- This topic is empty.
- Posts
My sarcastic post was in answer to yours. Not only do I recognize sarcasm, I'm apparently better at it than you, because you did not recognize mine!
Respect your elders, because they are smarter than you!
mike
Murray J. Harris has written: “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,….” -Jesus As God, 1992, p. 60.
C. H. Dodd says: “If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”
Dennison, ACCORDING TO THESE VERY LEARNED TRINITARIAN EXPERTS IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE, is “the word was a god” a grammatically possible translation of John 1:1c? YES or NO?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 20 2011,05:03) My sarcastic post was in answer to yours. Not only do I recognize sarcasm, I'm apparently better at it than you, because you did not recognize mine! Respect your elders, because they are smarter than you!
mike
Lol Excuses…….Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 20 2011,05:10) Murray J. Harris has written: “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,….” -Jesus As God, 1992, p. 60. C. H. Dodd says: “If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”
Dennison, ACCORDING TO THESE VERY LEARNED TRINITARIAN EXPERTS IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE, is “the word was a god” a grammatically possible translation of John 1:1c? YES or NO?
Whats the context of those sources?Google them. They are both die hard Trinitarians who most likely believe the “a god” translation to be a monstrousity. One of them headed the translation of a current Bible. They have both recieved many accolades and titles and professorships. They are both well published.
If you're asking for the rest of the quote, I don't know, because Wikipedia didn't list it. But does it really matter? Even if they said, “Yeah, it's possible, but I would kill my own mother before ever translating it that way”, would it change the fact that they said it's POSSIBLE?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 20 2011,05:38) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 19 2011,13:19) OH you reduced your nose picking?
Are the nurses helping you stop your bad habits at whatever old people building place your at?The good thing as that the nurses are pro's at cleaning your ears.
To bad they cant help you with your amnesia though….to bad..
Dennison ROTFLOL You are killing me! Make my day. You have to admit that is hillarious! WJ
Making fun of old people is not funny……God is a title and in Ancient times, many were called God. But we go by only ONE GOD Jehovah God Almighty God…..No trinity….Many scriptures have shown us how wrong Tertullian and Constantine was…
Peace IreneHi SF,
Quote Actually your completely Wrong. The reason I created this thread was to Antagonize the Anti-Trinitarians and thier belief in MANY GODS. (such as Mike, who is a very old guy, with a great white beard and who picks his nose alot)
I stand corrected. I am sure you are very Christ-driven when you seek to antagonize.
Quote and by the way, You cant follow Jesus teachings without Jesus.
therefore its an error to say “simply follow his teachings”Just to clarify when I typed that statement in this forum I thought it was to believers who know that all of Jesus's teachings are indeed God's teachings and since he is the way, the truth and the light through whom all men must go through so that he and his Father can dwell within us and give us the fulfillment of the promise of eternal life and salvation was kind of a given. I will be certain to do my best to communicate via text in a more explicit manner in the future so as to avoid any confusion. Please forgive me.
Quote Try not to jump to conclusions buddy. I shall endeavor not to jump to conclusions and simply jump for joy as the occasions arises.
Quote
Semantics and Grammer and Understanding have nothing to do with knowing the Truth.
Well, sir, since we communicate in an oral and written language that we need to have just a little working knowledge of to say “Peace be upon you.” these three things, I would have to say they are at the very least helpful.Quote For truth is By Revelation from God.
The same way Peter understood that Jesus is the Son of God because it was revealed to him.For God's truth, yes! I could not agree with you more.
Give all Glory to God and not Men.[/qoute]
Amen to that brother!With Love and Respect,
WispringQuote (Wispring @ Mar. 20 2011,04:19) I stand corrected. I am sure you are very Christ-driven when you seek to antagonize. Wispring,
Why are you called Wispring by the way? are you like a Nintendo Wii by the Spring or something?Quote I stand corrected. I am sure you are very Christ-driven when you seek to antagonize.
Nothing to do with Christ. I have too much fear of God to include him in actions that were based on my Ego
So Assuming i did so should cause you to fear likewiseQuote Just to clarify when I typed that statement in this forum I thought it was to believers who know that all of Jesus's teachings are indeed God's teachings and since he is the way, the truth and the light through whom all men must go through so that he and his Father can dwell within us and give us the fulfillment of the promise of eternal life and salvation was kind of a given. I will be certain to do my best to communicate via text in a more explicit manner in the future so as to avoid any confusion. Please forgive me.
I believe Salvation comes from God alone, so to assume so, means i succefully fooled you. Discernement from God is a very important thing.
Just be yourself homeboy, your going to assume many things because you do not know me, therefore know me, and be confused no more.
There is nothing to forgive.Quote I shall endeavor not to jump to conclusions and simply jump for joy as the occasions arises.
Sure… maybe Jumping jacks can help too.Quote Well, sir, since we communicate in an oral and written language that we need to have just a little working knowledge of to say “Peace be upon you.” these three things, I would have to say they are at the very least helpful.
My point is since Truth comes from God than only By Revelation will you receive truth, not that one can discover it or interpret it through deep studies. Therefore you can be blind and not know how to read, yet receive truth.
You can be incoherent, and yet revelation may come.
and your grammer maybe horrible where know one has any clue what your saying, yet God is the Almighty who can make the simple minded people do great and mighty things.As the bible says “He chose the Foolish to confound the wise of this world”
Therefore God can make something out of nothing.Anyways,
Be yourself and you will make mistakes, so dont worry about it.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 20 2011,03:43) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 19 2011,12:19)
No old man.
There is only one God.
According to Dennison, this is true. According to the word of God, this is not true. Hmmmmmm……………who to believe?
D, do you ever wonder how Jehovah can be the God OF gods if there are no other gods? Who exactly is Jehovah the God OF in that statement?Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 19 2011,12:19)
Ok what does your whole peter thing have to do with what i said.
Poor D. Stumped by the very words of the Apostle HE brought up in the first place. D, what did Peter think “Son OF God” meant? You can tell from his writings.mike
Lol.
Mikey doodle,1.Didnt you also say that Elohim can mean Leaders?
So isnt it POSSIBLE that the Translation can render as the “the Supreme beings of Leaders?”how do you know the Second Elohim doesnt refer to a secondary class of Authority?
2. I wasnt Stumped Old man, I just didnt see what that had to do with what i was stating.
Obvsiouly Peter didnt equate himself to Jesus Christ as Also a “Son of God” though technically Peter himself is Also a Son of God yet gave much Glory to this “Son of God”.
So Obviosuly what Peter renders that Jesus christ is the Son of God, is not the same as Peter calling himself and fellow believers sons of God.Therefore “Son of God” must mean something more.
And also it shouldnt be considereded Blasphemy to call yourself a “Son of God” when by rights Jesus was from the same blood line and had the line of Kings with him.
So Of course the Jews must have a deeper meaning when it came to THE “son of God” and The “Messiah” only cristos.IF there were many messiahs, that John the Baptist was the Messiah as well.
To conclude, its obvious that whatever “Son of God” means or “Messiah” means has a deeper definition than just “the son of a father, or annoited one”
Context my friend, context.
Bump
Murray J. Harris has written: “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,….” -Jesus As God, 1992, p. 60.
C. H. Dodd says: “If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”
Dennison, ACCORDING TO THESE VERY LEARNED TRINITARIAN EXPERTS IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE, is “the word was a god” a grammatically possible translation of John 1:1c? YES or NO?
mike
Murray J. Harris
“From the point of view of grammar alone, qeoV hn`o logoV could be rendered 'the Word was a god'…But the theological context, viz., John's monotheism, makes this rendering of 1:1c impossible” (Harris, Jesus as God, p. 60). Harris's objection to the NWT rendering is not based on grammar, but on his theology.
– from an email dialog with the webmaster of the now-defunct Trinity Exposed Website.
The “…” in the previous quote reads: “just as, for example, if only grammatical considerations were taken into account, umeiV ek tou patroV tou diabolou este (John 8:44) could mean 'you belong to the father of the devil'” (Harris, p. 60). Thus, Harris demonstrates that grammatical possibilities do not yield accurate translations. He goes on to say, “it would not be impossible, from the point of view of grammar alone, to translate 1:1c as 'God was the Word'” (Harris, p. 61). Anyone reading Harris' chapter on John 1:1 will see that he favors the traditional translation (“The Word was God”) not merely on theological grounds (John's monotheism, by the way; not Harris'), but on strong grammatical and contextual grounds as well.
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htmI believe Murray makes a excellent point. Its also grammtically possible to state that “God was the Word”
Can you Accept that possibility mike?
And According to the context of This persons writings, it seems that though many things are possible, its definite that to translate to “a god” would be just incorrect.Here are Dodd's comments in full:
“If the translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted, and to pagan Greeks who heard early Christian language, Theos en o Logos, might have seemed a perfectly sensible statement. The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole” (The Bible Translator, Vol. 28, No. 1, Jan. 1977).Dodd doesn't say “a god” is an “acceptable” translation. He says it can't be faulted as a “literal” translation, but there's a big difference. Notice how Dodd qualifies the quote I provided: “If translation…” His point is that translation is not merely a wooden substitution of one English word for one Greek word. If it were, “a god” could not be “faulted.” However, “only grammatical considerations” do not a proper translation make!
Dodd cites several examples where theos has the meaning of the “essence” of God (p. 104). He then concludes that the NEB translation “What God was the Word also was” is “an attempt” to get at the idea that John was expressing – namely, that in every sense that the Father is God, the Logos is also God (p. 104).
In this view, Dodd is in agreement with the overwhelming number of commentators and grammarians who've written on this subject.
If the WT and Witness apologists use Dodd to defend the NWT translation in the face of accusations that it is ungrammatical, I cannot find fault with such a citation. However, that's not what this Jehovah's Witness was saying. He was advocating the NWT as a translation supported by scholars like Dodd. His selective quotation gives the impression that Dodd believes such a translation might be proper or acceptable, when this is not the case at all.
Looking at the Context of what the ideas of Dodds are, it seems that he shouldnt be used to defend such a view as well.Extra articles to read:
Despite all of these possibilities as to a background, or influence in Johannine thought, it is evident that John's concept of the Logos was unique. He moves beyond Hellenistic and Jewish speculations by identifying the Logos with Jesus of Nazareth.40 However, the Prologue of the Gospel is not so concerned with the earthly origins of Jesus, but with His heavenly pre-existence as the transcendent Logos, which is seen in view of the fact that the title does not occur as Christolgical designation in the rest of the Gospel.41In John 1:1, the Logos is not merely seen as a thought, or wisdom, or a Gnostic demi-urge, but as God Himself (c.f. v. 18, 20:28). Barrett observes how the whole of John's Gospel is to be read in the light of this opening verse to introduce the reader to the reality of the words and deeds of Jesus as being the words and deeds of God Himself.42 Barrett also recognizes that if Jesus is not God, the entire Fourth Gospel would have to be dismissed as blasphemous.43
Because of the absence of the definite article in the Greek text of John 1:1, some have argued that the text should be translated 'a god', and not 'the' God (most notably the Jehovah's Witnesses). With regards to this, Michaels correctly notes that there are good reasons why Word has the definite article and God does not: “To indicate that the Word is the subject of the clause, even though in Greek it follows the verb to be (i.e., “…the Word was God” and not 'God was the Word')“44 It should also be observed that the evangelist intended to distinguish the Word from the Father, although both are God and share the same nature and attributes.45 Even liberal scholars, like Bultmann, strongly reject any polytheistic translation of John 1:1 and recognizes that the status of the Logos is one of equality with God.46
http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/logos.htmIn conclusion, in light of what i researched it seems to be incorrect to Translate John1:1 as “a god” but IF one believes that its Grammatically possible they must also accept its grammtically possible to translate John1:1 as “God was the Word”
Therefore if one is going to rely on possibilities, one cannot accept one and deny the other.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 20 2011,12:09)
I believe Murray makes a excellent point. Its also grammtically possible to state that “God was the Word”
Can you Accept that possibility mike?In conclusion, in light of what i researched it seems to be incorrect to Translate John1:1 as “a god” but IF one believes that its Grammatically possible they must also accept its grammtically possible to translate John1:1 as “God was the Word”
Therefore if one is going to rely on possibilities, one cannot accept one and deny the other.
I concur with everything you posted above, D. And to answer your question the FIRST time with the ONLY HONEST ANSWER there is………….”YES”, “THE God” is also GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE from the Greek words, especially in light of Colwell's Rule. In fact, I posted this in the “Freak Greek” thread:Quote Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 17 2011,14:55)
Mike has also “admitted” that it is “possible” that it could be translated “the Word was God”.
Yes Keith,Because I AM HONEST! It is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to translate the Greek three ways:
1. “the word was god”
2. “the word was a god”
3. “the word was the god”Don't you agree that ALL THREE of these are GRAMMATICALLY possible?
So what we have here is ONE person who is so sure that the scriptures hold the truth, that he doesn't have to use diversions and distractions and dishonesty to “prove” his doctrine. And we have THREE Trinitarians on the other thread who have been doing all of those things that I don't have to do.
I'm not trying to “be right”, D. I'm trying to be HONEST, and let the word of God teach me. When someone starts from a position of being so afraid that an honest answer might jeopardize their “stronghold”, and so they must be deceptive or dishonest or diversive, then what does that really say about that person AND their “strong doctrine”?
I did not include you in the “Trinitarians” I mentioned, because I know you are not one, and I know you have not been involved in the “Freak Greek” thread. But now you have asked me a DIRECT question about “THE God”, and I have answered you IMMEDIATELY and HONESTLY. Will you do the same for the question I have asked of you?
I am dying to get into the discussion about the other things Dodd and Harris said about “a god” and “John's monotheism”, etc. But I won't and can't do that until we are all on a level playing field of HONESTY. How can I race you guys to the top of the ladder when you refuse to start from the first rung?
peace and love,
mikeHi guys!
I just wanted to point out that if the word was 'a' God/god, John, merely 17 verses later, gives us the article 'the' when he writes that Jesus is THE only begotten God/god. Just read John 1:1 with the understanding that the word was THE only begotten God/god or A only begotten God/god. It doesn't matter if it is 'the' or 'a' since it clarifies that 'only' is used later. The only begotten God/god was with the only unbegotten God…and there you have it NASB ©
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.Bless ya'll!
KathiIt's wonderful to see your words again, Kathi. I've missed you, as you know.
I understand that you don't think “a” or “the” or even anthrous makes a difference in 1:1c because of 1:18 and its use of “ONLY”. But consider that Satan is also called “THE (as in ONLY) god” in his own classification. So Jesus being THE “only begotten god” places him as THE only one in that particular classification of “begotten gods”, but it doesn't compare to THE God in general. And this is where the discussion will inevitably go, because the “Jesus is God” people aren't distinguishing between begotten and unbegotten, they want to claim John 1:1 as proof that Jesus is the Most High God Himself.
Btw, will you answer my bolded question about the possibility of 1:1c being translated as “a god”?
Welcome back – I hope you stick around,
mikeHi Mike,
It is good to discuss scripture with you again…I missed you too!You asked my opinion on whether or not it was grammatically possible for John 1:1c to say 'a god.' Well, my UN-expert opinion is that whether you translate it with an 'a' or a 'the' or a small 'g' or capital 'G' can reflect a bias. I don't think that the NWT is consistent in their placement of an 'a' where there is no definite article in other instances. I also understand that the writer uses 'theos' to refer to the divine God every where else. My conclusion is that it may be grammatically ok to consider an 'a' and a small 'g,' but in light of the rest of the book and how John writes, contextually it would be incorrect. Again, I believe John 1:18 clears up the question and that John 1:1c refers to the only begotten God and this is how I understand it.
As far as translating the phrase as 'God/god was the word' that would be incorrect because the lack of the article with 'theos' in this phrase points to the 'word' as the subject because the 'word' has the definite article and 'theos' does not. We know that the subject does the action of the phrase…it's a grammar thing. In other words, when you see 'God was the word' then you have God doing the action 'was' and that would require God to be the subject. God is not the subject of the phrase and that is indicated by which word in the nominative case gets the article…in this case, 'word' gets the article causing 'word' to be the subject.
As far as classification of all that are referred to as 'theos,' I believe that it would be more helpful to make two classes…one with the divine nature and the other without the divine nature. We are told that Jesus is the exact representation of God's nature in Hebrews 1 and so that would put Jesus in the category of the theos with the divine nature along with the Father. No other theos mentioned in the Bible aside from the Father has that divine nature as their original nature and thus fall into the other class…those without the divine nature. Even those who will one day partake of that nature will not fall into the category of the 'divine nature theos' because partaking of the divine nature is not an exact representation of the nature of God due to the very idea that it was a new nature to those who partake and not an original nature.
I might add that I think that any 'theos' that is translated as 'God/god' should be written with a capital 'G' when it pertains to one who has a divine nature and a small 'g' if it refers to those without the divine nature. That is how I use the capital letter but sometimes I write it as God/god when I don't mean to make an issue of it because we are not all at the same understanding.
I hope that makes sense…it's late and I'm out of practice
Thanks for the post!
KathiHi Mike,
Quote I concur with everything you posted above, D. And to answer your question the FIRST time with the ONLY HONEST ANSWER there is………….”YES”, “THE God” is also GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE from the Greek words, especially in light of Colwell's Rule. In fact, I posted this in the “Freak Greek” thread:
Actually i was asking if “God was the word” grammatically possibly correct. According to Murray its possible.Quote So what we have here is ONE person who is so sure that the scriptures hold the truth, that he doesn't have to use diversions and distractions and dishonesty to “prove” his doctrine.
Dont you find relying on Possisbilities or making excuses for certain aspects as Diversions?
I mean, Francis, WJ, KJ, and I have accused you of that many times.
In the end of the day “we” for some reason have to play only on your terms.
Im being honest, and yet for some reason you cant believe four witnesses.
WJ at times can be wordy and cautious, KJ at times makes no sense and makes alot of Ad hominens and gets really desperate at times. And well Francis has always respected you soooo…You shouldnt have any beef with him, because he was honest, and I am arrogant, Careless, Lazy, Rude, Emotional, A brutal D-linquent, brat, with horrible grammer, Sarcastic, Smartmouthed, Young Man.In the end we all got problems, but can you admit your faults?
You dont like being exposed, but Its easy to see how you fool yourself at times that your being fair and legit when you are not.Just sayin, its the Truth and how you present your self just as arragont as I can be when I feel like it.
I liked some of the observations that Francis made about you:
Quote Francis says:
The point I was trying to make is this:Your world view… your opinions… your assumptions… your set of core beliefs… act like a lens thru which you will look at the world. And in this case, your preconceived assumption that the Trinity does not exist… that Jesus is not God… will necessarily EFFECT how you view Micah… and other verses that touch upon this topic.
You keep contradicting yourself, and then you have the incredible gall to turn around and say to Dennison: “Know of what you speak, young Dennison”.
What does it say in the Bible about pride? Pride goes before the fall? Or is it this: Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools. I am NOT calling you a fool. Not at all. But you are making some very contradictory and confusing statements, and so I would gently encourage you to “know of what you speak” before you tell others to do so. That's my humble opinion anyway.
I think this is a VERY, VERY telling and revealing remark about your bias. Even maybe arrogance on your part? You will use NETNotes when it suits you, but you will then turn around and reject or ignore or say that NETNotes are wrong, when you don't like what NETNotes says.Well, if this is okay in your eyes, then how could you even DARE say that I can't do the same thing as you and say that I will reject what you say, and use only those translations that I agree with? If I used that approach, I'm only doing what you are doing with NETNotes, and so therefore you can't object if I do what you do.
You see, you've put yourself on the horns of a dilemma.
(out of order by the way)
I believe he made accurate observations about You.Quote And we have THREE Trinitarians on the other thread who have been doing all of those things that I don't have to do.
I believe your on the same boat buddy.Quote I'm not trying to “be right”, D. I'm trying to be HONEST, and let the word of God teach me. When someone starts from a position of being so afraid that an honest answer might jeopardize their “stronghold”, and so they must be deceptive or dishonest or diversive, then what does that really say about that person AND their “strong doctrine”?
Well first of all if we are talking about Doctrine, than Doctrine should solely come from above not your interpretations.Your Questions have strings attached, and always have had strings attached. You cannot be trusted to ask a question with any “good” intentions.
I can also say that you are just as Diversive.Quote I did not include you in the “Trinitarians” I mentioned, because I know you are not one, and I know you have not been involved in the “Freak Greek” thread. But now you have asked me a DIRECT question about “THE God”, and I have answered you IMMEDIATELY and HONESTLY. Will you do the same for the question I have asked of you?
Didnt i already answer the questions in the BIG BOLD letters?Quote I am dying to get into the discussion about the other things Dodd and Harris said about “a god” and “John's monotheism”, etc. But I won't and can't do that until we are all on a level playing field of HONESTY. How can I race you guys to the top of the ladder when you refuse to start from the first rung?
Thats great, but you must realize that what they state cannot be debated but only discussed.
Like we can talk about it, and brain storm and do all sorts of stuff.
But you cannot use them as proof for something that in thier own conclusion disagrees with you.
Dicuss if you wish, but there is no point in trying to use them as reference to prove a better translation.
HOWEVER, You can infact negate thier reasonings which will lead to start a debate.Why run with those that might trip us along the way?
Maybe rebuilding bridges instead of burning them can help you accomplish what you want.Hi Kathi!!!
I MIss you!!! i was thinking about you the other day and how we needed you back and guess what here you are!!!
Miss you bunch lady!Welcome back
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 20 2011,22:56) My conclusion is that it may be grammatically ok to consider an 'a' and a small 'g,' but in light of the rest of the book and how John writes, contextually it would be incorrect.
Hi Kathi,Thanks for your input. I'm aching to discuss the CONTEXTUAL possibilities, and blow you “Jesus is God” people right out of the water with Keith's own words. But I won't do it until everyone has agreed to the UNDENIABLE FACT that the Greek into English translation of John 1:1c ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY allows for the GRAMMATICAL POSSIBILITY of “a god”.
You have come the closest of anyone to ANSWERING my question. But even you have not actually answered it. I'm not asking for anyone's OPINION as to whether or not it “may be grammitically ok”, and I haven't even yet begun to show any arguments for the contextual debate. Here's the question I want answered:
Quote Trinitarian Greek EXPERT Murray J. Harris has written: “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,….” -Jesus As God, 1992, p. 60. Trinitarian Greek EXPERT C. H. Dodd says: “If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”
ACCORDING TO THESE VERY LEARNED TRINITARIAN EXPERTS IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE, is “the word was a god” a grammatically possible translation of John 1:1c? YES or NO?
Do you guys even SEE the question put before you? First, I quote two experts who say “a god” IS GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE. Then I ask ACCORDING TO THESE EXPERTS, is “a god” GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE?
Aren't you guys reading the actual question? There is no available answer EXCEPT FOR “YES”. Because CLEARLY, ACCORDING TO THE SCHOLARS I QUOTED, “a god” IS a GRAMMATICAL POSSIBILITY, even though Harris clearly thinks that the the “a god” translation is a CONTEXTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
Do any of you understand this? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone or something.
I'm not asking about the NWT and how they translate other mentions of “theos”. I'm not talking about Jesus' divinity. I'm not even asking if you AGREE with these two scholars I quoted. I'm merely asking a very simple question that I've been asking now for two freakin' weeks! And no one is willing to just honestly say, “YES, Mike! According to the two scholars you quoted, 'a god' IS a GRAMMATICAL POSSIBILITY for 1:1c.”Kathi, I apologize because you have just joined in. But mikeangel, Keith, Jack and Dennison shouldn't have ever made me ask the question more than once in the first place. They should have just honestly answered “YES”, because it is the only honest and direct answer to the question.
peace and love,
mikeI haven't been reading this thread but thought this might fit in here….I was watching an interesting Programme the other day and the Speaker, I think he was a Jewish man, was saying how important it is to the salvation of Jews and Muslims to believe that there is only ONE God. Not saying I'm convinced by it or wanting to enter a debate with anyone over it, just sharing.
The programme is here;
http://www.williambranham.com/
Is there a Trinity?
http://www.williambranham.com/feature_pages/is-there-a-trinity/
Quoteing Him:
“Christians must understand there is only One Creator God whose thoughts are Eternal and real as they are the Attributes of what He is. God is His thoughts. In Him were Attributes to be a Father, but how would this ever be known until His first son, Adam was formed? In God were Attributes to be a Savior, but He could not display these Attributes until there was a “fall” and a people requiring salvation. His Attribute of justice would not allow Him to cause His children to fall, or force them as puppets to obey His Will. So He placed them in the Garden on free moral agency to choose whether to reflect His Attributes of love and trust by obedient faith, or mix His Word with Lucifer's reasoning. In God were Attributes to be Healer, but He could not express them until there was sickness and hurt. O how God loves to display His Attributes to us and through us to gather glory to Himself as the One true “object of worship”.
Like Adam and Eve, we are to reflect the nature and character of God by identifying with His attributes. True worship is a life lived under preeminence to His Word. He gathers glory to Himself when His glorious Attributes are reproduced in the lives of His Children, making us chips off the old Block, like Father, like son.
No one is born with character. Character is a victory gained by overcoming in the trials of this ungodly world by faith in the Word of God and prayer. Our goal in this life is to gain a Christ-like character through trials. No matter how successful we are on earth, the only thing we can take with us is our character. Death in the flesh only changes your geography. The type of person you are here is the type of person you will be over “There,” or will it be . . . over “there”? Have you ever considered that one of the most remarkable differences between humans and animals is our ability as amateur creators to reason and to communicate complex thoughts through language? Any word is a thought expressed; before I can pronounce the word “cat,” I must first think of the animal, cat. We have fellowship and know one another chiefly through expressing our thoughts in word form. Without communication we can experience no meaningful relationship.
Because His thoughts are Eternal and cannot change or fail, God is known as “the Word,” or “Logos,” which is Greek meaning, “thought in speech,” or concept. God expresses His Will and the attributes of His character through visions, dreams or inspired understanding of the Word we read and hear preached from the Bible. We only experience a relationship with God as we understand His Word, and no true believer is any stronger and spiritually healthy and alive than their knowledge of and adherence to the pure Word of God.
A word is a thought expressed and Jesus of Nazareth is the fullness of the Word or Logos of God manifest in flesh—not a second or third person—but “God with us” as prophesied (Isaiah 7:14; I Timothy 3:16). Good people frequently misinterpret John 1:1 and 14, presuming it reads, “In the beginning was Jesus of Nazareth, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God. . . and Jesus was made flesh.” In fact it says, “In the beginning was the Word,” because God had finished all of His thinking in eternity before “time” began. A Word is first a completed thought: as His thoughts are Eternal and unchanging, He was “the Word” or “Logos” when He was ready to commence expressing His Attributes in Creation. And the beginning of His manifestation was the Logos Itself, which through the virgin birth manifest as Jesus Christ.
“And the Word was with God and the Word was God.” That is, the Word, Logos or concept was always with God in the form of His eternal thoughts: being eternal His thoughts are what He is. Word is Spirit in a form we can receive by faith, which is understanding. John 6:63, “My Word is Spirit, It is Life.” Word and Spirit are the same thing in a different form. “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.”
I Timothy 3:16, “without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness for the Word or Logos was manifest in the form of the flesh of Jesus, our kinsman Redeemer, who is the beginning of God creating Himself into material form . . . less than 2,000 years ago when He physically dwelt among His early disciples”.
In Jesus the fullness of God's nature and character, the perfect balance of His attributes of patience, justice, judgment, love, righteousness and anger, were expressed bodily in one Man who is “the beginning of the creation of God” (Colossians 2:9; Revelation 3:14). Jesus is not the beginning of God's creation—which would make Him less than God. God's creation is His handiwork—the sun, moon, stars, rivers and trees. Jesus is the beginning, less than 2,000 years ago, of God changing Himself from the Eternal Spirit alone with His thoughts, through the Word or expression of those thoughts, to the material flesh of His Family. We are God's hands. So the New Testament saints are the continuation of the same Creation. Jesus is the Word made flesh and the true or Elect Church is the flesh becoming Word. In the new heavens and new earth, the “saved” will worship God throughout Eternity in the form of His Family—Jesus of Nazareth and His Brothers and Sisters, the New Testament saints. When we are glorified, all of us together are the Word, God manifest in flesh. Like our natural parents, His purpose was to reproduce Himself in the glorified flesh of His Family.”
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bb920108.htm
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/teachx.htmTake care.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
