Reflections on translation, faith, and the question of Jesus’ identity
A friend sent me a YouTube video of a woman debating Dr. Zakir Naik on the deity of Jesus and asked for my opinion. The following is part of my response.
The woman did not appear to engage sincerely; the argument felt ungrounded. Dr. Zakir, in my view, effectively dismantled her points. However, the central issue, as I see it, is the challenge of translation—Greek and Aramaic renderings of the biblical texts. I often wish I could read Greek and Aramaic directly and access the original manuscripts myself.
The reality is that we cannot be absolutely certain that every translation we rely on is fully accurate. We are dependent on texts that have passed through linguistic and historical filters, and those filters introduce uncertainty.
At present, I cannot confidently assert absolute certainty about the Bible’s textual accuracy. And when pressed to prove the Bible without using the Bible itself, there is no external standard that can fully validate it independently. In that sense, much of this rests on faith.
There was a time I wrestled deeply with this. I could not externally prove the accuracy of Scripture. All I had was the text itself affirming its own authority.
At this point, the only thing I can personally affirm with certainty is a sense of oneness with the Father—what I understand as oneness with God.
This is not something I can empirically prove to another person. It is something understood through what I describe as the concept of essence.
Over time, I arrived at a position where I had to simply accept, by faith, that the Bible is reliable until proven otherwise. Otherwise, we are left in perpetual uncertainty.
Greek, translation, and key texts
My reference to learning Greek and Aramaic stems from passages such as John 1:1:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
In the Bible app I use, “Word” is rendered as Logos, and “God” as Theos.
This gives the reading:
In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with Theos, and the Logos was Theos.
From this interpretation, the Logos (understood as Jesus) is identified with Theos (God).
However, I have also encountered arguments suggesting that the second usage of “God” may carry a qualitative sense—“divine” or “godly.” If that is the case, the meaning shifts significantly. The difficulty is that without direct access to the original linguistic and grammatical context, certainty becomes elusive.
It is possible that translators introduced nuance, or alternatively, that modern interpretations are misreading the original intent. There are multiple plausible outcomes, which makes absolute certainty difficult.
“One” and the question of unity
Another frequently cited passage is John 10:30:
“I and my Father are one.”
The Greek word used for “one” is heis. Even here, interpretation is not straightforward. The term may not imply numerical identity in the way modern English suggests.
What is clear, however, is the reaction of the Jewish audience:
“He not only broke the Sabbath but was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” (John 5:18)
This indicates that the claim “God is Father” was understood as an assertion of equality with God.
The Greek term translated “equal” is isos, which can carry the sense of being alike, comparable, or sharing the same qualities.
From this perspective, the argument becomes one of shared essence or shared attributes rather than simplistic identity.
Sonship and shared nature
Jesus referring to God as Father carries significant theological weight. In essence language, a son shares the nature of the father.
John 3:16 states:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son…”
If sonship implies shared nature, then the Son participates in the same category or essence as the Father.
An analogy often used is that of a lion and its offspring: both belong to the same category, though differing in maturity. In the same way, distinction may exist in role or expression, while nature remains shared.
From this perspective, the concept of believers being “sons” introduces another layer of participation in divine relationship, though not necessarily equivalence in function or maturity.
Unity in prayer and glory
John 17:3 states:
“That they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”
The structure of this statement raises interpretive questions about distinction and unity between “God” and “Jesus Christ.”
Similarly, John 17:5 adds:
“Glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world began.”
This suggests a shared glory prior to creation, which raises further questions about pre-existence and identity.
John 17:22 continues:
“The glory You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one as We are one.”
Here, unity is extended further—not only between Father and Son but also between believers and that same unity.
Conclusion
Ultimately, much of this discussion returns to a central tension:
We can construct strong internal arguments for the deity of Jesus from the biblical text itself. However, absolute certainty about meaning is complicated by translation, linguistic nuance, and historical transmission.
Without direct access to original manuscripts and full linguistic mastery of Greek and Hebrew, there remains an interpretive gap.
For that reason, faith becomes unavoidable.
At the same time, belief should remain flexible and open. It is possible to hold conviction based on current understanding while remaining willing to revise that understanding if clearer insight emerges.
Until then, belief rests on what is presently understood, not on final certainty.