re: John 1.1c

On 25 Nov 94 Robert Mondore wrote:

<There are so many fallacies in Mr. Craig's "a god" translation of John 1:1,
<that I scarcely know where to begin to answer.  I have a choice of either
<As a side note, it is very interesting that the Jehovah's Witnesses appeal
<to Harner's article in support of their translation of John 1:1 (The 
<Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, 1985, appendix pg. 1140). It 
<was of no surprise to me (as I have double checked many of their references)
<that Harner's article not only did NOT support their translation, but  
<that it actually refuted their position (I find this to be the case in many of their
<appeals to scholars and reference works).
It has also been my observation with Jehovah's Witnesses that they 
grossly misinterpret those scholars they claim support their position. 
For example, on page 28 of their tract <Should you Believe in the 
Trinity?>, they quote E.C.Colwell's *A Definite Rule for the Use of the 
Article in the Greek New Testament (1933, JBL, 12-21). The statement, 
correctly taken from page 13 of Colwell's article, reads "A definite 
predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does 
not have the article when it preceeds the verb". The JW tract immediately 
goes on to say that "by this he (Colwell) meant that a predicate noun 
preceeding the verb should be understood as though it did have the 
definite article in front of it. At John 1:1, the second noun (theos), 
the predicate, preceeds the verb - "and [theos] was the Word". So, 
Colwell claimed, John 1:1 should read "and [the God] was the Word"".

Go figure!

Chuck Arnold
Upper Marlboro, MD