- This topic is empty.
- Posts
A post from Ken, taken from the John 1:1 thread:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….st=1100
My thoughts are in bold.The “Sahidic Coptic has no neuter gender (thus most Greek neuter nouns are rendered as though they were masculine); Sahidic Coptic has only the active voice; Sahidic Coptic often renders the Greek imperfect and the aorist as perfects, etc. Early Coptic translations reflect a heavy use of Greek loan-words, but often with variations in spelling especially with regard to vowels. As B. Metzger observes, “Compared with Greek [Coptic] is much more wooden and lacking in suppleness and variety of expression” (1977: 107).
Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6:803). New York: Doubleday.I found these words interesting, and I’ve seen others say similarly– “Early Coptic translations reflect a heavy use of Greek loan-words.” To me, this means, they’d actually know what the words mean. They were writing at a time when koine Greek was still actually spoken. Not only did they understand the langauge, but they actually incorporated their language into the coptic–using the Greek alphabet and quite a bit of Greek words, as pointed out.
Also… “If an early translator (third Century or earlier) understood John to have written “and the Word was a god,” this would appear to be evidence in favor of the NWT's rendering. But, as we shall see, appearances can be deceiving.
No, Ken, No. Your words above are more than a little deceiving.
If you have the NWT with references edition, you will find that the NWT translators offer, not just one, but three renderings for John 1:1c. All of which can be qualitative.
1. And the Word was a god.
2. And the Word was god-like.
3. And the Word was divine.
All three are qualitative in meaning. The Appendix on John 1:1 in the NWT also says that John 1:1c is qualitative. The NWT is more honest by offering three renderings, all of which are qualitative.
“Joh 1:1—“and the Word was a god (godlike; divine)”
Gr., κ?α?ι?̀? θ?ε?ο?̀?ς? η??̃?ν? ὁ? λ?ό?γ?ο?ς? (kai the·oś en ho lógos)”So as we shall see, the coptic does in fact give evidence in favor of the NWT’s rendering. As you state below, it can be understood to mean “a god” or “divine” (although literally, it means “a god.”) And of course, some would argue (Jason Debuhn) that there really isn’t a difference.
The full citation of Horner's Coptic New Testament is as follows:
The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect
otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic, 4 Volumes (Oxford, 1911).Horner's English translation of John 1:1c is as follows:
“…and [a] God was the Word.”
Horner's critical apparatus defines the use of square brackets as
follows: “Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not required by the English” (p. 376).But of course, this is his theology, having nothing in the least, to do with grammar. Over and over in the exact same sentence structure, he puts the “a” in without putting brackets around it. He puts the brackets there, because of history and what people believe. The indefinite article is unquestionably in the Coptic. Below, you state that “Dr. Layton says it is up to the reader to decide” which rendering to give it “a god” or “divine.” Taking the “a” out and leaving it “God” is not an option when translating it from Coptic.
How can Horner say that the indefinite article, while present in the
Sahidic original, is not required in English?This should be good…..
The answer lies in the usage of the Sahidic indefinite article
itself. We may first note that, unlike English, the indefinite
article is used in Sahidic with abstract nouns and nouns of
substance (Walters, CC, An Elementary Coptic Grammar of the Sahidic Dialect, p. 12). An example of this usage may be found in John 1:16, which Horner translates:Because out of fulness we all of us took [a] life and [a] grace in
place of [a] grace.Right, but is “God” an abstract noun? No.
“An abstract noun refers to states, events, concepts, feelings, qualities, etc., that have no physical existence.” “A noun (such as courage or freedom) that names an idea, event, quality, or concept.” “A noun that denotes an abstract or intangible concept, such as envy or joy.”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abstract+noun
http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/abstrerm.htm
God is only an abstract noun if you think of him as an idea, and not a real being. If you’re a philisophical person who believes that God is a feeling inside of you, or something like that, but not of the God described in the Bible, then maybe you could put this line of reasoning down. Otherwise, it’s just wrong.More importantly, the indefinite article does not always denote
class membership. It can also used to attribute qualities or
characteristics (what in Greek grammars is called a “qualitative
usage” [e.g., Wallace, p. 244]):
Indefinite Article
one specimen of the lexical class of … ;
one specimen having the quality of the lexical class of … (Layton,
Bentley, A Coptic Grammar With Chrestomathy and Glossary – Sahidic Dialect, 2nd edition, p. 43, “…” in original).Dr. Layton explains further:
The indef. article is part of the Coptic syntactic pattern. This
pattern predicates either a quality (we'd omit the English article
in English: “is divine”) or an entity (“is a god”); the reader
decides which reading to give it. The Coptic pattern does NOT
predicate equivalence with the proper name “God”; in Coptic, God is always without exception supplied with the def. article. Occurrence of an anarthrous noun in this pattern would be odd.3Let me repeat one sentence in that last paragraph: “in Coptic, God is always without exception supplied with the def. article.” Case closed. Did that say “without exception”? Yes, it did. Did the “a god” of the coptic manuscript have a definite article “the” or an indefinite article “a”?
Again: “in Coptic, God is always without exception supplied with the def. article.” Question: Are words that always have definite articles in front of them ever “abstract nouns”?So, the use of the indefinite article in the Sahidic does not
necessarily mean that the Coptic translator understood John to have written “a god.” He was not equating the Word with the proper name God, but he could have understood John to be using theos in a qualitative sense, as many Greek scholars have argued. Dr. Layton says it is up to the reader to decide, but is there any indication in the immediate context to help us?Right, while it literally says ‘a god’ it could also be taken to mean “divine.” See index 6A of the NWT where it gives “divine” as a possible translation of John 1:1c.
I believe there is significant evidence in favor of a qualitative
reading. In the Sahidic version of John 1:18b, the anarthrous theos in the Greek is translated with the definite article. Horner's translation reads as follows:“God, the only Son.”
It would seem unlikely in the extreme that a translator would understand John to have designated the Word “a god” in John 1:1 and “the God” in John 1:18. Instead, his use of the definite article in verse 18 would make more sense if he understood John to be ascribing the qualities of Deity
to the Word in John 1:1.But he doesn’t say “the God” does he? He says“The only-begotten god,” P75א?c; P66א?*?BC*?, “only-begotten god”; ACcItVgSyc,h, “the only-begotten Son.”
Either way, “a god” or “divine” the translation does not say “God.”Yours,
Harold Holmyard”
from http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2006-February/037663.htmlLastly, while the website from which much of this info in the post asking for views on this Coptic version was taken may no longer exist, it appears to be lifted from a book that all anti Trintarians would be interested in reading and assimilating, as it takes on on Trinitarianism in general, and many popular Trinitarian scholars in particular… the info seems to be taken from a book by Patrick Navas entitled …. and Nick and all the others who are somewhat maniacally opposed to “tradition” will especially like this title…. “Divine Truth or Human Tradition?”, which, for those who may have missed the earlier thread, commits the informal fallacy of a false dichotomy, the section on this version of John in the Sahidic Coptic version/manuscript is apparently done by Solomon Landers, a prominent Jehovah's Witness apologist. Portions of the book can be found for free online at google books… and, again, for the specific issue concerning John 1:1 and the version found in the Sahidic Coptic manuscript, see:
http://books.google.com/books?i….A311,M1
blessings,
KenI’d be interested in knowing how it’s a false dilemma fallacy. You know, calling something a fallacy when it’s not a fallacy is also a fallacy. (I don’t remember what it’s called.)
david
Hi David,
I must admit, I stand in awe of your patience.
Thank you for taking the time to defend your point of view.Tim
Quote I must admit, I stand in awe of your patience.
Thank you for taking the time to defend your point of view.There's really not much here to defend Tim. As you notice, no one seems to argue with this. All they can say is that “God” is an abstract noun. WRONG.
I really wish more people were disagreeing with me. I tend to work a lot harder and learn more when people disagree.Hi David
I have been away and very busy, but I see you have plastered the sight with all kinds of interesting stuff.
I am looking forward to addressing some of your points as time allows.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 18 2008,01:58)
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.Quote (david @ Oct. 18 2008,14:55) The “nature or quality of the Word” “is God.”? I didn't know God was a quality or nature. This is the trouble with being wrong. It causes confusion.
Perhaps you meant “godlike” or divine. That's more of a quality or nature.“God” is not a nature.
And yet you are trying to say that John 1:1c should be interpreted as “a god” or “divine”.Which is it David? The definition of the word “Theos” is not godlike or divine.
It’s simple David. I am not saying “God is a nature”, but I am saying that the nature of God is God. Just as I would say the nature of a man is “human”. I wouldn’t say the nature of God is “godlike” would I David?
After all the Greek word used by the Apostle John in writing John 1:1c is “Theos”, which means “God” not godlike or divine.
“and God (Theos) was the Word”
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 18 2008,01:58) As much as you would like it to be, there is no indefinite article “a” in the verse in over 5000 manuscripts. Quote (david @ Oct. 18 2008,14:55) OH, WHICH ONES WJ, THE GREEK ONES, THE ARAIMAIC ONES, MAYBE THE LATIN ONES….oh, that's right…. NONE OF THESE LANGAUGES HAVE THE INDEFINITE ARTICLE….
HENCE, THE VERY VERY VERY VERY INTERESTING COPTIC VERSION, ONE THAT IS MORE SPECIFIC…
Ok good one. But tell me David, how is the Coptic “More Specific” since it is “another translation” by scholars?So you would have us believe that the Coptic translators “alone” understood Greek and that all others are biased or wrong.
What do you mean by “more specific”. Is the Coptic interpretation of John 1:1 unambiguous?
Wait, You said…
Quote (david @ Oct. 15 2008,14:20)
This apparently is what we learn from the coptic translation, a language that is far less ambiguous than Greek or Latin.
“Less ambiguous”? So again David…
IS THE COPTIC VERSION OF JOHN 1:1C WITHOUT AMBIGUITY?If not then your argument is circular David, AND IS JUST A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO PROVE THE NWT AS BEING A VALID TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1 WHICH ALSO SHOWS YOUR OWN BIAS WHILE YOU ACCUSE THE ENGLISH TRANSLATORS OF THE SAME.
You said…
Quote (david @ Oct. 23 2008,18:25)
This is unbelievable to me. Even the Coptic church doesn't necessarily translate John 1:1c as “a god.” (Coptic stopped being spoken as a language around 1500, but it is still used in their services, I think.) So, like everyone else, they're following tradition. Despite what they know the coptic manuscripts say, and the coptic Bible should say, when translating it into English, they go with what's popular, with tradition!
If this is what they do, how easy it must be for everyone else to ignore reality and just go with the crowd.
Imagine that!
You don’t get it David. The Coptic translators and translation was not perfect either. It is still ambiguous and in fact to interpret John 1:1c as “a god” would be a violation of the Hebrew text that says…Isa 44:24
Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; *that stretcheth forth the heavens alone*; that spreadeth abroad the earth *by myself*;Isa 45:18
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: *I am the LORD; and there is none else*.Isa 46:9
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and *there is none else*; I am God, and *there is none like me*,Hsa 13:4
Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: *for there is no saviour beside me*.Exod 23:13
And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.The Coptic believers must have realized this. Or is it possible that the Coptic translators were also biased and possibly unbelievers?
John 1:1 does not prove nor disprove Trinitarian theology.
But it seems you are trying to make that case David. Get in line for centuries men have been trying to do the same without success.
There are many other scriptural proofs for the Trinitarian, but that’s another thread.
More to come…
WJ
David…….> why don't you look at what the word GOD means, according to Jeff Benner , the word Elohim means (POWERS) So the word GOD is not a person but a descriptor. With that we could read John 1:1 as, In the beginning was the word and the word was with power and the word was power. If John was referring to the being, he would used the word LORD (He Exists) as Jesus did when he quoted scripture saying ” hear O Israel the LORD our GOD (power) is ONE LORD”, notice he did not say ONE GOD. there are many GODS (Powers) but to us there is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD (POWER) and that is the LORD.
peace to you and yours……………..gene
WJ, I would like to address this post more fully later, but I have little time now.
Quote tell me David, how is the Coptic “More Specific” since it is “another translation” by scholars? So you would have us believe that the Coptic translators “alone” understood Greek and that all others are biased or wrong.
No, WJ, I never ever said the early Coptic translators “alone” understood Greek. They understood Greek, as others did as well. But the others didn't translate the Greek into a language that makes us of the indefinite article (like the English “a”).
But the Coptic translators did have the indefinite article in their language. And they used it in John 1:1c.As for your scrolling text, THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE COPTIC OF JOHN 1:1C IS LESS AMBIGUOUS THAN GREEK, ARAMAIC, SYRIAC, LATIN, ETC.
It doesn't necessarily mean it has to be translated as “a god” but does mean it can't be translated “God.” It is either “a god” or “divine/godlike.” And there are those who argue that these mean essentially the same thing. BUT, “God” and “a god” are very different, aren't they. So, much less ambiguous, yes!Quote If not then your argument is circular David
Well it is, and so, no, my argument isn't circular.Quote Imagine that!
You don’t get it David. The Coptic translators and translation was not perfect either. It is still ambiguous and in fact to interpret John 1:1c as “a god” would be a violation of the Hebrew text that says…Here's the thing, WJ, I can use thousands of scriptures to say that John 1:1 cannot be translated as “God.” I can even use John 1:1 to prove this. But, that is not what this thread is about. We've already had that discussion. They are in all the other threads. And I'd love to point out why each and every scripture you quoted in no way proves the trinity, much less that John 1:1c should be translated “God.” But, there's already 20 threads that deal with that. Focus!
Quote
John 1:1 does not prove nor disprove Trinitarian theology.
But it seems you are trying to make that case David.I know, you're right, it certainly doesn't prove the trinity. Very true. But, no, I have never said anywhere in this thread that John 1:1 proves or disproves anything about the trinity. . . . EVER! Again, a fabrication, and one I have already called you on. YET, you keep repeating this falsehood. What exactly is your agenda?
Quote And yet you are trying to say that John 1:1c should be interpreted as “a god” or “divine”. Which is it David? The definition of the word “Theos” is not godlike or divine.
It’s simple David. I am not saying “God is a nature”,
First, I'm pretty sure that is exactly what you said– the “nature or quality of the Word” “is God.” Hence “God” is a nature, meaning, God is a descriptive word that fits under the category of a quality or nature.Quote according to Jeff Benner , the word Elohim means (POWERS)
But since it is used with reference to an intelligent being, when applied to such, it has to mean “powerful one.” But yes, the word origin, may just mean “power/strength,mightiness” etc.
But if you try to replace “God” with “powers” in your Bible, the meaning will change significantly.Quote After all the Greek word used by the Apostle John in writing John 1:1c is “Theos”, which means “God” not godlike or divine. Forgot to address this, because it is ridiculously absurd. THERE IS NO INDEFINITE ARTICLE IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE. But if that's the level we're at, why don't I say:
But there is a definite article (The). That definite article was used with reference to “the God” mentioned at the beginning of John 1:1. But we don't find the definite article at John 1:1c.
Of course, this is not sound reasoning. Neither WJ's words, nor mine. But, i guess that's what we're doing now.Divine means: “having the nature of God” or “of or like God or a god.”
Since there is no indefinite article in Greek (or any langauge back then that John 1:1 was translated into other than Coptic) the word “theos” may or may not need an indefinite article in front of it, depending on the context, just like every other noun in the Greek language. So, yes, the Greek “theos” can mean “a god” if the context demands it.
Of course, I favor the literal “a god” translation, but trinitarians, and others who just don't like the NWT and will argue against it whatever the case, say that “divine” or “godlike” is more appropriate. (Then again, depending on how you look at it, “divine” and “a god” can mean the exact same thing.) So I haven't really been arguing this.All we do know is that according to the early Sahidic Coptic translation, they did not translate John 1:1 c as “God” but rather “a god.”
WJ, a few days ago, I was searching for the apostolic fathers threads you mentioned. If you could provide those links again, I would appreciate it. I've found my own, but I was looking for yours. Thanks.
david
David……right but if you add the word , (word) with GOD (POWER) you simple get powerful word. So John could have simply met, in the beginning was the word and the word was with power and the word was power. interesting thought.
peace to you and yours………………..gene
Hi David
I said…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 02 2008,10:10) “Less ambiguous”? So again David…
IS THE COPTIC VERSION OF JOHN 1:1C WITHOUT AMBIGUITY?If not then your argument is circular David, AND IS JUST A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO PROVE THE NWT AS BEING A VALID TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1 WHICH ALSO SHOWS YOUR OWN BIAS WHILE YOU ACCUSE THE ENGLISH TRANSLATORS OF THE SAME.
You quoted me…Quote If not then your argument is circular David
and then you said…Quote (david @ Nov. 03 2008,06:38) Well it is, and so, no, my argument isn't circular.
Well it is what David? Without ambiguity?Are you serious? Even the Coptic people do not believe it. But thanks anyways. The Greek translated into English which like the Coptic has an indefinite article, interprets John 1:1c without ambiguity also.
The question was…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 02 2008,10:10) “Less ambiguous”? So again David…
IS THE COPTIC VERSION OF JOHN 1:1C WITHOUT AMBIGUITY?
We know that the Greek has the word “Theos” in John 1:1 which means “God”.Or you are implying the Apostle John was a pure idiot for using the same word “Theos” in John 1:1c as in John 1:1b.
We do not have a definite nor indefinite article in John 1:1c in the Greek.
So now it is left up to the translators to add an “a” or not to.
The Coptic language has the indefinite article “a' and they chose to translate John 1:1c with the indefinite article “a” even though it is a violation of the Hebrew text that says there is no other “gods”.
However on the other hand we have another language called “English” that has an indefinite article “a” and the English translators chose not to add to the text an “a”.
Take your pick David. But I see you and watchtower already have.
In the future I would appreciate you not chopping up and cutting my quotes.
WJ
Hi David
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 02 2008,10:10) After all the Greek word used by the Apostle John in writing John 1:1c is “Theos”, which means “God” not godlike or divine. Quote (david @ Nov. 03 2008,06:45) Forgot to address this, because it is ridiculously absurd.
Is it absurd David?Can you show me an example in scripture where the Greek word “theos” is interpreted as “divine” or “godlike”?
Of course you can’t. You can’t even meet the challenge to give me one example of the word “el, “elohiym” or “theos” ascribed to any creature with divine qualities in the OT or NT.
Quote (david @ Nov. 03 2008,06:45) So, yes, the Greek “theos” can mean “a god” if the context demands it.
No it can’t David, not if you hold true to Biblical Monotheism and the Hebrew scriptures that say there is no other gods (theos).Again, there are thousands of scriptures in the 27 NT books of the Bible and not once is Yahshua referred to as “a god”.
However he is referred to as “The God”.
Quote (david @ Nov. 03 2008,06:45) All we do know is that according to the early Sahidic Coptic translation, they did not translate John 1:1 c as “God” but rather “a god.”
And what does this prove David? That the Coptic is “less ambiguous” than the English which also has the indefinite article?WJ
Try as you may, brother's, to figure this out – God says that human wisdom is but foolishness to him.
Bottom line is, we will never know what “version” of the truth is correct. God remains silent. His written word corrupt. His living Word without witnesses. It's all guesswork.
Quote The Greek translated into English which like the Coptic has an indefinite article, interprets John 1:1c without ambiguity also. WJ, of course, English is unambiguous, as it has the definite and indefinite articles. GREEK DOESN'T. Let me repeat that for the 43d time. GREEK DOESN'T.
–The Greek certainly can be argued this way or that way today (hence, the multitude of threads and thousands of posts dealing with John 1:1.)
–Today, people looking at the koine Greek (which hasn't been spoken for like 1700 years) can interpret John 1:1c either way, depending on their beliefs. BACK THEN, they actually still spoke koine Greek.Quote Are you serious?
WJ, I have found that usually when people are extremely wrong and have no case whatsoever, (as with you, here) it is a fatal mistake to pretend like they actually have some sort of argument.Quote “Less ambiguous”? So again David…
IS THE COPTIC VERSION OF JOHN 1:1C WITHOUT AMBIGUITY?I'm quite certain I did answer this, if you check. But let attempt to answer it again:
MY ANSWER, AGAIN:
I NEVER SAID IT WAS “WITHOUT AMBIGUITY.” It is literally translated “a god.” But, some who make a differentiation understand this to mean “divine.” But it literally says “a god” as you know.
What is clear, what is completely unambiguos, is that the Coptic does not say the Word was “God.” It just doesn't. There are no circumstances under which it could be taken to say that.
IN THIS RESPECT, UNLIKE GREEK, WHICH IS AMBIGUOUS, THE COPTIC IS FAR FAR LESS AMBIGUOUS.Quote We know that the Greek has the word “Theos” in John 1:1 which means “God”.
Yes, or “a god” depending on the context. Greek, no indefinite article, remember?Quote Or you are implying the Apostle John was a pure idiot for using the same word “Theos” in John 1:1c as in John 1:1b.
No, of course, again, I've said, nor implied nothing of the sort, anywhere, ever. (What is your motive behind questions such as this?)
What I said, over and over, as you yourself state, is that Greek doesn't have an indefinite article. Of course, people back then who spoke the language would have understood it. If only we had a translation from back then into a language that had the indefinite article and that was written by people who understood and spoke koine Greek. Oh, wait, we do….The Coptic translation.Quote The Coptic language has the indefinite article “a' and they chose to translate John 1:1c with the indefinite article “a” even though it is a violation of the Hebrew text that says there is no other “gods”.
Clearly, you misunderstand the use and meaning of the word “god,” and the context of those scriptures you refer to. But, what is clear, and not arguable is this:Those people who translated John 1:1c back then into a language that used the Greek alphabet, (plus a few more letters,) and who spoke koine Greek (unlike the people of the time of the Nicene councels who were speaking medieval Greek) translated John 1:1c as “a god.”
This neither proves nor disproves the trinity, for as you said, John 1:1 doesn't prove or disprove anything.
Quote However on the other hand we have another language called “English” that has an indefinite article “a” and the English translators chose not to add to the text an “a”. Which English Translators WJ? Which ones? Which ones are you referring to exactly?
The ones that wrote KJ Bible, or the Tyndale Bible or the Luther Bible, all 'translated' some 1300 years after the Coptic translation, and ALL SOME 1200 YEARS after koine Greek stopped being spoken as a language?
Oh, that's right. And they did this after hundreds of years of political apostate councels declared that it is heresy and punishable to say anything other than God is a trinity. Well, that proves a lot, doesn't it?THIS IS EXACTLY why the coptic version is so interesting. Yes, people look and so: “oh, well…um, hum, the English translators must have known what they were doing.” Also, back then, a mere 500 years ago, who spoke koine Greek as a language? It was very easy to hide what they did. It was a dead language for more than a thousand years. Sure, and they were biased because back then, people were killed for heresy. And while there are some, how many were willing to be tortured in order to show the established regime why or how it was wrong?
Quote Take your pick David. But I see you and watchtower already have. In the future I would appreciate you not chopping up and cutting my quotes.
Did you not say “God” was “God's nature?” If you made a mistake and wish to retract your statements, I would understand.
David.
Quote Again, there are thousands of scriptures in the 27 NT books of the Bible and not once is Yahshua referred to as “a god”. See John 1:1c.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=20;t=2103;st=10
For the sake of clarity, here is WJ's words in full. (I believe this must be what you referred to about me apparently chopping your quotes:)“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.”–wj
And since you said that the nature or quality of “The Word” is God, I assumed you meant that the nature or quality of “The Word” was God.
I'm sorry for the …. error.
Summing up, again, and bringing us back to what this discussion is about:
The Greek of John 1:1 has no indefinite article. (“a”) So, if someone translates it into a language that does have indefinite articles (such as English, Coptic, etc) the translator must put the “a” or “an” in where it is needed. (Every English Bible does this thousands of times.)
The languages that John 1:1 were translated and copied into had no indefinite article (Greek, Latin, syriac, aramaic, etc) Around 1500, it was translated into English which does have the indefinite article.
But 1300 years before, it was translated into Coptic, which does have the indefinite article in it's language. And the translators, who lived at a time when koine Greek was still spoken and at a time when they definitely understood it, tranlsated john 1:1c with “a god.”
Add to this the apostate political deeply a part of the world establishement that ruled for so long, and that crushed people that went against it, how was anyone to argue? Sure, there are many English translation of Bibles written by trinitarians a thousand years later, who translate John 1:1 as “God.” But repeating a mistake does not make it proper.
Quote (david @ Nov. 04 2008,13:12)
WJ, of course, English is unambiguous, as it has the definite and indefinite articles. GREEK DOESN'T. Let me repeat that for the 43d time. GREEK DOESN'T.
No David. The Greek language is not ambiguous; it is the interpretation of it. Haven’t you figured that out yet?Do you think the Apostle John was being ambiguous when he used the same word “theos” in John 1:1b as in John 1:1c? You still haven’t addressed this point.
So let me repeat in a different way and see if you can understand what I am saying without twisting my words.
The “TRANSLATORS” of the Coptic version translated John 1:1c as “a god”, this fact is unambiguous.
The TRANSLATORS of most English bibles translated John 1:1c as “the word was God”, this fact is unambiguous.
You are trying to make a case that somehow because the Coptic translators could speak koine Greek that they were to be trusted more than others in their interpretation of John 1:1 even though their own people reject that translation.
Again David, you still do not get it. Biblical Monotheism demands that John 1:1c not to be interpreted as “a god” for that would be a violation of the Hebrew text…
Isa 44:24
Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; *that stretcheth forth the heavens alone*; that spreadeth abroad the earth *by myself*;Isa 45:18
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: *I am the LORD; and there is none else*.Isa 46:9
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and *there is none else*; I am God, and *there is none like me*,Hsa 13:4
Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: *for there is no saviour beside me*.Exod 23:13
And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.The Coptic believers must have realized this. Or is it possible that the Coptic translators were also biased and possibly unbelievers?
But as usual, while you accuse Trinitarians of ignoring facts it is you who ignores these facts and it is you who refuses to address certain points that I have made like….
Can you show me an example in scripture where the Greek word “theos” is interpreted as “divine” or “godlike”?
Give me one example of the word “el, “elohiym” or “theos” ascribed to any creature with divine qualities in the OT or NT other than the Father and Yeshua!
Don’t you think these facts are important in the translation of John 1:1? Apparently the Coptic translators or the NWT translators didn’t think so?
So please spare me from your patronizing and apologetic answers and quit avoiding these facts. Please give me and the readers some facts supporting your use of the word “theos” as being applied to any other being with divine qualities but the Father and Yeshua.
If you can’t do this, which I am quote sure you can’t, then your argument carries no weight and is based on the translation of some Coptic scholars (who can be sure what they were) some 1300 years ago, who violate the Hebrew text by their misinterpretation of John 1:1c.
Quote (david @ Nov. 04 2008,13:12)
–The Greek certainly can be argued this way or that way today (hence, the multitude of threads and thousands of posts dealing with John 1:1.)
–Today, people looking at the koine Greek (which hasn't been spoken for like 1700 years) can interpret John 1:1c either way, depending on their beliefs. BACK THEN, they actually still spoke koine Greek.
And your point is what? That they were totally and absolutely, 100%, right in their translation by adding an “a” in the translation of the text. Was this maybe because of their bias?And of course your purpose of this is to defend the lonely NWT and their miss translation of John 1:1 by men who were not Hebrew or Greek scholars at all.
Quote (david @ Nov. 04 2008,13:12)
WJ, I have found that usually when people are extremely wrong and have no case whatsoever, (as with you, here) it is a fatal mistake to pretend like they actually have some sort of argument.
I think this discussion has happened many times before, all to no avail. John 1:1 still remains as it is in most credible translations. Real translations translated by real scholars who understood Hebrew Monotheism, there is “Only One True God”.It is you David that is wrong and has no case.
WJ
Hi David
Quote (david @ Nov. 04 2008,13:44)
Add to this the apostate political deeply a part of the world establishement that ruled for so long, and that crushed people that went against it, how was anyone to argue? Sure, there are many English translation of Bibles written by trinitarians a thousand years later, who translate John 1:1 as “God.” But repeating a mistake does not make it proper.
This is usually the response of someone who has no grounds for an argument, when they resort to the deeds of Godless men who claimed to follow the truth, as if somehow this has bearing on the written truth or the Greek or Hebrew text.WJ
Hi All
The following is a link to a NY times article concerning the Coptic and one of the oldest finds.
It is in Adobe format, so you will need to have Adobe reader.
Quote Hi All The following is a link to a NY times article concerning the Coptic and one of the oldest finds.
It is in Adobe format, so you will need to have Adobe reader.
Click Here!
Thankyou for the link WJ. It's very interesting. It appears to have come out very very shortly
after the find of the coptic codex.“The [Coptic] codex is the oldest known copy of any translation of any considerable portion of the Greek Bible. Indeed, it is probably as early as any copy now in existence of any substantial part of the Bible.”–New York Times, April 16, 1912.
So, it is extraordinarily relevant. As the NY Times says, “This is an extremely interesting document.”
But I think this is why WJ included this article of 1912:
“We find that the translators of the coptic version not only occasionally made mistakes, but that they also missed the point in several passages.”They “missed the point in several passages”? Well, perhaps, in this person's (I'm guessing a trinitarians) opinion, the opinion of someone who lived 1900 years after Christ. Or maybe he has missed the point of several passages. I tend to think those that actually spoke koine Greek while it existed as a language, and that lived before the influence and pressure of the established church, deserve a lot more weight, than how this person interprets scripture.
“The text of the book of Jonah is complete, with the exception of portions of two words.”
“All three texts [Jonah, Acts, Epistles] were written in one hand, the neatness and beauty of the writing in places suggesting that the copyist was a trained scribe.”
But on the other hand, concerning Acts, this writer states: “The mistakes in spelling both Greek and Coptic words are numerous, and there are many blunders in writing, which could only be made by a very careless copyist.”
But it should be added, regarding the coptic: “In the transcription of loan-words variations in spelling, especially in the vowels, are frequent.”
http://books.google.ca/books?i….A147,M1
(The Early Versions of the New Testament, by Bruce Manning Metzger, page 147)Then, regarding the dating, it states that Dr. Kenyon says that it “must have come into existence before the end of the third century, while it may of course, be yet older.”
I suppose the closing words, are also why WJ included this link:
“The omissions, repetitions, and mistakes proves that the codex does not contain independent translations from the Greek but text copied from some existing archetype.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst….396D6CFOther than this one article from 1912, there seems to be no one who has provided good reason to ignore this “extremely interesting document.” So, I feel for the sake of fairness, these things must be mentioned, and so I quoted them.
david.
(WJ, I'm still wondering about those “apostolic fathers” links you had. Could you repost them?)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
