• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why does the NWT translate John 10:33 as "a god"

yogosans14

Newbie
Mar 3, 2013
1,729
136
✟27,418.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I know it does in John 1:1 but I dont understand why in John 10:33...

30 I and the Father are one.”*+
31 Once more the Jews lifted up stones to stone him.+ 32 Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to YOU many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are YOU stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy,+ even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.”(NWT)

I dont get it, why the need to change that passage?Claiming to be a mere angel was punishable by death?
 

childofdust

Newbie
May 18, 2010
1,041
92
✟2,177.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Private
I know it does in John 1:1 but I dont understand why in John 10:33...

30 I and the Father are one.”*+
31 Once more the Jews lifted up stones to stone him.+ 32 Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to YOU many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are YOU stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy,+ even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.”(NWT)

I dont get it, why the need to change that passage?Claiming to be a mere angel was punishable by death?

How else are you going to understand the passage? The verb that comes before it is the verb ποιεω (to do/make). Do you really believe Palestinian Jews in Yeshua's time thought a human being could make themselves into God? I think that would just about fly in the face of every Jewish belief about God that there was. It would sound ludicrous. It would cause any normal Jewish audience who heard the idea to laugh at the absurdity--not seriously try to stone such a mentally-handicapped loony.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Esdra
Upvote 0

yogosans14

Newbie
Mar 3, 2013
1,729
136
✟27,418.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In the original Greek it says "antropos on poieis seauton theon" which means "being a man, made yourself God." Nothing was mistranslated. Jesus made himself out to be God, not an angel. Jesus is God.

although being a man, make yourself a god(NWT)

being a man, makest thyself God. (KJV)

Thats the difference I'm pointing out, why is the NWT bible different from the rest
 
Upvote 0

childofdust

Newbie
May 18, 2010
1,041
92
✟2,177.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Private
Since no Jew would ever think of making themselves YHWH, and since the idea itself would be ludicrous to even consider, it makes more sense to say they thought he was trying to represent himself as some Roman deity - which would be "a" god, not God (YHWH). And since the Greek lacks any definite article (the), it could be taken indefinitely as "a god" instead of the god (τον θεον) YHWH.
 
Upvote 0

timewerx

the village i--o--t--
Aug 31, 2012
16,723
6,349
✟371,691.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Words coming out of an angry mob doesn't always come with clarity and with certainty.

Often Jesus accuses those at odds with Him (even Jews who knows the Law of Moses) of being oblivious of His father. The angry mob probably don't know what they're saying or accusing Jesus out of ignorance.
 
Upvote 0

peebly63

Well-Known Member
Mar 21, 2013
1,401
15
✟1,639.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
although being a man, make yourself a god(NWT)

being a man, makest thyself God. (KJV)

Thats the difference I'm pointing out, why is the NWT bible different from the rest

they have to change the scriptures to agree with there anti trinitarian doctrines as they believe Jesus wass actually the arch angel michael...
 
Upvote 0

ChetSinger

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
3,518
651
✟132,668.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
they have to change the scriptures to agree with there anti trinitarian doctrines as they believe Jesus wass actually the arch angel michael...
Yep. Some NT verses have required "tuning" to be compatible with Watchtower theology.

That wasn't the only time Jesus was accused of blasphemy. His claim to be the Son of Man of Daniel 7 was the statement that ended his trial. With that, he was claiming to be the second YHWH (as per the "two powers in heaven" Jewish beliefs of that time). Even Nicodemus, portrayed as a sympathizer, voted him guilty of blasphemy.
 
Upvote 0

Phantasman

Newbie
May 12, 2012
4,954
226
Tennessee
✟42,126.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
although being a man, make yourself a god(NWT)

being a man, makest thyself God. (KJV)

Thats the difference I'm pointing out, why is the NWT bible different from the rest

I can see them accusing him more of "a God" than "God". The theme follows that they described him as possibly being the "messiah", "son of God" "Elijah", etc. If he had said he was God, the stoning would commence immediately, IMO. But to be "a" God after he had said "are ye not Gods?" placed him more on a different level, than an escalated one (God).
 
Upvote 0

Clearly

Newbie
Mar 31, 2010
636
7
✟16,223.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Child of Dust said in post #5 : "...since the Greek lacks any definite article (the), it could be taken indefinitely as "a god" instead of the god (τον θεον) YHWH."

Child of dust is correct regarding translating the indefinite article.

Ancient Koine Greek does not HAVE an indefinite article in it's language. A rule of koine grammar is to assume an indefinite article is meant when no definite article is present. This is also the case in John 1:1. ("...and the Word was a God...") as well as John 10:33.

There are
attempts to explain why a definite article should be assumed in the case of Johns usages,despite the writer having omitted it. However, the explanations
seem to me to often rely on the insistence that a religious context requires one to assume a definite article should have been present regardless of what the text actually says.

There are other translations which also render the greek as "a god", rather than as "the God".

Clearly
neacclk
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

yogosans14

Newbie
Mar 3, 2013
1,729
136
✟27,418.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Child of Dust said in post #5 : "...since the Greek lacks any definite article (the), it could be taken indefinitely as "a god" instead of the god (τον θεον) YHWH."

Child of dust is correct regarding translating the indefinite article.

Ancient Koine Greek does not HAVE an indefinite article in it's language. A rule of koine grammar is to assume an indefinite article is meant when no definite article is present. This is also the case in John 1:1. ("...and the Word was a God...") as well as John 10:33.

There are
attempts to explain why a definite article should be assumed in the case of Johns usages,despite the writer having omitted it. However, the explanations
seem to me to often rely on the insistence that a religious context requires one to assume a definite article should have been present regardless of what the text actually says.

There are other translations which also render the greek as "a god", rather than as "the God".

Clearly
neacclk

So I see the Mormons deny the Deity of Christ...interesting since they sprouted up in the 1800's like the JWs...
 
Upvote 0

peebly63

Well-Known Member
Mar 21, 2013
1,401
15
✟1,639.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yep. Some NT verses have required "tuning" to be compatible with Watchtower theology.

That wasn't the only time Jesus was accused of blasphemy. His claim to be the Son of Man of Daniel 7 was the statement that ended his trial. With that, he was claiming to be the second YHWH (as per the "two powers in heaven" Jewish beliefs of that time). Even Nicodemus, portrayed as a sympathizer, voted him guilty of blasphemy.

I think the bible is very clear on Jesus being God, his statements prove it to me beyond any doubt, yet both the lds and jw's seem to want to separate them..

very odd really and if you claim they believe in plurality of godfs they claim they do not, which is equally odd..
 
Upvote 0

Heterodoxus

Former mainline Protestant pastor (1978 - 2005)
Jan 2, 2010
93
2
Bible Belt
Visit site
✟15,228.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
why the need to change that passage?
Since there is no article, definite or indefinite, in the Greek phrase ποιεις σεαυτον θεον as seen in multiple exant mss and GNT's, there is no valid reason to alter the wording except (as has already been mentioned) to conform it to a Christological misconception.

If a more dynamic rendering is needed and justifiable, then I prefer:
because you, being only human, claim to be God"
 
Upvote 0

Don80

Newbie
May 5, 2013
11
1
Glasgow
✟22,627.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Ancient Koine Greek does not HAVE an indefinite article in it's language. A rule of koine grammar is to assume an indefinite article is meant when no definite article is present. This is also the case in John 1:1. ("...and the Word was a God...") as well as John 10:33.


The New World Translation doesn't even obey this rule. It renders John 1:1 as "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god". But in verse 6 we also have "God" with no definite article. Yet it correctly renders this "There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of God".

The doctrinal bias here is obvious. Dr. William Barclay (University of Glasgow, Scotland) said: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 translated:'. . . the Word was a god'.a translation which is grammatically impossible. it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest. THE EXPOSITORY TIMES Nov, 1985

Dr. B. F. Westcott (Whose Greek text is used in the Watchtower's Kingdom Interlinear Translation) said: "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. It is necessarily without the article . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true Deity of the Word . . . in the third clause `the Word' is declared to be `God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead." The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans,1953- reprint) p. 3, (The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Esdra
Upvote 0

Clearly

Newbie
Mar 31, 2010
636
7
✟16,223.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Don80 offered a partial quote from Clearly post # 10 : Ancient Koine Greek does not HAVE an indefinite article in it's language. A rule of koine grammar is to assume an indefinite article is meant when no definite article is present. This is also the case in John 1:1. ("...and the Word was a God...") as well as John 10:33.


Don80 said : The New World Translation doesn't even obey this rule. It renders John 1:1 as "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god". But in verse 6 we also have "God" with no definite article. Yet it correctly renders this "There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of God".



Hi Don80 : Whether intentional or not, your post left out my second paragraph. Since Koine Greek does not have an indefinite article, one must omit a definite article to indicate an indefinite article. This rule is unbreakable (at least I can’t think of an exception). If a text has a definite article, then there is no confusion. The confusion comes when a text lacks a definite article but the context might support either an indefinite article or an implied definite article. In this case, a translator makes their best guess. The sentence you gave us has TWO examples of this.

Εγενετο ανθρωπος απεσταλμενος παρα θεου, ονομα αυτο Ιωαννης. (jn 1:6)

Consider the two nouns in this sentence, ανθροπος and θεου. Neither is associated with any article, yet the translator rend
ers the first with an indefinite article and the second with an implied definite article (which Christians don’t typically use though philosophers often do).

Both ανθρωπος and θεου lack a definite article. Just as an english translator could render the first noun as “..there was a man” or “...there was the man”, he may render the second noun as “…a God” or “…the God”since the greek has no definite article in this case. The translator must make his best contextual guess given his own personal understanding as to what HE personally thinks the greek writer meant. This is why I said that most justifications for rendering John 1:1 as “…the Word was (the) God”, rather than “…the Word was a God” did not depend so much on Greek Grammar as much as the religious context of the translator.



Don80 said : “ The doctrinal bias here is obvious. Dr. William Barclay (University of Glasgow, Scotland) said: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 translated:'. . . the Word was a god'.a translation which is grammatically impossible. it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest. THE EXPOSITORY TIMES Nov, 1985“

Again, you have left out some data that might have clarified what Barclay was saying. Since “[…] the Word was a god” IS, grammatically possible and grammatically correct, I have to wonder what Barclay was actually referring to. Since you only gave us part of a sentence, we cannot tell what Barclay was referring to. If he was referring to a bare, “unarticled” θεος being translated as “a god”, then Barclay was incorrect. However, I would have like to have seen the context of his statement to tell what he was referring to.





Don80 said : Dr. B. F. Westcott (Whose Greek text is used in the Watchtower's Kingdom Interlinear Translation) said: "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. It is necessarily without the article . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true Deity of the Word . . . in the third clause `the Word' is declared to be `God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead." The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans,1953- reprint) p. 3, (The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12.)

In these partial sentences, Westcott seems to be discussing support for a theological position rather than rules of translation of the greek in John 1:1. You may want to research to see if Westcott had any grammatical rules why “a God” would not have been grammatically correct in John 1:1.


Don80 : I am not a Jehovahs Witness, and I do not adhere to many of their theological doctrinal details, but I cannot fault this specific translation of john 1:1. Also, “a God” makes better sense in the context of first century theology; the early texts; mishnas; synagogal prayers; hagiographia; pseuepigraphs, etc. in the same way that “the only begotten God” of John 1:18 makes sense in early theology (as opposed to the “unbegotten God”, “the before time” or “the Lord God / Father of Jesus”, in the early judeo-christian theology.

The translation, “The God” or the English “God”, makes more sense in the context of 4th and 5th century theology and their texts.

If you yourself found and recognized this point regarding John 1:6, then I think this was an astute observation and hope you continue in your greek studies so as to be able to help me in greek grammar when I am perplexed. In any case, I wish you the best of luck in your spiritual journey Don80.

Clearly
tweidrtz
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Philpy1976

Junior Member
May 3, 2013
694
52
England
✟23,758.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
31 Once more the Jews lifted up stones to stone him.+ 32 Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to YOU many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are YOU stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy,+ even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.”(NWT)

I am not sure it really matters either way.
This is the Jews explaining why they are throwing stones, nothing they say here actually means anything regarding the truth.

From their point of view, they are outraged at what Jesus is claiming to be, that's all there is to it.
 
Upvote 0

Phantasman

Newbie
May 12, 2012
4,954
226
Tennessee
✟42,126.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I am not sure it really matters either way.

I'm with you. All it does is attacks the idea of Trinity and has nothing to do with the deity of Christ. The Trinity idea is either accepted or rejected by many freely. It's not worth arguing over.
 
Upvote 0

tezboski99

Newbie
Jun 27, 2012
447
1
✟23,193.00
Faith
Jehovahs Witness
Marital Status
Married
Here's a complete article inside the NWT if you'd like it.

1808 “and the word was a god” The New Testament, in An
Improved Version, Upon the
Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s
New Translation: With a
Corrected Text, London.

1864 “and a god was the Word” The Emphatic Diaglott (J21,
interlinear reading), by
Benjamin Wilson, New York and
London.

1935 “and the Word was divine” The Bible—An American
Translation, by J. M. P.
Smith and E. J. Goodspeed,
Chicago.

1950 “and the Word was a god” New World Translation of the
Christian Greek Scriptures,
Brooklyn.

1975 “and a god (or, of a divine Das Evangelium nach
kind) was the Word” Johannes, by Siegfried
Schulz,Göttingen, Germany.

1978 “and godlike sort was Das Evangelium nach
the Logos” Johannes,by Johannes
Schneider,Berlin.

1979 “and a god was the Logos”* Das Evangelium nach
Johannes,by Jürgen Becker,
Würzburg, Germany.

These translations use such words as “a god,” “divine” or “godlike” because the Greek word θεός (the·os′) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·os′. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ὁ θεός, that is, the·os′ preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·os′. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god” or “divine” or “godlike” does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself.

In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article “a” before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article “a” is inserted before the anarthrous θεός in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read “a god.” The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering.

In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in Joh 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite.” On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.”

Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns:

Scripture Text

New World Translation

King James Version

An American Translation

New International Version

Revised Standard Version

Today’s English Version

Mark

Mr 6:49 an apparition a spirit a ghost a ghost a ghost a ghost

Mr 11:32 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a real prophet a prophet

John

Joh 4:19 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet

Joh 6:70 a slanderer a devil an informer a devil a devil a devil

Joh 8:44 a manslayer a murderer a murderer a murderer a murderer a murderer

Joh 8:44 a liar a liar a liar a liar a liar a liar

Joh 9:17 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet

Joh 10:1 a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief

Joh 10:13 a hired man an hireling a hired man a hired hand a hireling a hired man

Joh 10:33 a man a man a mere man a mere man a man a man

Joh 12:6 a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief
 
Upvote 0