- This topic is empty.
- Posts
TO ALL,
In my second debate with Mikeboll last year he offered some freak Greek exegesis of the predicate “God” in John 1:1.
He said,
Quote You'll notice that John distinguishes between the two mentions of the word “god”. One of them has the definite article “THE” in front of it, while the other one does NOT have the definite article “THE” in front of it. As I have tried to explain, the Koine Greek didn't use the indefinite article “a”. The “a” was implied and English translations have to insert it to make it understandable to us. I mentioned John 8:44 where Satan is called “a” manslayer and “a” liar. It is laid out in the Greek just like John 1:1,
I answered:Quote Too bad for Mike that the NWT translators are dead wrong as well as inconsistent. John 1:1 is the ONLY place where the NWT translates the predicate “a god” when there is no definite article. Verse 6 also does not have the definite article. It says, “There was a man sent from God whose name was John.” By NWT “grammar” it should read thus, “There was a man sent from a god whose name was John.” Yet the NWT renders it “God” Presbyterian scholar R.C. Sproul said:
Quote In this verse the Word is expressly affirmed to be God. The Word existed already “in the beginning” (a clear reference to the opening words of the Bible), which is a way of denoting the eternity that is unique to God. John states clearly, “the Word was God.” Some have observed that the word translated “God” here has no definite article, and argued on this basis that it means “a god” rather than “God.” This is a misunnderstanding; the article is omitted because of the word order in the Greek sentence (the predicate God has been placed first for emphasis). The New Testament never endorses the idea of “a god,” an expression that implies polytheism and is in sharp conflict with the consistent monotheism of the Bible. Reformation Study Bible, John 1:1 note, page 1658
Then I added:Quote The defiinite article is absent because the predicate “God” is placed before the subject “the Word.” This is for emphasis. So it literally reads, “And GOD was the Word” with the emphasis on the predicate “God.” This is the correct grammar of John 1:1. WJ has more than adequately pointed out that the NWT was not translated by Greek scholars. Their translation bias is evident by the fact that John 1:1 is the ONLY place where they translate the predicate “God” as “a god” when the definite article is absent. Thus our friend Mike is a polytheist without a doubt. So let him not fault the Trinitarian!
Mike attempted to recover by citing John 8:44 which allegedly is written “identically the same” with the phrase “and the Word was [a] god” in John 1:1.Mike said:
Quote You'll notice that John distinguishes between the two mentions of the word “god”. One of them has the definite article “THE” in front of it, while the other one does NOT have the definite article “THE” in front of it. As I have tried to explain, the Koine Greek didn't use the indefinite article “a”. The “a” was implied and English translations have to insert it to make it understandable to us. I mentioned John 8:44 where Satan is called “a” manslayer and “a” liar. It is laid out in the Greek just like John 1:1,
that (one) man killer was from beginning
because liar he is and the father of it
You can see that the way they are laid out is almost identical. The adjectives that describe the noun (man killer and liar) precede the verbs (was and is) and the indefinite article “a” is missing. It's the same with John 1:1. The adjective (god) precedes the verb (was) and the indefinite article “a” is missing. What do the English translations all do in John 8:44? They switch around the noun, adjective and verb and add the “implied” indefinite article “a” and come up with “That one was a manslayer from the beginning” and “he is a liar and the father of lies”. Okay, I finally muddled through all the non-topical stuff; now for the topic this debate is supposed to be about.
I replied:Quote Wrong! Mike says that John 8:44 is laid out “identically” with John 1:1. This is blatantly false and proves that the NWT translators were not Greek grammarians as WJ has shown. In John 1:1 the predicate is placed before the subject which is NOT the case in John 8:44. It does not say, “manslayer (predicate) was he (subject). It says, “he (subject) manslayer (predicate) was.” But in John 1:1 the predicate is before the subject placing emphasis on the predicate. “And GOD (predicate) was the Word (subject).
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….8;st=30So there you have it friends! Mike thinks he has debunked Trinitarianism by his appeal to John 8:44 which he says is written “identically the same” as the phrase in John 1:1. But the two are not written “identically the same.” In 1:1 the predicate is placed before the subject when in 8:44 the predicate is placed after the subject.
Mike's argument against Trinitarianism hinged on John 8:44 and 1:1 being written “identically the same.” But they are NOT written identically the same.
Also, if John wanted to clearly convey that the Word is “a god” he could have used the indefinite pronoun 'tis' which he did not.
Quote [T]hough the Greek language does not have an ‘indefinite article’ like we think of in English, there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea and thus avoid confusion. This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun ‘tis’.
In John 1:1 there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ in the phrase, ‘and the Word was God’. However, in this instance, it cannot just be assumed that the word ‘God’ is meant to be ‘indefinite’, and therefore an indefinite article used in the English translation. Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement,
he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was ‘a certain god’, but not the one he was just referring to. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1 (among many, many other examples). So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ – John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father.
http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/answer-frame-john1_1.htmMike's freak Greek has been exposed:
1. The predicate “God” in the phrase “and the Word was God” is placed before the subject for emphasis. It literally reads, “And GOD was the Word” with the emphasis on the predicate “God.”
2. John 8:44 is not written “identically the same” with John 1:1. The predicate follows the subject.
3. The predicate “God” in John 1:6 also does not have the article. Yet no translation reads that John the Baptist was “sent by a god.”
4. John could have used the indefinite pronoun 'tis' if he wanted to be clear that the Word was “a god.”
KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Mar. 09 2011,11:20)
Also, if John wanted to clearly convey that the Word is “a god” he could have used the indefinite pronoun 'tis' which he did not.Quote [T]hough the Greek language does not have an ‘indefinite article’ like we think of in English, there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea and thus avoid confusion. This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun ‘tis’.
In John 1:1 there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ in the phrase, ‘and the Word was God’. However, in this instance, it cannot just be assumed that the word ‘God’ is meant to be ‘indefinite’, and therefore an indefinite article used in the English translation. Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was ‘a certain god’, but not the one he was just referring to. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1 (among many, many other examples). So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ – John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father.
JackThis is a very good point. Mike seems to think that he and the JWs know more than literrally thousands of experts in Biblical Hebrew and Greek.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 10 2011,03:42) Jack I wonder if Mike got his material from Watchtower again?
WJ
Keith,I know that Mike couldn't have come up with it himself.
Jack
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 10 2011,03:48) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Mar. 09 2011,11:20)
Also, if John wanted to clearly convey that the Word is “a god” he could have used the indefinite pronoun 'tis' which he did not.Quote [T]hough the Greek language does not have an ‘indefinite article’ like we think of in English, there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea and thus avoid confusion. This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun ‘tis’.
In John 1:1 there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ in the phrase, ‘and the Word was God’. However, in this instance, it cannot just be assumed that the word ‘God’ is meant to be ‘indefinite’, and therefore an indefinite article used in the English translation. Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was ‘a certain god’, but not the one he was just referring to. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1 (among many, many other examples). So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ – John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father.
JackThis is a very good point. Mike seems to think that he and the JWs know more than literrally thousands of experts in Biblical Hebrew and Greek.
WJ
Keith,I liked that the source gave some examples of the indefinite 'tis' which John should have used if he wanted to be clear that Christ was 'a god.'
Jack
Hey smart guys! I only have one simple question for you. I wonder if you'll answer it HONESTLY and DIRECTLY.
Because there is ONLY ONE HONEST AND DIRECT ANSWER TO IT. Is it GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to translate the Greek words in John 1:1c into English as “and the Word was a god”?
YES or NO?
mike
WJ and KJ! Who is The Word of God in
Rev 19:11 ¶ And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Rev 19:12 His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:14 And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Rev 19:16 And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
John wrote both Rev. and John. So I think it is the same person. Both God and The Word of God (Spokes Man of God ) are titles.
1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
Jehovah Gog is above all, just that you think that John 1:1 tells us it is a trinity, its not….other Scriptures prove it….Peace Irene
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 10 2011,03:42) Jack I wonder if Mike got his material from Watchtower again?
WJ
Equally KJ might have got his stuff from the Vatican.
After all the Catholic faith is the Trinity doctrine.The Cathoilic faith is …..Trinity
Hey Kangaroo,
John 1:1c has no definite article before the last mention of theos for a reason.
You can't read it as “And the Word was THE God”.
If you do, not only are you adding a word, but you are also excluding the Father from being God in that statement.
Back to the drawing board please.
TO ALL,
Please note that the bias of the NWT translators in John 1:1 becomes clear when we see that they did not apply their prammatical rule anywhere else but John 1:1
The first point Jehovah Witnesses often make on this verse is that in the Greek there is no definite article before the word “theos.” (“Theos” is the Greek word that we translate as “God” or “god” in English.) This is a particularly weak argument that takes little study to address. John uses the word “Theos” some 252 times in his writings. Twenty-two of these times it occurs without a definite article. In every place outside of John 1:1 and John 1:18 where the singular form of the word is used (whether it is with or without the article), John uses it to reference the one true God. There are no exceptions, even in the New World Translation.
Twenty times, the New World Translation translates “Theos” without the definite article as “God,” referencing the one true God. (Jn. 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 6:45; 8:54; 9:16, 33; 13:3; 16:30; 19:7; 20:17(2); 1 Jn. 3:2; 4:12; 2 Jn. 3, 9; Rev. 21:7). The only places it is not translated as “God” is in John 1:1 and John 1:18. Thus, overwhelming, in the Jehovah Witnesses' own translation, the word “Theos” without a definite article is believed to be a reference to the one true God. If “Theos” without the article is always translated as God by the New World Translators themselves (except for John 1:1, 18), then the argument that “Theos” should be translated as “a god” because it lacks a definite article fails. Interestingly, in the textual line followed by the New World Translation, John 1:18 has two occurrences of the word “Theos,” both without an article. The New World Translators translated the first usage as “God” and the second as “god.” The inconsistency in the New World Translation cannot be based on the lack of a definite article. The absence of the article does not indicate that John is not referencing the one true God.Further, even as the absence of the article does not warrant the translation of “Theos” as “a god”, so the presence of the article does not mean that “Theos” must be translated as “God.” Though never by John, the word “Theos” with the article sometimes means another “god” in Scripture, though never by John (Luke in Acts 7:43 and 14:11; Paul in 2 Cor. 4:4). The presence or absence of a definite article does not provide a basis for choosing between “God” and “a god” in translating “Theos.” Rather, as with any word, the most common usage by the author should be used unless the context compels a different usage. Out of some 250 times the singular form of the word “Theos” is used by John, as stated above, every time the word is used to reference the true God. Not once does the word reference a lower deity, unless John 1:1 and John 1:18 are found to be proper exceptions. The remarkably consistent usage by John of the term “Theos” should drive one's interpretation of his meaning when he used the term in John 1:1 and in John 1:18. Choosing to translate “Theos” as “god” in John 1:1 and John 1:18 goes contrary to John's consistent usage of the term in all other places of his writings. There is no valid basis for arguing that the lack of an article means that John was referencing someone other than the one true God.
http://truthsaves.org/john.shtml
Bye bye Mikey! Sail away!
Mike's freak Greek exposed!
Twenty times, the New World Translation translates “Theos” without the definite article as “God,” referencing the one true God. (Jn. 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 6:45; 8:54; 9:16, 33; 13:3; 16:30; 19:7; 20:17(2); 1 Jn. 3:2; 4:12; 2 Jn. 3, 9; Rev. 21:7). The only places it is not translated as “God” is in John 1:1 and John 1:18. Thus, overwhelming, in the Jehovah Witnesses' own translation, the word “Theos” without a definite article is believed to be a reference to the one true God.
http://truthsaves.org/john.shtml
Poor Mike!
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 09 2011,21:26) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 10 2011,03:42) Jack I wonder if Mike got his material from Watchtower again?
WJ
Equally KJ might have got his stuff from the Vatican.
After all the Catholic faith is the Trinity doctrine.The Cathoilic faith is …..Trinity
YepThe Catholic church also believes in Jesus death, burial and ressurection. So what is your point?
The God and the Catholics is the reason you even have a BIble.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 09 2011,20:24) Hey smart guys! I only have one simple question for you. I wonder if you'll answer it HONESTLY and DIRECTLY. Because there is ONLY ONE HONEST AND DIRECT ANSWER TO IT. Is it GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to translate the Greek words in John 1:1c into English as “and the Word was a god”?
YES or NO?
mike
NOBecause John was not a Polytheist and the Bible is not a Polytheistic book.
And because every major translation words it the same meaning 1000.s of Hebrew and Greek scholars, experts of the Biblical Hebrew and Greek languages agree.
What Hebrew and Greek credentials do you and the JWs have for denying the translations and changing the meaning of the text?
WJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 10 2011,09:03) Bye bye Mikey! Sail away!
Hey Jack,Just answer the question. Don't prove me right when I said it would take months to get a direct answer.
You KNOW the answer – go ahead and say it. Is it GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to translate the Greek words in John 1:1c into English as “and the Word was a god”?
YES or NO?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 10 2011,16:31) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 09 2011,20:24) Hey smart guys! I only have one simple question for you. I wonder if you'll answer it HONESTLY and DIRECTLY. Because there is ONLY ONE HONEST AND DIRECT ANSWER TO IT. Is it GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to translate the Greek words in John 1:1c into English as “and the Word was a god”?
YES or NO?
mike
NOBecause John was not a Polytheist and the Bible is not a Polytheistic book.
And because every major translation words it the same meaning 1000.s of Hebrew and Greek scholars, experts of the Biblical Hebrew and Greek languages agree.
What Hebrew and Greek credentials do you and the JWs have for denying the translations and changing the meaning of the text?
WJ
That is the wrong answer, Keith. You gave reasons that you believe it SHOULD BE translated as “and the Word was God”. But my question is whether or not it is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to be translated as “a god”?Do I need to go through the 8482 times the indefinite article “A” is added into scripture? How about the more than 1000 times it's added in to just the NT? Are you telling me that it is a GRAMMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY to add it into 1:1?
Listen closely: I'm not asking for the “probability” that it should vs. shouldn't be added. I'm asking if, BASED ONLY ON THOSE WORDS IN THAT ORDER, it is a GRAMMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
Try again. This time base your answer on the exact words I used in my question.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 10 2011,09:07) Mike's freak Greek exposed! Twenty times, the New World Translation translates “Theos” without the definite article as “God,” referencing the one true God. (Jn. 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 6:45; 8:54; 9:16, 33; 13:3; 16:30; 19:7; 20:17(2); 1 Jn. 3:2; 4:12; 2 Jn. 3, 9; Rev. 21:7). The only places it is not translated as “God” is in John 1:1 and John 1:18. Thus, overwhelming, in the Jehovah Witnesses' own translation, the word “Theos” without a definite article is believed to be a reference to the one true God.
http://truthsaves.org/john.shtml
Poor Mike!
Are you flippin' kidding me with this crap, Jack?Based on those same parameters, the word “elohim” in the OT should ALWAYS be translated with a capital “G”, for the word MOST USUALLY refers to God.
Just answer the question, wise guy. You studied a little Greek, right? You know the answer. Just say it.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 09 2011,20:24) Is it GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to translate the Greek words in John 1:1c into English as “and the Word was a god”? Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 10 2011,16:31)
NOBecause John was not a Polytheist and the Bible is not a Polytheistic book.
But Keith, let me remind you once again of your OWN words:Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 20 2011 @ 19:31)
Are there elohim mentioned in scripture who are neither “God Almighty” nor “false gods”?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 22 2011 @ 05:31) Mike Yes
Based on your big blue words above, YOU are a polytheist also, right?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 11 2011,16:24) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 09 2011,21:26) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 10 2011,03:42) Jack I wonder if Mike got his material from Watchtower again?
WJ
Equally KJ might have got his stuff from the Vatican.
After all the Catholic faith is the Trinity doctrine.The Cathoilic faith is …..Trinity
YepThe Catholic church also believes in Jesus death, burial and ressurection. So what is your point?
The God and the Catholics is the reason you even have a BIble.
WJ
WJyou really do not trust God,
catholic church so pagan.
the bible is Gods word not the catholic church book ,she just stole it and prevent others to know God.
Pierre
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 10 2011,21:17) Listen closely: I'm not asking for the “probability” that it should vs. shouldn't be added. I'm asking if, BASED ONLY ON THOSE WORDS IN THAT ORDER, it is a GRAMMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
Again, NO!Until you have the credentials and expertise to show me how it could be grammatically possible then you are just blowing smoke in the wind. I will go with every major translation and the 1000s of Biblical Hebrew and Greek experts in the languages and the grammar.
Why didn't at least one of the major Translations translate it that way if it was grammatically possible?
Do you know for instance…
What case, gender, and number is “Theos” in John 1:1? Why is it anarthrous?
How about parsing “en”, it’s found three times in the verse. It’s very important.
Whats its lexical form? Why is the imperfect tense important in the verse?
Did the JWs know this when they translated John 1:1? No they couldn't read a single verse.
Go to college Mike and study the Hebrew and Greek and then make some arguments against the experts, who knows, you will probably become a Trinitarian when you understand why they translated John 1:1 the way they did.
Until then I have found no reason to accept your 2 years of self study and personal development of your own doctrines.
You have never sit under a teacher have you Mike? You say you don't need one maybe, well the Bible tells us that it is through the 5 fold ministry gifts that we come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God unto maturity. Eph 4:11-16
That means no man is an island in himself yet you have built your own mountain of theology by yourself thinking that you are actually hearing and doing Gods will. I say that because of your rejection of the majority of the experts and your rejection of some scriptures as being inspired.
Face it Mike, you have a universe of facts written over centuries about the Trinity and you have proven nothing against it by all of your personal studies.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 10 2011,21:17) Do I need to go through the 8482 times the indefinite article “A” is added into scripture?
Not with the word “theos”, God you can't, can you?Here study this for example and get a deeper understanding of John 1:1 and what the experts say—–> Click here!
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
