- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I thought it would be a good idea to start up a discussion based on the coptic versions of the bible. The idea came from david's post quoted below:
Quote (david @ Oct. 14 2008,16:35) Are we going to ignore the extremely relevant coptic translation then, as people have done for years? Greek, Latin, those languages back then–no indefinite article.
The sahidic dialect of the Coptic language had a definite article, and when translating John 1:1, those early Christians put the indefinite article [“a”] in that verse. This shows how those early Christians (before all the councils) believed it should be translated.
This is highly significant.
And while it may not mean that it should be translated “a god” it does suggest it shouldn't be translated as just “God.” (It seems the coptic language may differ a little from English in that it could mean “a god” or just as easily it could mean “godlike” or “divine.”)I got this information from Wikipedia:
The two main dialects, Sahidic and Bohairic, are the most important for the study of early versions of the New Testament.
Sahidic
The collection of manuscripts of Sahidic translations is often designated by copsa in academic writing and critical apparatuses. The first translation into the Sahidic dialect was made at the end of the 2nd century in Upper Egypt, where Greek was less well understood. So the Sahidic is famous for being the first major literary development of the Coptic language, though literary work in the other dialects soon followed. By the ninth century, Sahidic was gradually replaced by neighbouring Bohairic, and disappeared. Knowledge of the Sahidic manuscripts was lost until they were rediscovered in the 18th century.[1] George William Horner produced a critical edition of the Sahidic New Testament over the period 1911–1924. The Sahidic translation is a representative of the Alexandrian text-type.
Bohairic
The Bohairic (dialect of Lower Egypt) translation was made a little later, as Greek language was more influented in lower (northern) Egypt. Probably, it was made in the beginning of 3th century. It was a very literally translation, a lot of Greek words, and even some grammar forms (f.e. syntactic construction μεν — δε) were incorporated to this translation. For this reason, bohairic translation is more helpfull in reconstruction early Greek text than any other ancient translation. It should also be noted that the Bohairic translation was influenced by several variables, including the other dialects, primarily Sahidic and Fayyumic. When the patriarchate moved from Alexandria to Cairo in the 11th century the Bohairic was dominant language of the Coptic church. As the official dialect of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Bohairic seems to enjoy a strong relationship with mainly the other dialects, Egyptian Arabic and—as it was for several centuries—Greek. The text is mainly Alexandrian, somewhat influenced by the Western text-type. Bohairic translation designated by copbo.
The original {Old} Bohairic version is well represented by manuscripts. More than a hundred of manuscripts have survived. Only two manuscripts have the last twelve verses of Mark. Horner produced a critical edition of Bohairic New Testament in 1898-1905.[4]
The earliest surviving manuscript of the four Gospels is dated A.D. 889 and is held now in the Kingston Frontenac Public Library in Ontario. The most early Bohairic manuscript is Papyrus Bodmer III. It was discovered by John M. Bodmer of Geneva in Upper Egypt. It contains Gospel of John, dated paleographically to the 4th century. It is an oldest manuscript of the bohairic version.[5] It contains 239 pages, but the first 22 are damaged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_versions_of_the_Biblehttps://heavennet.net/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=1;t=1342;st=1250
Thanks T8. I was thinking of making a thread on this myself. The link above is where we started discussing it in the other thread (just for my own record.)
FOR A SIMPLE INTRODUCTION TO THIS, START HERE:
http://copticjohn.blogspot.com/What is certain, and some might find it disturbing, is that the translation that has stood for centuries as the traditional English rendering, namely “the Word was God” can not be got from the Sahidic text. It just can not stretch to it.
http://bibliasahidica.blogspot.com/.
No one seems to know this or care, but the way the coptic translators translated John 1:1 about 1700 years ago may just be the most important clue to helping us to understand how it should be translated.
Translating “the Word was a god,” 1700 Years Ago
“At least by the third century C.E., the first translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures had been made for the Coptic natives of Egypt.” – Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, page 1153 * Similarly, the Anchor Bible Dictionary states, “All these data point to the 3rd century as the latest terminus a quo [point of origin] for the earliest Coptic translation.” **
This earliest Coptic (from an Arabic/Greek word for “Egyptian”) translation was in the Sahidic dialect, approximately 1,700 years ago. The scribes who were translating the Gospel of John from Koine Greek into their own Egyptian language encountered an issue that still faces translators today. It is the question of correctly translating John 1:1.
The Coptic translators rendered John 1:1 in this way (Transliterated):
1. a. Hn te.houeite ne.f.shoop ngi p.shaje
1. b. Auw p.shaje ne.f.shoop n.nahrm p.noute
1. c. Auw ne.u.noute pe p.shaje 1Literally, the Coptic says:
1. a. In the beginning existed the word
1. b. And the word existed in the presence of the god
1. c. And a god was the wordWe can see at the outset that the Coptic translators used the Coptic definite article (p) in referring to the One the Word was with or “in the presence of” (nnahrm): p.noute, “the” god, i.e., God. And we can see that in referring to the Word, the Coptic translators employed the Coptic indefinite article (ou; just “u” following the vowel “e”): ne.u.noute, “was a god.”
Many ancient Coptic manuscripts were collated and translated into English by Coptic scholar George W. Horner. In 1911, Horner published an English translation of John’s gospel. He rendered John 1:1c as: “In the beginning was being the word, and the word was being with God, and [a] God was the word.” 2 He encloses the indefinite article “a” within brackets, which might indicate that he considered that here its translation is not required in English. However, in his own translation of the same Coptic sentence structure in other verses in John, Horner himself does render the indefinite article in English as “a”, without any brackets, which is entirely proper at John 1:1c also.
Some examples of the Coptic indefinite article with the noun structure that Horner translates into English with an unbracketed “a” in the Gospel of John follow below. They are also verses in which most English versions of John translate the Greek pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nouns with an “a. ” :
John 4:19: “a prophet” (NRSV; Horner)
John 6:70: “a devil” (NRSV; Horner)
John 8:44: “a murderer” (NRSV; Horner)
John 8:44: “a liar ” (NRSV; Horner)
John 8:48: “a Samaritan” (NRSV; Horner)
John 9:17: “a prophet” (NRSV; Horner)
John 9:24: “a sinner” (NRSV; Horner)
John 9:25: ” a sinner” (NRSV; Horner)
John 10:1: ” a thief” (NRSV; Horner
John 10:13: “a hired hand ” (NRSV; Horner)
John 12:6: ” a thief” (NRSV; Horner)
John 18:35: “a Jew” (NRSV; Horner)
John 18:37a: “a king” (NRSV; Horner)
John 18:37b: “a king.” (NRSV; Horner) 3Literally, Sahidic Coptic *ou.noute* means “a god.” 4 When a Coptic noun is a common noun and refers to an entity (“man,” “god”) the Coptic indefinite article is customarily translated by the English indefinite article “a”. The Coptic indefinite article ou marks the noun as a non-specific individual or a specimen of a class. 5 When the noun refers to an abstract idea (“truth,” “happiness”) or an unspecified quantity of a substance (“water,” “some water”; “gold,” “some gold”), or is used adjectively (“wise,” “divine”), the Coptic indefinite article need not be translated by the English indefinite article “a.” 6
Thus, while it can be said that the Coptic indefinite article does not correspond exactly in usage to the English indefinite article, it does correspond closely to it. 7 Because at John 1:1c, the Coptic indefinite article is bound to a common noun and refers to an entity, the Word, the translation “a god” is proper.
How competent were the ancient Coptic Egyptian translators to convey the sense of the Greek text of John? Egypt was conquered by Alexander the Great in 332 BCE and the country was subsequently Hellenized. Greek had been a legacy of Egypt for some 500 years by the time those translators began their work, and it was still a living language. According to Coptic grammarian Bentley Layton, the Coptic translation is “a very early indirect attestation of the Greek text and a direct indication of an Egyptian (perhaps Alexandrian) understanding of what it meant.” 8 Likely made well before Nicea (325 CE), the Coptic text tells us how early exegetes interpreted John 1:1, apart from the influence of later dogma and church tradition.
Although the third century may be the latest date for the Sahidic Coptic translation, can a date for its beginning be more clearly ascertained? Christianity may have come early to Egypt. The Bible book Acts of the Apostles lists Egyptian Jews and proselytes as being present at Pentecost, when 3,000 became Christian believers. (Acts 2:5-11) The eloquent Christian speaker Apollos was an Alexandrian and his travels may have taken him back to Egypt. (Acts 18:24-28; Titus 3:13) Coptic translator George Horner notes: “Clement of Alexandria, born about 150 [CE], speaks of the Christians spreading all over the land….The internal character of the Sahidic [version] supplies confirmation of a date earlier than the third century.” Horner favors a date closer to 188 CE as the inception of the Sahidic Coptic version 9
The value of the Coptic text lies not only in its indication of how early scribes understood the Greek of John 1:1, but also in its value for determining the correct text of that gospel. New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger wrote: “[The] Alexandrian text [is] the best text and most faithful in preserving the original….The Sahidic and Bohairic versions frequently contain typically Alexandrian readings.” 10 Additionally, one can note readings in the Coptic text that are found in the earliest existing manuscripts of John, the p66 (Papyrus Bodmer II, middle second century CE) and p75 (Papyrus Bodmer XIV, late second century CE). 11
There is also the matter of precision in rendering John 1:1c. The Koine Greek language has only the definite article, with indefiniteness being indicated by the lack of the article (called the “anarthrous” construction). Of the other early translations from the Greek, Latin has no articles, definite or indefinite, and Syriac has only the definite determinator in its grammatical structure. The Sahidic Coptic language, however – like English – has both the definite article and the indefinite article as part of its syntactical system.
This means that when the Coptic translators wrote ou noute, “a god,” at John 1:1c, referring to the entity that is the Word, they were being specific, not ambiguous. They could have used the definite article and written p.noute at this verse if they had meant “God,” just as they did at John 1:1b: auw p.shaje ne.f.shoop n.nahrm p.noute, “and the Word was with [literally, “in the presence of] God.”
Therefore, the Sahidic Coptic version, the earliest translation of the Greek originals into a language that contained the indefinite article, used that indefinite article at John 1:1c: “the Word was a god.”
Is “the Word was a god” the only English translation of this verse that is possible within the parameters of the Coptic indefinite article? It should be stressed that this is the literal translation. However, this semantic domain may allow, in context, English translations such as “the Word was divine” or a divine being, o
r “the Word was godlike.” But a translation such as the traditional “the Word was God” would require the Coptic definite article, thus falling outside of the non-specific semantic domain signaled by the Coptic indefinite article. 12It is sometimes charged, incorrectly, that the translation of John 1:1c as “the Word was a god” is an incorrect, sectarian translation found primarily in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Yet, in rendering John 1:1c from Greek into their own native language, the Coptic scribes came to the same understanding of that Greek text some 1,700 years ago.
Translating John 1:1c literally to say “the Word was a god” is, therefore, not any innovation. Rather, it appears to be an ancient way of understanding the meaning of this text, before the ascension and formal installation of philosophical Trinitarianism.
Was the Word “God” or “a god”?
“That question has to be considered when Bible translators handle the first verse of the Gospel of John. In the New World Translation, the verse is rendered: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1) Some other translations render the last part of the verse to convey the thought that the Word was “divine,” or something similar. (A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt; The New English Bible) Many translations, however, render the last part of John 1:1: “And the Word was God.” – The Holy Bible – New International Version; The Jerusalem Bible.
Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that the New World Translation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. Nevertheless, the fact that the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”) leaves the matter open to question in some minds. It is for this reason that a Bible translation in a language that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our Common Era is very interesting.
The language is the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says:”Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.”
The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons. First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”
Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidi Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God.”
(This is taken from a Watchtower article and can be found on this blog half way down page, http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/165941/1.ashx)WHAT FOLLOWS THAT ARTICLE ON THE WEBSITE I TOOK THIS FROM IS SOMEONE WHO SEEMS TO KNOW LANGUAGE AND TO HAVE EVEN STUDIED THE COPTIC LANGUAGES.
SHE ARGUES AGAINST THE JW'S TRANSLATION, OR AT LEAST, SHE EXPLAINS THAT THERE IS ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE–“DIVINE.”
Note what she says:
“Had the Society examined the recent Coptic grammar by Bentley Layton (Coptic in 20 Lessons: Introduction to Sahidic Coptic [Leuven: Peeters, 2007]), or even Layton's older Coptic grammar, they would have known that noute “god” is one of the nouns that could be used qualitatively to mean “divine”, which would have an indefinite article in predicate position.”
She goes on:
“The Watchtower article is thus wrong about Coptic grammar and does not acknowledge that the Coptic rendering in John 1:1 is actually ambiguous between an indefinite “The Word was a god” and a qualitative “The Word was divine”.”
Ok, so it could either be “a god” or “divine” according to the coptic translation of a couple hundred years after Christ. Got it.
Going on, she says:
“Both options would require the indefinite article in Coptic and thus the use of the indefinite article in the Sahidic text does not by itself favor an English rendering with an indefinite article versus one with a qualitative expression. The value of the Coptic version is rather in confirming the linguistic findings of Harner and subsequent writers that the theos in John 1:1 is not to be understood as definite.”http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/165941/1.ashx
We definitely have someone here who argues against the Watchtower and what it said, but notice what she acknowledges–it has to be translated either “a god” OR “divine” but not “God.” This apparently is what we learn from the coptic translation, a language that is far less ambiguous than Greek or Latin.
So, we're getting closer to understanding how the earliest Christians (those before the councels of trinity belief) understood this verse.–john 1:1
Reading further on, she states:
The Coptic translation is valid evidence against the interpretation of the anarthrous theos as definite, i.e. “The Word was God”. The Watchtower article came to a similar conclusion but (grossly) oversimplified the issue by portraying the use of the indefinite article in Coptic as itself meaning that the Word was “a god”.
For a rebuttal of what she says, see:
http://ewatchman-exposed.co.uk/research/read.php?t=2794Sahidic is closer to English than is Greek. (it has both “a” and “the”)
Therefore, it sheds light on how John 1:1 was understood when Koine Greek was still a spoken language.Taken from another site:
The whole deal with John 1:1c is: what does the lack of an article imply? Is it still definite in meaning? Well, that's how most modern translations make it to be. Is it indefinite in meaning? Or is it qualitative in meaning?
Greek has no indefinite article, so there is no word “a” in John 1:1c. But oftentimes a lack of an article means the noun is indefinite in Greek. If you turn to early translations of the New Testament to help shed light on the matter, you won't get much help. Aramaic also has no definite article. And Latin has no article at all.
Sahidic Coptic, however, does have an indefinite article. This would mean the translators understood John 1:1c to be either indefinite, or qualitative. The Sahidic translation was made in the 3rd century, a century before the council of Nicea, where the Trinity was officially made church doctrine.
Anyways, people charge that the New World Translation is dishonest with John 1:1, and that it violates rules of Greek grammar. However, the Sahidic Coptic translation shows that the New World Translation had its John 1:1 rendering preceded by about 1700 years. A rendering made by translators who spoke Koine Greek as a living language.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081014112228AAk0Q51“The Sahidic is probably the earliest of the [Coptic] translations,
and also has the greatest textual value. It came into existence no
later than the third century, since a copy of 1 Peter exists in a
manuscript from about the end of that century.”http://www.glasspath.com/~waltzmn/Versions.html
20th century Coptic scholar and New Testament translator George W. Horner gives a date closer to 188 CE, based on “the internal character of the Sahidic [version],” which, he says, “supplies confirmation of a date earlier than the third century.”
The Coptic Church gives the date of 200 A.D.
The Sahidic Coptic version is likely as old, and as valuable, as the more well-known Old Italian, Vulgate, and Syriac versions.
http://copticjohn.blogspot.com/
The Sahidic Coptic translators were translating the Greek text as they understood it, from the background of 500 years of Koine Greek influence in Egypt.
The Sahidic Coptic Indefinite Article at John 1:1
“The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, CORRESPONDS CLOSELY to the use of the articles in English.” – Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, page 5
WHAT IS THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE?
Lambdin continues: “Indefinite nouns designating unspecified quantities of a substance require an indefinite article in Coptic where there is none in English.” Further, “abstract nouns such as, truth, often appear with either article, where English employs no article.” (page 5)
**********************************************
These are the distinctions that some apologists would make of great consequence when faced with the indefinite article at Coptic John 1:1c. But MAKING AN ISSUE OF THIS IS A SMOKESCREEN that hides either ignorance or outright deception. Why? Because these exceptions have absolutely nothing to do with Coptic John 1:1c. Why not? Because the noun used here, *noute*, god, does not fall into either of the categories mentioned above. *Noute* is not a noun designating quantities of a substance. It is not an abstract noun. Rather, it is a regular Coptic noun which, joined with the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article, *ou*, is usually translated by means of the English indefinite article “a”.Lambdin gives two examples of this usage quite early in his grammar book. For example, on page 17 he gives the sentence *n ounoute an pe*, translatled in the key as “He is not a god.” On page 18 we have the sentence *ntof ounoute pe*, which Lambdin translates as “He is a god.” Not “he is God.” Not “he is Divine.” But, “he is a god.” This same indefinite article – regular noun construction is found at Coptic John 1:1c: *auw neunoute pe pSaje*
Therefore, there are sound grammatical reasons for rendering Sahidic Coptic John 1:1c by what it actually and literally says, “a god was the Word.” (Note: In Coptic, the “e” in *ne* is elided with the “o” in *ou* giving neunoute instead of neounoute when the words are spelled together.)
Nothing is gained by verbose, philosophical attempts at explaining that “a god was the Word” is not what the Coptic text “means.” That’s clearly what it says, so why should that not be what it means? To impute a different meaning to what the Coptic text actually says is eisegesis, not exegesis. It is special pleading of the worst kind. It is bringing theological suppositions into the Coptic text that the text itself does not support.
True, the Coptic text is a translation of the Koine Greek text of John 1:1c , but that text also can be translated literally to say “a god was the Word.” The Sahidic Coptic translators were translating the Greek text as they understood it, from the background of 500 years of Koine Greek influence in Egypt.
The challenge to those scholars and apologists who argue for a qualitative or definite reading for Coptic John 1:1c is that they have the burden of proof to show clearly, by Scripture references, where else the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article before the noun *noute*, god, has a qualitative or definite meaning.
Until they find such verses, their arguments are hollow, shallow, irrelevant, and immaterial.
It is not sufficient to merely suppose and guess that the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article before a regular noun has qualitative or definite significance. Show the proof from the Coptic Scriptures.
On the other hand, there are many verses in just the Gospel of John alone where the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article, joined to a regular noun like *noute*, god, is translated with the English indefinite article “a” in Reverend George Horner’s classic English translation of the Sahidic Coptic text, as well as in other Sahidic Coptic literature that has been translated into English.
In simple terms: Apologists and scholars, don’t continue to give us your theological biases, disguised as grammatical treatments. Don’t continue to throw up verbose smokescreens in attempts to hide the truth of what the Sahidic Coptic text says. Your arguments are built on sand.
Show us the proof of your assertions from actual Sahidic Coptic New Testament verses, if you have any.
http://copticjohn.blogspot.com/Bentley Layton on John 1:1c
In his new grammar book, Coptic in 20 Lessons (Peeters Leuven, 2007) Bentley Layton has a valuable comment on Coptic John 1:1c, which says auw ne.u.noute pe p.Saje. He shows it can be diagrammed in this manner:auw = and
ne = past tense marker, “was”
u.noute = a god
pe = is
p.Saje = the WordThus, literally, the Coptic sentence says “and a god was the Word.”
True, Layton includes the traditional English “and the Word was God.” But it can be noted that the traditional translation is inconsistent with his own grammatical exposition on page 7. “A god” does not equal “God.” And elsewhere, in other examples in his grammar, Layton translates the Coptic construction of indefinite article + common noun into English as “a” + noun.
So clearly, the literal translation of Coptic John 1:1c's indefinite construction is “and the Word was a god.” This is especially so since John's context of the Word is that of an entity, not just an abstract idea. (Cf. Layton, page 34)
The Coptic indefinite syntactical pattern at John 1:1c does not support the traditional definite reading, “the Word was God.”
It is now confirmed by yet another reputable Coptic grammatical resource that the literal translation of Coptic John 1:1c is “and the Word was a god.” This is what the Coptic text actually says.
Anything beyond that is commentary and paraphrase.
http://copticjohn.blogspot.com/Thanks for bringing this up. I was unaware of this Coptic version.
Sigh….another “version” of the truth.
Tell you the truth David after reading two of you post I got dizzy and stopped reading. My question to you is. Is the translation of the Coptic so different then the K.J. version? If not why bother, why confuse people with it? I could bring up all the different version of the Bible in my possession.
Plus Greek and Hebrew, see what I mean?
Sigh….Sigh ……………………Mandy I just breath heavy cause I am so full.
You did work hard with this and for that I thank you too.Peace and Love Irene
Quote Thanks for bringing this up. I was unaware of this Coptic version. Sigh….another “version” of the truth.
No, Mandy, not another version of the truth. Either God is a trinity or he isn't. While many Bible's translate John 1:1 as Jesus being “with God” and at the same time being that very same “God” that he is with, this very old coptic translation shows how Christian translators back then, (while koine Greek was still spoken) understood John 1:1.
Unlike Aramaic, Latin, Greek, the Coptic language has both the definite article AND the indefinite article. It's much more precise.Quote Tell you the truth David after reading two of you post I got dizzy and stopped reading. My question to you is. Is the translation of the Coptic so different then the K.J. version? If not why bother, why confuse people with it? Well, Tiffany, John 1:1 is probably the most disputed scripture, at least, on this forum. And yes, the difference between Jesus being called God in that scripture or him being called “a god” in Coptic which could also mean “divine” is a pretty big difference.
The confusion, Tiffany, has come largly at the hands of those that translated it wrong. To correct that confusion is the right thing to do. Tiffany, it's worth reading the first page.
The languages back then didn't have the indefinite article “a” as the English language does now.
So, when translating, into English, the translator must decide if this is an instance where the indefinite article is needed.
Interestingly, the coptic language DID have an indefinite article. And when they tranlsated John 1:1, they translated it as “a god.” These were people who still existed while koine (common) Greek was still spoken. So they would have understood more accurately what was meant. As well, the Coptic is a much more precise language in this respect, because it has both the indefinite artlce “a” and the definite article “the.” Greek, for instance had the definite article but it does not appear before the word “god” in question. It does appear before the other “God” mentioned here that the Word was with. What all this means is simply this:
The KJ, which was translated by trinitarians some 1600 years after Jesus had a definite trinitarian bias, as can be seen from the the insertion of those words at 1 John 5:7, which pretty much everyone agrees was superfluous.
The coptic version which was translated some 200 years after Jesus is a much more precise language when it comes to things like John 1:1.Quote (david @ Oct. 17 2008,11:13) Quote Thanks for bringing this up. I was unaware of this Coptic version. Sigh….another “version” of the truth.
No, Mandy, not another version of the truth. Either God is a trinity or he isn't. While many Bible's translate John 1:1 as Jesus being “with God” and at the same time being that very same “God” that he is with, this very old coptic translation shows how Christian translators back then, (while koine Greek was still spoken) understood John 1:1.
Unlike Aramaic, Latin, Greek, the Coptic language has both the definite article AND the indefinite article. It's much more precise.
Hi DavidQuote (david @ Oct. 17 2008,11:13)
While many Bible's translate John 1:1 as Jesus being “with God” and at the same time being that very same “God”This is a distortion of the truth. The whole point of John 1:1c not having the definite article is to show that “The Word” is not the Father, yet at the same time showing the nature or quality of “The Word” is God.
No Trinitarian claims Yahshua is the Father. However you contradict yourself and try to make the word “theos” exclusive to the Father when it fits your theology while at the same time claiming there is other “true theos” or “a theos” beside the Father when scriptures are clear there is none like him nor beside him, and that there is only “One True God”.
This leaves you and all other Henotheist or Arians with a blatant contradiction in your theology.
You would be better off being a “Unitarian” IMO.
As much as you would like it to be, there is no indefinite article “a” in the verse in over 5000 manuscripts.
WJ
Hi All.
Here is some links about the Coptic version.
David's attempt to claim the NWT and a few other translations of John 1:1c as “the Word was “a” God”.
is a violation of the scripures and the Monotheistic faith of John and the Apostles who followed Yahshua and were eyewitnesses of him and claimed that he was and is God.
WJ
Quote (david @ Oct. 17 2008,12:26) Quote Tell you the truth David after reading two of you post I got dizzy and stopped reading. My question to you is. Is the translation of the Coptic so different then the K.J. version? If not why bother, why confuse people with it? Well, Tiffany, John 1:1 is probably the most disputed scripture, at least, on this forum. And yes, the difference between Jesus being called God in that scripture or him being called “a god” in Coptic which could also mean “divine” is a pretty big difference.
The confusion, Tiffany, has come larger at the hands of those that translated it wrong. To correct that confusion is the right thing to do. Tiffany, it's worth reading the first page.
The languages back then didn't have the indefinite article “a” as the English language does now.
So, when translating, into English, the translator must decide if this is an instance where the indefinite article is needed.
Interestingly, the coptic language DID have an indefinite article. And when they tranlsated John 1:1, they translated it as “a god.” These were people who still existed while koine (common) Greek was still spoken. So they would have understood more accurately what was meant. As well, the Coptic is a much more precise language in this respect, because it has both the indefinite artlce “a” and the definite article “the.” Greek, for instance had the definite article but it does not appear before the word “god” in question. It does appear before the other “God” mentioned here that the Word was with. What all this means is simply this:
The KJ, which was translated by trinitarians some 1600 years after Jesus had a definite trinitarian bias, as can be seen from the the insertion of those words at 1 John 5:7, which pretty much everyone agrees was superfluous.
The coptic version which was translated some 200 years after Jesus is a much more precise language when it comes to things like John 1:1.
David When you take the Word ” God ” I also understand that God is a title. So many things have been called God, if a God or just God. God the Father, God the Son both have names. Even Satan is called God of this world.
When you take it that way does it really matter then if you put a in front of God?
I have never heard of Coptic. Is it a language or a Country or City?
I have to google it first. Yes it is a language.
I am German and I do have a German Bible. Is some explained differently, yes. But the meaning is not different and that is what counts. Some of us believe that the Bible interprets itself.
If a verse in the Bible is disputed like John 1:1 has, is it any different then the trinity or preexisting? All have been debated a lot.
I simple let the Holy Spirit straighten me out, if I am wrong. And when you ask God to show you, He will and He has.
It has taken some time in some subjects and I have to wait on God.
Peace and Love Irene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
