Q & A: Does the New World Translation accurately render John 1:1?
Who is Dr. Christopher Cone?
! Dr. Christopher Cone, Th.D, Ph.D, Ph.D, is a dedicated, transformative educator, writer, leader, and organizational developer. He serves as President and Research Professor of Agathon University of Applied Faith and Colorado Biblical University, and leads the AgathonEDU Educational Group.”
From his online source regarding the NWT at John 1:1?
He says the following (See link below for full his paper on John 1:1)
“Note the following NWT passages in which God is translate from theos – where there is no definite article in the Greek text:
John 1:6 – “…as a representative of God” (no definite article, yet the NWT capitalizes it as referencing God proper).
John 1:12 – “…to them he gave the authority to become God’s children.” Again, no definite article, yet the NWT follows common Greek usage, recognizing that there is no need for a definite article when referencing theos as a proper noun.
John 1:13 – “…but from God.” You guessed it, no definite article here either.
John 1:18 – “No man has seen God at any time.” Hmmm…no definite article again, yet in each instance the NWT translates as God proper.
If the NWT recognizes that there is no need for the definite article if the word is understood as a proper noun or if the context calls for it (remember how the NWT translated the beginning rather than a beginning?), then why does the translation make one exception to insert an indefinite article to imply that Jesus is not God but simply a god? If the translation was evenhanded, it would translate the instances that follow in the same way – then even God wouldn’t be God, he would simply be a god.
On the title page the NWT says “Rendered from the Original Languages.” But a simple examination of the handling of the word theos shows that the translation’s primary goal is not to render the text from the original languages, but rather to render a theological presupposition – that Jesus is not God.
Short answer to the question: does the NWT accurately render from the original languages? In a word: no.”
Source: Q & A: Does the New World Translation accurately render John 1:1? - drcone.com
Response.
Let’s take those three texts that Dr. Cone has posted and analyse them one at a time and then it will be seen that Dr, Cone and those like him either do not understand how Greek works or he has a good understanding, but omits to show all the facts about certain aspects of how koine Greek works, therefore, spins half truths about JWs and the NWT!
“John 1:6 – “…as a representative of God” (no definite article, yet the NWT capitalizes it as referencing God proper).”
John 1:6 NIV
“There was a man sent from God whose name was John.”
(Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος, ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ Θεοῦ, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάνης)
Pertinent part: “παρὰ Θεοῦ” (para theou). Here “Θεοῦ” (God or more precisely “from “the God””) is in the genitive form and in the genitive form (dative as well) Greek regularly drops the definite article, so in Greek it is not needed in order to mark the subject as definite, context also tells us who the subject is – “God”! This is what Dr. Cone omits to tell his readers, so the NWT is correct not to have the definite article in English, as it is not needed!
“John 1:12 – “…to them he gave the authority to become God’s children.” Again, no definite article, yet the NWT follows common Greek usage, recognizing that there is no need for a definite article when referencing theos as a proper noun.”
John 1:12 NKJV
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name”
“ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ”
Pertinent part:
“τέκνα Θεοῦ” (children of God) or more precisely “children of the God”.
Here as in John 1:6 the noun “Θεοῦ” (theou) is in the genitive form and therefore, drops the article, as it is not needed in koine Greek!
Dr. Cone’s comment that, “God” in Greek is “theos” at John 1:12 is totally false, as can be easily seen from the original Greek of John 1:12, as “theos” is a noun in the nominative form, not the genitive form, the nominative form is sensitive to the presence of the definite article and is only dropped in special grammatical circumstances, such as when connected to a “genitive, dative, a vocative, possessive pronoun, preposition or the numeral one, none of the definitizing elements are present. Remember, that is if the noun is in the nominative form, but it is not it is in the genitive form!
Dr. Cone goes on to say:
“John 1:18 – “No man has seen God at any time.” Hmmm…no definite article again, yet in each instance the NWT translates as God proper.”
“Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο”
Pertinent part: “Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε” (God no one has ever seen ever yet).
Here ” Θεὸν” (Theon - God) is in the accusative form and would usually, like the nominative would carry the article, but in John 1:18 (See also Rom 9:5) it doesn’t, so the question could be asked – Why?
The answer is relatively simple!
In koine Greek there are some noun that are of themselves definite and do not need the article to make them definite, the context also helps to point out the subject of the noun “Θεὸν”, who is the Father, who is “God”!
Summary:
The NWT is correct when it does not have the article at John 1:5; 12; 18.
Conclusion:
The so-called Dr. Christopher Cone with all his qualifications seems to be either deliberately biased or is ignorant of how koine Greek works when it comes to the John texts above! Trinitarian scholars like Cone are clearly biased against the NWT and seem to rely on the ignorance of his readers, the vast majority of whom do not know how koine Greek works, in other words, such biased scholars set out to mislead and be devious, spinning half truths about the NWT!
