Antedating comments htm
Notice his "grammatically impossible" comment does not refer to Jn 1:1c, but the entire verse. This is not to say that Be Duhn is to be dismissed lightly.
This verse starts with the phrase "Originally the Word was" (reflecting the wording of the 1950 Edition, later revised to the more familiar "In the beginning"). He is certainly knowledgeable in Greek, and says that he is doing work on untranslated Greek texts.
Four times the word other is introduced and every time without justification. In contrast to Genesis 1:1, the creation comes into existence not directly from God, but from the Logos. His emphasis on the distinction between theos and ho theos is to safeguard against modalism, not Trinitarianism."The bottom line is that "The Word was a god" is exactly what the Greek says.
Ph 2:6 becomes Christ Jesus, who, although be was existing in Gods form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.] It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest (The Expositor, Oct 1953, Vol 65, bold and brackets added; brackets indicate ellipsis on all pro-NWT websites that I'm aware of using Google 8/14/12). Burnett, Thank you very much indeed for your letter of 16th April. "The Word was divine" is a possible meaning of this Greek phrasing.
Sound arguments from authority will consist of an accurate quotation from the scholar in question, which entails insuring that the context of the authority's statements are consistent with the argument being presented, and that contrary statements in the same passage are not removed with creative use of ellipses ("...").
Further, the scholar must be a recognized authority in a field that pertains directly to the assertion being made.
Scholarly citation is a form of an "argument from authority." Such an argument cannot establish the truth or falsity of a given assertion; it can merely lend credence or cast doubt.
You have four questions and they must be answered, I am afraid, briefly in order to get on to one airmail and because I have a heavy correspondence. "The Word was God" is almost certainly ruled out by the phrasing John uses, and it is not equivalent to "The Word was divine" because without any justification in the original Greek it narrows the meaning from a quality or category (god/divine) to an individual (God)."Unlike most of the scholars used by Jehovah's Witnesses, De Buhn has not been quoted out of context.
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." You could translate, so far as the Greek goes: "the Word was a God"; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong. He does, indeed, believe the NWT and KIT to be generally accurate, and uses the latter when teaching Greek at Northern Arizona University.
23)."The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say. It is true that Becker renders John 1:1c in German as "ein Gott," and he appears to have done so on the basis of the anarthrous theos.
What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is not the same as God, to put it more crudely, that is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves. But if one reads his accompanying commentary, it is clear that he does not regard the Logos as "a god" in the way the Watchtower does.