More JW Heresy

Following my earlier post this evening I went back and reread the JW 
tract <Should you Believe in the Trinity?>. Again on page 28 of their 
tract JW's state "Colwell (JBL, 1933) had to acknowledge this regarding 
the predicate noun, for he said: 'It is indefinite ["a" or "an"] in this 
position only when the context demands it.' So even he admits that when 
the context drequires it, translators may insert an indefinite article in 
front of the noun in this type of sentence structure." They go on "Does 
the context require an indefinite article at John 1.1? Yes, for the 
testimony of the entire Bible is that Jesus is not Almighty God."

Yet on page 21 of Colwell's article (incidentally the JW's never 
provide citations in their tracts) Colwell affirms "The opening verse of 
John's Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests 
the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. Kai Qeos hn o( logos 
looks much more like "And the Word was God" than "And the Word was 
divine" when viewed with reference to this rule. The absence of the 
article does *not* make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it 
preceeds the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the 
context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John."


Chuck Arnold
Upper Marlboro, MD