Trinity proof texts: John 1:1

Trinity Proof Texts


	John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The three "a,b,c" clauses referred to in this document: John 1:1a "In the beginning was the Word," John 1:1b "and the Word was with God," John 1:1c "and the Word was God."

Click to View

The irrefutable argument stated:

This verse is so simple it is impossible to get it wrong. An illustrated paraphrase of the text would be:

"In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with MAN, and EVE was MAN. SHE was in the beginning with MAN."

Even adopting the Jehovah's Witnesses paraphrase, the New World Translation's, (NWT hereafter) unscholarly insertion of "a god" of the text makes no difference:

"In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with MAN, and EVE was a MAN.

Just as "man" can refer specifically to male to the exclusion of female, So also God can refer to the Father to the exclusion of the Son. However, just as "man" can include both male and female as a class of being, (Gen 5:2 "He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man"), so too "God" can include both Father and Son as a class of being, as in John 1:1.

Initial Comments:

It is important to note that our position is the only position that defines the word "God" [theos] in John 1:1-2 with the identical definition throughout (God, as a class of being, not as a name).

The word "God" is used in two ways. First "God" is used many places as the generic "class of being" definition as in Gen 1:1 and John 1:1. Second, "God" is used in specific personal reference to the Father as in Eph 4:4.

The use of "God" as a class of being in John 1:1, mirrors Gen 1:1 where "God" as a class of being created and made "man in our image". In fact, the only formal personal proper noun/name for God is "Jehovah", not "God". Just as the entire first chapter of Genesis refers to God as "God" (noun/class of being, not personal proper noun/name) and it isn't until Gen 2:4 that God is referred to as "Jehovah" (the formal personal proper noun/name), so also in John 1:1-13, "God" is used in the "class of being" sense and it isn't until John 1:14 that the Father is specifically identified!

Jehovah's Witnesses (Arians), on the other hand, define the first "theos" [God] as a personal proper noun/name for the Father and the second exactly like we do, as a "class of being". The difference is that JW's define Jesus as a lessor class of being, and we, defining the two occurrences of God identically, as an equal class of being! Our position is irrefutably solid and the only consistent one.

We do give honourable mention to the Modalists, (United Pentecostal church International, UPCI), for they like we, do define God identically in its two occurrences in John 1:1. However, they define God as a personal proper noun/name for the same person, thus they want to read into the passage that Jesus is the same person as the Father. This does incredible damage to the distinction of God, so vividly seen in many passages like the baptism of Jesus. We merely ask Modalists: "Who was Jesus praying to? Himself?" Their answer is, that the human half of Jesus was praying to the divine half. So although we give them a gold star for consistency, do fail to win the prize. Jehovah's Witnesses don't even get a gold star!

Arians (JW's) and some well meaning Trinitarians mistakenly translate it "and the word was divine". If John wanted to convey that Jesus had divine qualities, he would have used the adjective for "divine" [theios] as in Acts 17:29 and 2 Pe 1:3. Instead, John used the word for God, "theos".

In regard to the translation "a god", it is well documented and indisputable, that the Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses has misquoted many Greek authorities with the intent to draw a conclusion opposite to what that Greek authority intended by his work. Many of the supporting authorities in the footnotes of the early versions of the NWT have been deleted as proof of this. Several of these Greek authorities have written formal repudiations of how the Watchtower deceptively misquotes them.

What reputable scholars say about the New World Translation of John 1:1:

Barclay: Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is 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."

Bowman, Robert Bowman, All scholars agree that in John 1:1 "logos" is the subject and "theos" is the predicate. This sets the translation of John 1:1c as, (The Word was God" not "God was the Word". Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John.)

Boyer: Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language."

Bruce: Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]

Colwell: Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28"

Feinberg: Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."

Griesbach: Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Emphatic Diaglott): "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."

Johnson: Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian."

Kaufman: Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."

Mantey: "I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation." (Julius Mantey, Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)

Mantey: "Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation." (These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Julius Mantey on The New World Translation", Mantey is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Kingdom interlinear Translation)

Mantey: Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT "a shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"

Mantey: the translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers." (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin)

Martin: Dr. Walter R. Martin (who does not teach Greek but has studied the language): "The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention."

Metzger: Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)

Mikolaski: Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'"

Nida: "With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." (Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society: Responsible for the Good News Bible - The committee worked under him.)

Rowley: British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."

Wescott: Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.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' ans so included in the unity of the Godhead."

We may or may not ever know exactly why the definite article is lacking in verses like John 1:1c; 1:6; 1:12; 1:13; 1:18a; 1:18b. The only thing we can be absolutely certain of is that "a God" is not demanded by the Greek or context! (Even if it is, it still changes nothing.) Honest and informed Jehovah's Witnesses will admit that that "a god" is possible, but not the exclusive translation. They must admit that "the Word was God" is also a possibility. E.C Colwell suggested in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 1933, that the reason for dropping the definite article in John 1:1c, was to make it clear that he intended to say, "The Word was God" rather than "God was the Word". Although this is possible, such suggestions imply that using the definite article in John 1:1c would force the verse to read Modalistic. (Where the Father and Son are the same person with different roles.) We however, don't really need such explanations, for we are the only position that completely maintains the distinction in persons between the Father and the Son, (avoiding Modalism), while also maintaining that both the Father and the Son are the "God" class of being, equal in stature as God. (avoiding Arianism and Polytheism)

It has escaped the notice of Jehovah's Witnesses that a noun with or without a definite article, does not change its meaning at all! For example there is absolutely no difference between saying indefinitely: "A woman is a manager of a home" and saying definitely: "That woman is the manager of her home" (Tit 2:5). The words "woman" and "manager" and "home" are defined identically, although used indefinitely or definitely. The same thing is true in John 1:1 and every other place in the Bible! Saying indefinitely: "Jehovah is a God" is identical to saying definitely: "Jehovah is the God". In fact, Jehovah is called both "a God" in the Bible. (Mic 7:18, Luke 20:38, 1 Cor 14:33). The meaning of God is identical in both cases. To say, "Jesus is a God" is identical to saying definitely: "Jesus is the God". Again, Jesus is called THE GOD in John 20:28. Jehovah's Witnesses are forced to take the unprecedented position that a noun changes its basic meaning as a general rule, when used definitely vs. indefinitely in John 1:1.

Jesus is called "THE GOD" (ie: theos with the definite article just as in the expression "and the word was with THE GOD" in John 1:1) in the following passages: John 20:28; Tit 2:13; 2 Pe 1:1; 1 John 5:20. So both the Father and Son are called "God" both with and without the definite article.

In the first chapter of John, the word 'God' ('theos' in Greek) is used 13 times. In 7 places theos has the definite article (1:1b; 1:2; 1:29; 1:34; 1:36; 1:49; 1:51) In a remarkable 6 instances (1:1c; 1:6; 1:12; 1:13; 1:18a; 1:18b) theos (God) lacks the definite article. Every Greek scholar will tell you that the lack of a definite article does not mean that the noun must be indefinite. Clearly the meaning of these instances is the Only True "God", even though no definite article is used. In fact the most powerful proof against the NWT's rendering of "a god" in John 1:1 is the NWT itself! [Grammar note: The definition of a "definite article" is: the word "the" in the phrase "the God", referring to a specific God. An indefinite article is: the word "a" in the phrase "a god", still able to refer only to one but often referring to many gods. The statement "We have a moon" appears indefinite, but always means our one and only moon on earth. But on Jupiter, "We have a moon" refers to one of many moons.]


	If lack of the definite article demands this: "and the word was a god" (NWT)	Then consistency demands the NWT read this way in all these verses that also lack the definite article: the Word was a god 1:1 a representative of a god 1:6 to become a god's children 1:12 man's will, but from a god 1:13 No man has seen a god 1:8a the only begotten a god 1:8b 'a beginning' rather than 'the beginning' 1:1,2 'a life' rather than 'life' 1:4 'a John' rather than 'John' 1:6

The New World Translation is an unscholarly sectarian paraphrase full of theological bias. Here is proof that that bias. Following are all the occurrences of THEOS in John 1. [N] indicates the definite article is lacking, [Y] indicates has definite article. This is proof of unscholarly & theologically biased rendering of the NWT.


	How the NWT Actually reads	How the NWT should read if it followed its own rules:
1:1b	the Word was with [Y] God	the Word was with [Y] God
1:1c	the Word was [N] a god	the Word was [N] a god
1:2	in the beginning with [Y] God.	in the beginning with [Y] God.
1:6	a man sent forth as a representative of [N] God	a man sent forth as a representative of [N] a God
1:12	to become [N] God's children	to become [N] a God's children
1:13	man's will, but from [N] God	man's will, but from [N] a God
1:18a	No man has seen [N] God	No man has seen [N] a God
1:18b	the only begotten [N] God	the only begotten [N] a God
1:29	Behold, the Lamb of [Y] God	Behold, the Lamb of [Y] God

In John 1:1; 3:2; 13:3; Rom 1:21; 1 Thess 1:9; Heb 9:14; 1 Pe 4:11, "theos" is found twice, once with the definite article and once without, yet the NWT renders all of them as simply "God" not "a god" except in John 1:1! This is irrefutable evidence of theological bias in the NWT. Note: [N] indicates the definite article is lacking, [Y] indicates has definite article. If the NWT followed its own "self invented grammar rules", it would translate the texts at the right as we have done below in the right hand column. The fact they do not, further proves the NWT is theologically bias, and that their rule is wrong!

NWT Reads:

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [Y] God, and the Word was [N] a God ."

NWT Should Read According To Their Own "Grammar Rules":

John 3:2 "Rabbi, we know that You have come from [N: apo theou] a God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless [Y: ho theos]God is with him."

John 13:3, "that He had come forth from [N: apo theou] a God, and was going back to [Y: pro ton theon] God"

Romans 1:21, "For even though they knew [Y: ton theon] God, they did not honor Him as [N: theon] a God, or give thanks"

1 Thess 1:9 "and how you turned to [Y: pro ton theon] God from idols to serve a living and true [N: theo] God."

Hebrews 9:14, "offered Himself without blemish to [Y: to theo] God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living [N: theo] a God?"

1 Peter 4:11 "speak, as it were, the utterances of [N: theou] a God; whoever serves, let him do so as by the strength which [Y: ho theos] God supplies"

Translation & Paraphrasing of John 1:1:

John 1:1 New American Standard or King James Version:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." (NASB)

Position	Dynamic paraphrase of John 1:1	Illustrative paraphrase (Gen 5:2)
Trinitarian paraphrase of NASB	"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (class of being), and the Word was God (class of being). He was in the beginning with God. (class of being)"	In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with MAN, and EVE was MAN. SHE was in the beginning with MAN.
Arian (Jehovah's Witnesses) paraphrase of NASB to refute Trinitarians by forcing a Modalistic reading and justify NWT rendering.	In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the person of God the Father, and the Word was the person of God the Father. He was in the beginning with the person of God the Father.	In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with ADAM, and EVE was ADAM. SHE was in the beginning with ADAM.
Modalist paraphrase of NASB to support themselves.	In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the person of God the Father, and the Word was the person of God the Father. He was in the beginning with the person of God the Father.	In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with ADAM, and EVE was ADAM. SHE was in the beginning with ADAM.
Logos Theology (Christadelphians) paraphrase of NASB to support themselves.	"In the beginning God had a fore-ordained plan in his mind (logos). And this fore-ordained plan was with God, and this plan was as inseparable from God as is a thought from the person thinking it - thus the plan was God." v1-2 ... "And Jesus Christ came into personal existence for the first time at His conception, being a creature based upon God's fore-ordained plan in the beginning. Now God's plan was materialized in all its fulness." [cf. The Trinity, J. H. Broughton, p 247, Christadelphian doctrine book]	In the beginning, God had a plan to eventually create EVE, and EVE, as God imagined, was with MAN, and EVE, as God imagined, was MAN. v1-2 ... Finally, the thought/plan became flesh when EVE was actually created. v14
Conclusion:	The Trinitarian interpretation is the only consistent and logical choice!

John 1:1 New World Translation (only used by Jehovah's Witnesses):

"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God." (NWT)

Position	Dynamic paraphrase of John 1:1	Illustrative paraphrase (Gen 5:2)
Arian (Jehovah's Witness) paraphrase of NWT as they see it.	In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God the Father (God = proper name of the Father), and the Word was a god (god used here, not a proper name, but a lesser created class of being). He was in the beginning with God the Father (god=proper name of the Father).	In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with Adam (proper name), and EVE was a man (lesser class of being than Adam, being female). SHE was in the beginning with Adam.
Trinitarian paraphrase of NWT that supports the Trinitarian view.	In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (the God class of being), and the Word was a God (equal God class of being). He was in the beginning with God (God class of being)	In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with MAN (someone of the same class of being), and EVE was a MAN (someone of the same class of being). SHE was in the beginning with MAN (someone of the same class of being).
Conclusion	So as you can see, even if "a God" is the proper rendering in the Greek, it still doesn't help the Arian position or hurt the Trinitarian position.

Anti-Trinitarian rebuttals:


Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #1	The lack of the definite article demands John 1:1 be rendered "a god", showing Jesus is a lesser class of being. (a creature) Some Greek scholars and a tiny number of obscure Bible translations state that "a god" is the proper rendering.

Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #1 refuted:

Hundreds of pages of highly detailed and lengthy arguments have been written on "what the Greek" says about "a god" in John 1:1. But it has not dawned on Jehovah's Witnesses, that we can accept their mistranslation, because there is no difference between "God" and "a God". Let's accept their mistranslation for a moment and think about this. What difference does it make if Jesus is called "A GOD".

Jehovah is called 'a God". (Ge 16:13; Dt 32:4; 1 Sa 2:3; 1 Sa 17:46; 1 Ch 17:24; Ne 9:17; Ps 5:4; Ps 7:11; Ps 68:20; Ps 86:15; Ps 89:7; Is 30:18; Is 45:15; Je 23:23; Je 51:56; Da 2:28; Mic 7:18; Luke 20:38; 1 Cor 14:33.) Even the Watchtower sectarian paraphrase, (NWT) calls Jehovah "a God", in passages using the exact same construction in Greek. "He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living..." Luke 20:38

Jesus is called "THE GOD" (ie: theos with the definite article just as in the expression "and the word was with THE GOD" in John 1:1) in the following passages: John 20:28; Heb 1:8; Tit 2:13; 2 Pe 1:1; 1 John 5:20.

This simple paraphrase exactly mirrors the thought in the NWT, with the exception of capitalization: "In the beginning was Eve, and Eve was with man, and Eve was a man. She was in the beginning with man." As you can see, although the NWT is wrong in their use of "a God", it makes no difference and it doesn't help them any. Trinitarians have no more problem with the NWT John 1:1 as they would with a real translation, like the KJV or the NASB. [This profound insight should cause you to say, "Eureka!"]

In the New Testament, there are over 278 times where "theos" appears without the definite article but the NWT always translates it "God" not "a god", except in John 1:1

In John 3:2; 13:3; Rom 1:21; 1 Thess 1:9; Heb 9:14; 1 Pe 4:11, "theos" is found twice, once with the definite article and once without, yet the NWT renders all of them as simply "God" not "a god"

In 2 Cor 4:4, "theos" is used of Satan WITH the definite article, yet the NWT renders this verse, as "the god" If we follow the grammatical rules of the NWT, is Satan Jehovah?

It is obvious, then that the Watchtower knows it is translating on theological bias, not "Greek rules". Even The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge points out, that translators and translations which choose to render this phrase `a god' or `divine' are motivated by theological, not grammatical, considerations.


Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #2	Trinitarians cannot make sense of John 1:1 because how can Jesus be with the Father and be the same person as the Father?
Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #2 refuted	Jehovah's Witnesses try to force the text to following modalistic rendering: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God the Father, and the Word was God the Father. He was in the beginning with God the Father." or using our own illustrative paraphrase, "In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with ADAM, and EVE was ADAM. SHE was in the beginning with ADAM." The solution is simple. We can even put an "a" in front of man, and it still refutes the JW's! Here is our own illustrative paraphrase of the NWT: "In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with MAN, and EVE was a MAN. SHE was in the beginning with MAN." As we have seen, they have replaced the word "God" which is in fact used in the sense of a class of being, with the "person of the Father" in the text. This is why their trap fails. We wonder if Jehovah's Witnesses even know that Modalists are anti-trinitarian, and that Trinitarians are not modalists.

Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #3	Trinitarians are forced to make the word "God" (theos) refer to two different things in John 1:1. This breaks the rule of consistent translation!
Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #3 refuted	Jehovah's Witnesses do the exact same thing as some Trinitarians by breaking the rule of consistent translation! The first "God" reference they apply as a personal proper noun/name for the Father. The second "God" they apply not as a personal proper noun/name at all, but as a lessor class of being! If Jehovah's Witnesses can render John 1:1 this way: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (proper name of the Father), and the Word was God (lesser class of being)." Then we can render John 1:1 this way: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (proper name of the Father), and the Word was God (equal class of being)." But in fact the only irrefutable Trinitarian position is ours when we render John 1:1 this way. Only we are consistent: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (equal class of being God), and the Word was God (equal class of being God)."

Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #4	The NWT rendering of "a god" in John 1:1 clearly shows that Jesus is a creature.
Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #4 refuted	Not true at all! What Jehovah's Witnesses haven't even yet comprehended is that their unscholarly addition of "a" doesn't make any difference! In fact, although wrong, we feel it is a waste of time proving it is unscholarly because it doesn't help them one bit! Notice that there is absolutely no difference between: "In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with MAN, and EVE was MAN." (paraphrasing the NASB) and "In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with MAN, and EVE was a MAN." (paraphrasing the NWT)

Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #5	My Bible does not capitalize "god" in John 1:1c. This proves Jesus is a creature.
Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #5 refuted	There was no capitalization in the original Greek text. It was the translators of the NWT that, for theological reasons, chose not to capitalize "god". Herein lies an interesting opportunity for Trinitarians. We can grant for the sake of argument that "a god" is the proper rendering, but simply capitalize it to read, "a God". There is no acceptable reason that Jehovah's Witnesses can give to demand that God NOT be capitalized. We agree that Jesus is "a God". The Bible even says that that Father is also "a God". No argument here! (Ge 16:13; Dt 32:4; 1 Sa 2:3; 1 Sa 17:46; 1 Ch 17:24; Ne 9:17; Ps 5:4; Ps 7:11; Ps 68:20; Ps 86:15; Ps 89:7; Is 30:18; Is 45:15; Je 23:23; Je 51:56; Da 2:28; Mic 7:18; Luke 20:38; 1 Cor 14:33.)

Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #6	The word "God" in John 1:1c is a noun, therefore Trinitarians cannot view the word "God" as a verb, ie "deity". Trinitarians change the word "theos" (God) from a noun (person place or thing) into a verb (action or quality). To say, "and the Word was deity" violates the Greek. It is like saying, "and the Word was Holy/begotten" These are adjectives not nouns. The use of deity in the phrase "and the Word was deity" is an adjective, describing a quality of Jesus rather than a noun or a proper noun.
Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #6 refuted	Such false arguments underscore a lack of the most basic understanding of grammar. The word "God" or "man" is always a noun. The word deity in Col 2:9 is a noun in the Greek: "in Him all the fulness of Deity [noun] dwells in bodily form". Deity describes not an action but a state of being God vs. man. These are all concepts within the function of a noun. The word "Theos" is used in John 1:1 to describe "God" as a class of being, just as "man" used in Gen 5:2 to describe is a class of being.

Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #7	"So we find that some translations of John 1:1 give the correct idea of the original language when they read: "The Word was with God, and the Word was divine," or was "a god," that is, the Word was a powerful godlike one. (An American Translation)" (Paradise, a Watchtower publication, p 39-40)
Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #7 refuted	No recognized, major translation, will render John 1:1c "the Word was divine". (The Complete Bible: An American Translation, AmT, 1923-35 by E. J. Goodspeed, J. M. P. Smith, and 3 others.) The Moffatt translation does say, "the Word was divine", but it is a one man translation and Moffatt, although a trinitarian, was simply wrong. Neither Goodspeed or Moffatt would ever mean to convey that Jesus was a creature by their as both the Father and the Son are "divine", whereas angels are not. So Jehovah's Witnesses point out that some well meaning Trinitarians however, will mistakenly translate John 1:1 "The Word was with God, and the Word was divine". This cannot be the case, however, for if John wanted to convey that Jesus had divine Godlike qualities, he would have used the adjective for "divine" [theios] as in Acts 17:29 and 2 Pe 1:3. Instead, John used the word for God, "theos". But even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that God-like qualities are what John is intending to convey, we then translate the text (with consistency) this way: The Word was with deity, and the Word was deity." No problem here! (even though it doesn't properly reflect John 1:1) Every argument JW's use, falls to pieces under the slightest cross-examination!

Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #8 (Christadelphian)	The phrase, "the Word was with God" does not mean the Son and the Father are distinct. "Word" (Gr. logos) simply means "something said" and refers to God's speaking in creation ("In the beginning" - cp. Gen 1:1,3).
Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #8 refuted	Christadelphians are quite different from Arians (JW's) in that they deny Jesus had any personal pre-existence before his birth. The word "with" (Gr. pros) means "to, towards" when used with the accusative as it is here (Thayer, p.541). The word is generally translated "to" or "toward" (NKJV) or "unto" (KJV; see John 1:29,42,47; 2:3; 3:2,4,20,26). So this phrase cannot be referring to "something said" coming FROM God.

Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #9	John drew the phrase "In the beginning the Word was" from Genesis 1.1 [LXX, en arch]. It is clear the "beginning" has to do with the material preparation of earth for animal and human species. John's use of this phrase clearly connects Jesus with the creation as a creature of God.
Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #9 refuted	It is interesting that Jehovah's Witnesses have no problem connecting John 1:1 with Gen 1:1 but kick and scream at the very suggestion that John 8:35 "I Am" is based upon Ex 3:14. We have no problem accepting that John's "beginning" is connected to the Genesis "beginning" given the parallels between the two accounts in reference to God, the beginning, creation, light, darkness and life. However to say that Jesus is a creature, because of this is completely unwarranted. After all JW's apply "the beginning" in Rev 21:5 and 22:13 to the Father. (even thought they in truth, apply to the Son.) Would Jehovah's Witnesses deny that the Father was in the beginning? This argument is desperate and lacking.

Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #10	Acts 28:6 lacks the definite article just as in John 1:1c and is translated by virtually all translations as, "a god". ("But after they had waited a long time and had seen nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and began to say that he was a god." Acts 28:6) This verse proves that the translation of John 1:1c for "theos" when the definite article is lacking, is "a god". The NWT is correct.
Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #10 refuted	This argument is as desperate as it is wrong. The Father is called, "a God" in the NWT many times: Luke 20:38. Is Jehovah not "A GOD"? Yes, the Bible says so! "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian." (Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach) Any one who knows even the most basic elements of reading Greek text knows that Acts 28:6 cannot be used as proof that John 1:1c should be translated "a God". In both John 1:1 and Acts 28:6, "theon" is an anarthrous predicate noun. But the huge difference is that the verb "einai" follows "theon" in Acts 28:6. If we replace Paul in the story of Acts 28:6 with Jehovah it doesn't prove that Jehovah is a creature or "one of many" polytheistic gods. Imagine that Jehovah assumed a human form and got bit by a snake. The natives reply would not change one bit! What were the natives thinking when they said that Paul was a god? They would likely be thinking that Paul was one of MANY true gods. The natives would not think that Paul was a creature or a demi-god/angel made into man. Luke, in narrating Acts 28:6 deliberately leads the reader to understand that the natives believed Paul to be one of many polytheistic gods. John, in narrating John 1:1 is commenting, through inspiration, the nature of Christ as God. If Acts 28:6 is parallel to John 1:1, then EITHER John 1:1 teaches polytheism OR Acts 28:6 is referring to Jehovah. Of course, the passages are not parallel at all.

Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #11	John 10:33 The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." "God" lacks the definite article as in John 1:1. Here the NWT renders it "a god" because the Jews obviously were accusing Jesus of being a polytheistic type of god typical of pagans.
Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #11 refuted	The real clincher is that the Jews were accusing Jesus of making himself out to be Jehovah, not some polytheistic demi-god. In fact every major translation, renders it, "make yourself out to be God". Only the NWT uses "a god". Any one who knows even the most basic elements of reading Greek text knows that John 10:33 cannot be used as proof that John 1:1c should be translated "a God". In John 10:33 "a god" [theon] is accusative case as the direct object of the verb "making", hence somewhat similar to an anarthrous predicate nominative with a form of the verb "to be". But again, like Acts 28:6, the noun "theon" follows the verb instead of preceding it as in John 1:1. Remember, many places refer to Jehovah as God where the definite article is lacking, just as in John 10:33

Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #12	In Acts 12:22, "God" lacks the definite article as in John 1:1, and every translation renders it "a god". ("The voice of a god and not of a man!" Acts 12:22)
Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #12 refuted	This verse is clearly viewing Herod as a polytheistic god. Are Jehovah's Witnesses prepared to apply this to John 1:1? Of course not! The Greek is not parallel at all! The word "theos" in Acts 12:22 is anarthrous (lacks the definite article) but is in the genitive cases used to show possession, "gods". This means that it is not predicate nominative at all! The normal rendering for this verse would ALWAYS be "a god". And every translation renders it thus!

Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #13	The Watchtower booklet, "Should You Believe In The Trinity" states: "The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions "with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning." As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo'gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: "The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os'] cannot be regarded as definite." So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was "divine," "godlike," "a god," but not Almighty God."
Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #13 refuted "The Decepto-meter" Satanic Quote	This is a satanic deliberate misrepresentation of what Philip B. Harner said in his article, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1." in The Journal of Biblical Literature. Click here to see a full review of the satanic misquote by the Watchtower. Harner said in the same article: "the clause could be translated, 'the same nature as God.' This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos ["the word"], no less than ho theos ["the God"], had the nature of theos." (Philip B. Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1." in The Journal of Biblical Literature) Harner also flatly denies that John 1:1c could be translated "a god" or "divine" in the same article! Too bad the Watchtower wasn't honest enough to tell their blind followers this!

Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #14	The Watchtower booklet, "Should You Believe In The Trinity" states: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'" (Dictionary of the Bible", by John L. McKenzie, 1965, p. 317, as quoted in, Should you believe the Trinity?, Watchtower publication)
Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #14 refuted "The Decepto-meter" Satanic Quote	It [The NT] offers no room for a statement of the relations of Father, Son, and Spirit which would imply that one of them is more or less properly on the divine level of being than another. (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, Trinity, p899) That McKenzie calls Jehovah a Divine Being! Click here to view full review of satanic quoting practices of the Watchtower.

Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #15	William Barclay quoted by Watchtower John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God'." (Watchtower, May 15, 1977, page 320, quoting from Barclay's book, Many Witnesses, One Lord, 1963, pp. 23, 24).
Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #15 refuted "The Decepto-meter" Satanic Quote	"The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say." (letter from William Barclay to Donald Shoemaker) This is a satanic, deliberate misrepresentation of what William Barclay actually said. In this case Barclay actually wrote a letter after the Watchtower abused his materials. This is certain proof that the Watchtower is a deceiver when it quotes from sources! Usually the Watchtower misquotes those who have died and are not able to write such letters of protest. Click here to get the full story!

Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #16	Johannes Greber quoted in the JW's doctrinal encyclopedia, "Aid to Bible Understanding" "A translation by the former Roman Catholic priest Johannes Greber (1937 ed.) renders the second appearance of the word "god" in the sentence as "a god."" (Aid to Bible Understanding 1971, p 1669)
Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #16 refuted "The Decepto-meter" Satanic Quote	One of the most common references Jehovah's Witnesses once used to support "a god" in John 1:1. There is irrefutable proof that Greber was known to the Watchtower as an occult spiritist in 1953, but they did not stop using Greber until 1976. Then in 1983, the Watchtower deceptively claims "new light" and condemns Greber altogether, leading the blind followers to believe they only found out in the 1980's. Such deception of wickedness! In fact, the Watchtower felt that the doctrines the spirit revealed to Greber, were true. Remember, the Watchtower believes that the Holy Spirit communicates with the "governing body" in the production of the Watchtower magazine and the translation process of the NWT. Greber was making the identical claim that JW's make! Click here to get the full story!

Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #17	Earnest Haenchen is quoted in Watchtower: "John 1:1, however, tells of something that was sin existence already in time primeval; astonishingly, it is not 'God'." (Ernst Haenchen, Das Johannesevangelium. Ein Kommentar, 1984, John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6, pages 108-10, translated by Robert W. Funk., as quoted by the Watchtower, December 15, 1985, p 25)
Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #17 refuted "The Decepto-meter" Satanic Quote	The Watchtower commits every offence with Haenchen's work. They selectively quote to make Haenchen appear to say something opposite to what he is actually saying. They overlook the fact that Haenchen comes right out and says Jesus is not a creature. They again confuse modalism with trinitarian theology. They redefine Haenchen's words like "divine" in a way that Haenchen himself would object to. Finally, they rely on a sloppy translation by Funk, who takes some liberties, that Haenchen would not. Click here to get the full story!

Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #18	Since Jesus is called "a god" in John 1:1 of the NWT, that proves Jesus is a creature.

Anti-Trinitarian rebuttal #16 refuted:

Jehovah's Witnesses have failed to comprehend the fact that Jehovah is called also "A GOD" many times: Jehovah even calls himself A GOD! So yes, Jesus is "a God", but so is the Father!

Ge 16:13 Then she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her, "Thou art a God who sees"; for she said, "Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?"

Dt 32:4 "The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He.

1 Sa 2:3 "Boast no more so very proudly, Do not let arrogance come out of your mouth; For the Lord is a God of knowledge, And with Him actions are weighed.

1 Sa 17:46 that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel

1 Ch 17:24 "And let Thy name be established and magnified forever, saying, 'The Lord of hosts is the God of Israel, even a God to Israel; and the house of David Thy servant is established before Thee.'

Ne 9:17 "And they refused to listen, And did not remember Thy wondrous deeds which Thou hadst performed among them; So they became stubborn and appointed a leader to return to their slavery in Egypt. But Thou art a God of forgiveness, Gracious and compassionate, Slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness; And Thou didst not forsake them.

Ps 5:4 For Thou art not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; No evil dwells with Thee.

Ps 7:11 God is a righteous judge, And a God who has indignation every day.

Ps 68:20 God is to us a God of deliverances; And to God the Lord belong escapes from death.

Ps 86:15 But Thou, O Lord, art a God merciful and gracious, Slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness and truth.

Ps 89:7 A God greatly feared in the council of the holy ones, And awesome above all those who are around Him?

Is 30:18 Therefore the Lord longs to be gracious to you, And therefore He waits on high to have compassion on you. For the Lord is a God of justice; How blessed are all those who long for Him.

Is 45:15 Truly, Thou art a God who hides Himself, O God of Israel, Savior!

Je 23:23 "Am I a God who is near," declares the Lord, "And not a God far off?

Je 51:56 For the destroyer is coming against her, against Babylon, And her mighty men will be captured, Their bows are shattered; For the Lord is a God of recompense, He will fully repay.

Da 2:28 "However, there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and He has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will take place in the latter days. This was your dream and the visions in your mind while on your bed.

Mic 7:18 Who is a God like Thee, who pardons iniquity And passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His possession? He does not retain His anger forever, Because He delights in unchanging love.

Even the Watchtower's NWT, calls Jehovah "a God", "He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living..." Luke 20:38 (NWT)

1 Co 14:33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA