction to others to create the movie he wanted. Therefore, God as the Creator alone or as the one who created the universe by himself alone means lexically (beyond the shallow thought of the sentence and in order not to contradict with the other proofs about Jesus Christ as being also his partner in creating all things) that He is the only one from whom by himself his original thought and plans were executed and subject only by himself alone. Now we can understand that in the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures), Jehovah is proclaiming himself as the only one who has authority and power above all yet when he sent Jesus Christ to earth, he introduced him as someone he used to create all things in heaven and on earth (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17) thus giving Jesus Christ the authority, power and spirit but in accordance or subject with the will of God. His will in the New Testament (Christian Greek Scriptures) is to reveal his son to mankind as the Son of God and that his son is the appointed ruler of all things both in heaven and on earth (Hebrews 2:8; 1 Peter 3:22; 1 Corinthians 15:27 – 28). But before the book of Isaiah were written it was foretold earlier that the Wisdom (personification of Jesus Christ) was beside of God who is acting as the master worker of God – Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30 (Note: He was the beginning of the works of Jehovah and he was set up or established but the literal wisdom of God is something which is eternally possess by God as he existed eternally yet this Wisdom (Jesus Christ) was said to be set up or established thus it means he was brought up into existence i.e. from being inexistence into being existence. Some would say before the universe were set up or created there is no knowledge upon yet that is why God created or establish his wisdom in himself. Is the Wisdom really the wisdom of God as it is the nature of God? No, because the wisdom of God is in his mind and acting only as his instrument in understanding his will. However, this Wisdom was called to be at the side of God who is delighted with God and acting as someone who has wisdom in creating things (Proverbs 8:30). If I have knowledge about something and wanted to build something through it, could my wisdom create that thought in my mind into physical things? Certainly no. But rather in order to have the concrete product of my thought, I will use someone/something who/that will help me to concretize the wisdom I have in my mind and that the person I will use will have the likeness of wisdom I have thus we will be having the same idea and so we can create the things which I wanted to create. Finally, we should remember that it is not through the mind (as if the mind can produce and hold things together) of God that all things were created but rather it is through his spirit (compare Psalms 33:6 104:30; Job 33:4) everything were created and that all hold together. Yes, the mind is used by God in organizing his will but not in creating though he uses it of course but it is through his spirit which is the powerful force in the universe that he use to perform or execute his will including in creating things.

In the concept of JOHN 1:1 the word THEON is a definite being of which he is identified as an identity. From the word THEON/THEOS (definite) there would be class of theon/theos of which they are in the nature of the word THEON/THEOS but they are indefinite from the groupmates of theon/theos. They show the qualities of being THEOS/THEON but not of the same substance or composition of THE THEON/THEOS. So whether they are taken as a whole group (all the theos/theon) but considered everyone individually or as individual they are really indefinite from among the other members of the group and are not really the same with THE THEOS/THEON which is identified as a single entity. Therefore, even the word “law” without article denotes all the laws of THE LAW it does not convey of being THE LAW but it suggest of all the laws in the law taken individually which are indefinite from among all the other laws within The Law and have the nature or qualities of being called a law. Lastly, if the Set A is THE THEOS from whom he created the class of theos which are his subsets, then every theos he created are being indefinite from among the other theos (elements) that THEOS had created and are his elements but all the theos or every theos is not the set THE THEOS. To have an example suppose a box is set A and its element is a ball (b). The element which is ball cannot be Set A since they are really different in nature. But what it says here is that A contains b and that b cannot contain A since you cannot put the box on the ball.

I do not say that this topic is of high level of proving yet I hope it may help in giving a more concrete explanation about the subject core I have discussed.

Here is the link about the words of Colin which got me interested to tackle.


Yes, it is true that there are some instances in the Bible that speaks of God yet without article in Greek texts but how come the word “God” in John 1:1c should not mean definitely as the God but should determine only as “a god” that shows in the nature of the God?  The reasoning of Trinitarians in finding the many instances of word “God” without article in the Greek texts that suggest of being God himself is really shallow in thinking. Why? First, they do think that nouns without article is always definite which is not always true and with the other nouns (count nouns) without article can they say it can be a definite noun? Why for certain reason that those count nouns without article (except as identified explicitly by the context of the verse that the count noun is definite) is always indefinite? Why not use the same thought of being definite like of the word “God” without article without hesitantly doing it with the count nouns without article? The real thing is it cannot apply that thought of being definite since it is always identified that all the definite count nouns should have the definite article (the) except for those without article but clearly conveys of being definite because of the supporting context of a verse given. However, when speaking of the word “God”, whether there is an article present or absent before the word “God” if the context of the verse conveys of being the definite God then it has always no problem dealing with the word “God” as to be definite because it is really a requirement to do so that the rendering of the word “God” should be definite and not indefinite. If Trinitarians would insist in a way that “God” without article would show definite in many instances as it is acceptable even with those who believes only in one person God and would use this to back up the case in John 1:1c then why not by the same logic of reasoning use the same concept of definiteness with those nouns without article? The main point that always pointing by the Trinitarians is that God without article that refers to God is always definite and since they believe Jesus is God then he is God definitely. Even if we write in English translations the word THEON and THEOS of John 1:1 with the word “God” as it may be written as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word” [I put it in a literal transliteration of the original Greek], or in very transliterated way of the original root word of the Greek text as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was towards to [the] God, and God was the Word”, should we say that the Word is [the] God? Even getting the meaning of it literally it cannot equate equivalently since the Word is towards with the God and so would mean that in the beginning the Word was coming closer with [the] God. How about “and God was the Word”? Since many Trinitarians misinterpreted the word “God” in John 1:1c which they refer to God (the Father) but others only as the qualities of the Father (the divinely being of the Father) then they say that “the Word is God” would mean as “the Word is Divine” (in which I agree also) or “what the God was, the Word was” (in which I do not agree which means having same substance). If we will put on a mapping the word that identifies the qualities of God as the divinely being of the Father in the original Greek text of clause c then we will have “the divinely being of the Father was the Word” but it cannot be and would never be the same as “the Divine Being was the Word” which shows sameness with “the God was the Word” or “what the God was the Word was.” Let us focus on the words “the divinely being of the Father was the Word”. The divinely being of the Father includes all the qualities and nature of the Father which composed of love, power, wisdom and justice and all these four major qualities of God is represented by the Word and not just as “what the Father was the Word was” which shows of same or equivalent substance. What it conveys here is that the full attributes or divine nature of the Father can be seen through the Word (compare Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:15). Even in the Holy Scriptures these four major divine attributes of God which is love, wisdom, power and justice can be seen clearly from all the creation of God or of all the things he made or done – Romans 1:20. But the divine attributes of God is not limited unlike all the things he made or created. However, these works or creation [which are temporal in its qualities or in its own sense unlike with Jehovah] of Jehovah including Jesus as the Wisdom (Proverbs 8:22,23,30) shows the very attributes of the divinely being of the Father. Now, since the Father has divinely being of himself then he of course can be called as The Divine Being (identity). And since the Divine Being (the Father) has divinely being to himself and that his divinely being is represented by the Word or can be seen through the Word, then the Word is absolutely a divine being who has divinely being just like as of the Father. Thus, God who shows the qualities of being God himself is represented by Jesus who is also a god which shows the qualities of being God (Divine Being). In conclusion, the possible transliteration of the original Greek text of John 1:1 is “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was towards to [the] God, and the divinely being of God* was the Word.” But it is more acceptable and par of John 1:1c if this is translated as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and being divine was the Word.” And as I have explained above the possible parallel translation of these in its core meaning is “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word is being divine” or “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a divine being [or a god].”

*The divinely being of God may show as the equivalent meaning of the qualitative noun “God” in John 1:1c of which the qualities of God can be seen through the Word or that it represents by the Word (see 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30) thus the Word has the qualities of God or of being divine or has godly nature and therefore can be called as a god who has also the nature of God.

Another good literal transliteration of John 1:1c is “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was towards to [the] God, and being like God was the Word” or in a good translation in English we may have “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and being like God was the Word.” Therefore in proper English structure translation it would be “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was being like God.”

Let us focus on the third clause. The word “being like God” literally means of showing the qualities or nature of being God thus the Word was being like God in the beginning or in contractions it would definitely become as “the Word was like God.” In illustration if I say “the girl is like the princess” it means that the girl I am spoken about looks like the princess I am talking about. In other words, the girl shows her qualities of being a princess like of the princess (definite) I have mentioned and not the girl is being or becoming the princess. This means that the girl has the qualities of the princess but it does not conveys that all the exact and full nature of the princess is in her as like the identity of the princess was incarnated to her. The girl of being like a princess represents the whole being of the Princess but not really acting as the Princess or in other words the full nature of the Princess can be seen through her but not all the full nature of the Princess is also in her. She is only the representation or the manifestation of the princess i.e. the full qualities of the princess can be seen through her but her qualities are not the same or exact with the full attributes of the Princess. Therefore, the words “the Word is like God” simply shows that the Word shows the qualities like of [the] God and not that he is being God or the God and so in conclusion we can say that he is a god possessing the nature of God.

Thus the translation “The Word is Divine” only means that the Word is being divine and that he is a divine being but not as he is the Divine Being [the Father] (Compare Philippians 2:6).

What about the terms “It is in him that all the fullness of “THEOTES” dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:9)

THEOTES could have a meaning of a Diety, God, being God, divine nature/qualities

If we would write the words as “It is in him that all the fullness of the Diety dwells bodily.”

And since the Diety means Godhead then Trinitarians insist that the Diety which is the Godhead [God] is also Jesus.

Again, as I have explained in the previous above the divinely being of the Father (i.e.) his full nature of being God can be seen through Jesus or represents by Jesus. Thus, even it may mean as all the fullness of God resides in Jesus this does not mean that Jesus is also God. What the real context mean is that all the divine nature of God can be seen bodily or physically (i.e. by the naked eyes of man and by perceiving the wonders of works of God) through Jesus or that all the divine nature of God represents by Jesus since Jesus is the exact representation of the Father (Hebrews 1:3) and the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15) and that through him ALL THINGS were created (1 Colossians 1:16 – 17, Proverbs 8:30; John 1:3) which of course literally shows the full divine attributes of the Father. Like I have said about the girl who is like a princess, the girl never exists as the incarnated identity of the princess. The same thought can be seen between God and the Word. The Word never exists as the incarnated identity of God. To have a clear concrete illustration, let us say “Denver is the exact image of his father Billy.” or “Denver is the exact representation of his Father Billy.” Even you get the DNA analysis of Denver it would never be the same as unique as the DNA of the father Billy! To point one of the uniqueness of each other is their fingerprints. Clearly as asserted by Science no one in the world have the same fingerprint! What about the other qualities like the level of their IQ (wisdom), their inner personalities (emotional IQ), their physical image and strengths (power), the marks on their body, their ways of their thinking (judgment), their likes and interest, etc. Thus, even Denver is the exact image of the father Billy then it must not to conclude that Denver is the Father Billy. Thus, the sentence could only mean as “Denver has qualities like of his Father Billy.” The only acceptable and undeniable truth if Jesus is God (the Father) is that there would be words written as “and God became the Word” or “and God became Jesus” or “and God became the Son” however, no text or even single hint in all the Scriptures that gives this plain understanding.

Thus, the words “It is in him that all the fullness of the Diety dwells bodily” would only mean as “It is in him that all the full divine qualities (or nature) [of God] dwells bodily.”

See this in depth study about Colossians 2:9 in this link: (

Here are the examples of words that are of the same structure as of divinely being:

powerful being, merciful being, godly being, friendly being, loyal being, almighty being, cheerful being, crazy being, etc.

NWT Compared to Other Bible Versions

The New World Translations of the Holy Scriptures – Its Veracity and Benefits to Readers

A lot of bible versions were made nowadays to be able to read by the people in different languages. Many bible translations existed from old times which some people prefer to use because of the acceptance of the majority and clergy people such as the King James Version, one of the oldest translations in our time. Today, there are lot of Bible translations of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Every church religion has preference in using a bible version. They believe that their preferred bible version/s is/are better to use than the other translations. The Jehovah’s Witnesses also assert this statement and they believe that the New World Translation is the most accurate and the easiest version to understand by the readers according to their own language. However, despite of the usefulness and advantages of the NWT to its readers, many critics from different religious sects do not trust this translation. Instead, they deliberately criticize some parts of its translations. So the purpose of this article is to show the truthfulness of the NWT in the most credible way I could present. Here are some major biblical verses that detractors want to call attention to destroy the credibility of the NWT and also to lead and influence many people against NWT and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Please take this as an opportunity for everyone who wants to know the truth and uphold for the truth by reading this article most especially the links taken by the author to support the standing of the Watchtower in promoting NWT as the most accurate bible translation of this time.


NWT:  1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.

TNIV: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

NIV:     1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

KJV:      1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


Some Trinitarians insist this as the Holy Spirit which is coequal and coeternal with the Father and Son. The original Hebrew words here are “ruwach elohim” which are accurately translated as “Spirit of God”. However, when reading this verse, one cannot easily and plainly understand what the word “Spirit” means on the situation or what the word is exactly trying to depict to the reader. This is the problem that encounters by the Trinitarians for they believe that Spirit of God (also Holy Spirit) is a person coequal with the Father and Son. Spirit of God as defined by Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon states, “Spirit of God, the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and Son”. On the other hand, if this Spirit is not taken as the Holy Spirit then this would show multiple good spirits of God or a different Spirit from the Holy Spirit. This would violate Ephesians 4:5 which states that there is only one spirit from God. Moreover, a person without a bible knowledge would definitely think it as a soul of God that is in him since most people know that spirit and soul are the same and interchangeable. On the part of religionists who believe that spirit and soul are not the same, many from them still believe that the Spirit of God is something that is inside of him. Let us find out what the Spirit of God is. Spirit is described as an active force of God in Psalms 104:30. Here he sends out his spirit to create things. Just imagine the universe. How can someone create and maintain all the heavenly things with enormous forces acting on each if the creator won’t use a magnificent and very powerful force? Thus spirit of God is definitely a force that he sends out to perform his will. Spirit is also described as the force of breath given to all mankind and animals – Ecclesiastes 3:19 – 21. Jesus entrusted his spirit to his Father Jehovah – Luke 23:46. Spirit of human is not immortal. It goes back to God who gives it when they die – Ecclesiastes 12:7; Psalms 146:4. From all of these, we can clearly see that the Spirit (ruwach which literally means wind) is really an active force which sends out by Jehovah to create all things, give life to all human and animals and do His own will (just as what he did to all his chosen ones from the beginning unto this last days by pouring his spirit unto them). Thus, there is no reason to say that NWT translators altered the word of God but this is mainly to define the true meaning of the word Spirit on that context.

For further reading about the identity of the Holy Spirit please click this link site:

The above link explains the nature of Spirit however, it describes that the Spirit is a power. Though Spirit is used by Jehovah it does not mean it is a power but rather a force use by God in exerting his power thus, Spirit is associated with power of God. In Science, force it said to be a power but in the Bible it is not actually a power but a force (Spirit of God) which is something that is used by God to perform his will in relation to his power. To illustrate this, we can say that the power of God can be seen from his creation. He creates  everything from nothing. He has set everything from nothing. Thus creation means – a thing made out of nothing. While force is something that holds everything (all creation) and causes everything to exist or to happen. A power can create elements out of nothing but what these elements have statutes or decree on itself is cause by the force of God according to his will generally by his own design. That is why heavens were made out of nothing by the power of Jehovah but what holds it in its constant and proper position is caused by the force of God – the Holy Spirit.


NWT:   10 “And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of favor and entreaties, and they will certainly look to the One whom they pierced through, and they will certainly wail over Him as in the wailing over an only [son]; and there will be a bitter lamentation over him as when there is bitter lamentation over the firstborn [son].

TNIV:   10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

NIV:     10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

KJV:      10And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

NASB:  10“I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.


Actually the Hebrew word that is translated on some bible versions for the word “on me” is “et” which is an “untranslatable mark of the accusative case” thus there is no transliteration of the said word for the said verse. Accusative in dictionary means a grammatical case use to identify the direct object or other grammatical parts that affects the noun, pronoun and adjective. Thus it helps out the reader or hearer to identify the thing or person spoken about. Since Jehovah is the one who was speaking on the said verse, the only possible word to apply is “on me” and “to the one” since the person being mention is someone who was pierced through. And since Trinitarians believed that Jesus is Jehovah then they translated it “on me” and since Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is not Jehovah and that Jesus was the one pierced then they translated it as “to the one”. The question is if the words “on me” is really the appropriate translation for that verse then why do the Trinitarian translators did not use the word “for me” instead of “for him” on the next phrases? This is a raising issue to Trinitarians. Since there is no Hebrew word that corresponds to the word “him” and so the translators had to decide what corresponding pronoun (he, she, him, her) should be used based on the gender which the context present. Since the pronoun “him” is normally translated without Hebrew word for it, this is normal to write it as “him” and so they wrote it as “for him” and “over him”.  Moreover, it is true that Jehovah was the one who is speaking on that verse at that time – Zechariah 12:1, 10. But why would a speaker who first spoke on the first person (i.e. on me) would spoke on the second person (him)? Would it sounds not bad grammatically to use a personal pronoun in the first person (me) then switch suddenly to a personal pronoun in a second person (him) in one sentence? Still, even the second personal pronoun was in the second sentence (considering the first pronoun was the first sentence) this would only show a big confusion to the reader and hearer in relation to what the speaker have spoken about his preceding statement that is as to whom the word “him” refers to. By careful examining the context of the whole statement concerning the pronouns used, we could clearly understand the incapacity to connect the person described as “him” to the person described as “me”. The flow of grammar as to what it should appear to the reader or hearer which is exactly primarily and the only meaning of the said statement is that – there is another person being pointed out by the speaker that is not in relation to the person he is describing on the first. So definitely the pronoun “him” proves grammatically nonsense and incorrect with regards to the subject being discussed by the speaker itself. In order to prove the concordance of the context of each phrase we must show the singularity of the pronoun use. Thus, asserting the first pronoun to be “me” then it must also be “me” on the next phrases. This will lead to a precise grammar with good sense or understanding. Grammatically, the statement should appear like this: “ 10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for me (or over me) as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for me (or over me) as one grieves for a firstborn son.” Let us revise the original statement in NIV. Supposed we are going to remove the phrase “the one they have pierced” as this is possible because it is an identity clause of the subject (on me) spoken about by the speaker and try to connect the next phrase after the first phrase, this would lead as to this statement, “They will look on me and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son”. Bingo! It proves faulty! The identity clause “the one they have pierced” is very important in identifying the person spoken about by the speaker. By having the identity clause to be part of that scripture that identifies the words “on me” which I believe was incorrect as (NWT stands for) really proves that it was Jesus Christ and not Jehovah who was pierced through as man. However, if one will consider Trinitarian translations as real and original then how come the whole context does not give a single thought or a clear thought to be precise? The undeniable reason why Trinitarian translators use the word “him” though it calls them to write it as “me” is because if they will make it similar on the pronoun “me” it will look inconsistent with their translation since the untranslated Greek word “et” is absent within the next two phrases which is present on the first phrase. The translations of the Septuagint Interlinear about this verse show the words “on me” which is therefore used by Trinitarians to insist their Trinity doctrine or Sabellianism. If the Septuagint shows the words “to the one” unfortunately it is not then the translators for sure will show the next pronoun as “him” to the next two phrases. On the other hand, if the translators of the Septuagint wrote the word as “on me” then he must also write the next two pronouns as “me” in the next two phrases for this the only way the correct grammar calls considering Jehovah is the one who was pierced through as he is Jesus as man. There are only two possible ways to look on this matter about the Septuagint Interlinear of this verse. It is either the verse is altered to refer that Jehovah is also Jesus or simply Jehovah is the one that they will look for yet Jesus is a separate individual who was pierced when he was a man. The biblical proofs that the words “on me” that Trinitarians want to refer to Jehovah as equivalent to Jesus is not applicable since no human can ever see God and lived. No one has seen Jehovah ever since and no man (with flesh) will ever see Jehovah – Exodus 33:20; 1 Timothy 6:16; John 1:18; John 6:46.

Please see this link for further discussion about Zechariah 12:10.