Originally Posted by rm42 (Post 1107355)

Yes, defenders of the trinity doctrine have expressed displeasure when they see the way the New World translation renders John 1:1. But, the truth is that there is no dishonesty in the translation, and there are strong grammatical reasons for considering the inclusion of the indefinite article "a" as the proper thing to do in order to communicate to the English reader the same idea that the original Greek text gave to Greek readers. Please note that there was no explicit indefinite article in the Koine Greek. When translators include one (any where in the NT), it is because they see it implicit in the text. John 1:1 should be a clear example of this to all, if it were not for the fact that the Trinity doctrine creates such a strong cognitive dissonance in many otherwise capable translators. (Mr. BeDuhn explains this fact with great care and detail.)

Furthermore, the New World translation is neither the only nor the first translation to do this. In fact, one of the earliest translations of the Greek scriptures, one that may actually predate the establishment of the Trinity doctrine as official church doctrine (which took place in the fourth century CE) is particularly interesting. This is the Sahidic Coptic text (available for viewing in the Chester Beatty Library). The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.” Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O.*Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”

Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god (a divine being), not Almighty God.

Keep searching and you shall find. ;)

Originally Posted by michaelxy (Post 1109416)

No one needs the false teachings of the sect of jehovah witness.