- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 17 2011,10:28) Quote (mikeangel @ Mar. 17 2011,06:56) In searching for this answer, I find over and over and over, by experts, this type of statement: In English we also have an indefinite article, “a” (or “an” before words beginning with vowels.) In Greek there is no indefinite article. …
So, if their is no “a”, it is not grammatically possible, because in greek it does not exist. Peace-Mark
MarkThat is a good point.
WJ
Hi Mark, I know you are new to this debate, and so I can understand your answer because you are answering out of ignorance of the facts.Keith, there is no excuse for you on this post.
Mark, the FACT is that English translators add the indefinite article into the Bible 8432 times. (AKJV) Over 1000 of those times are in the Greek NT.
What you say is tantamount to saying not one single “a” or “an” should be in the Bible anywhere, because the original languages did not use indefinite articles. Are you willing to remove the 8432 “a's” and “an's” out of your Bible?
What I am asking is: If we can add it 8432 other times so we understand the words in English, then why not in 1:1c?
You have answered with a simple “NO”.
Keith has many times answered with a simple “NO”.
Jack has emphatically and many times answered with “NO”.I will now ask all of you for the PROOF that supports your answer.
My answer is “YES”, for I know this to be true in 1:1c, as well as any other mention of God where there is no definite article. My answer of “YES” does not say we should add the “a” in those other cases. Because based on the context, we know those other scriptures refer to “THE God”, not “A God” – even though the definite article is absent. But my answer of “YES”, while not asserting we SHOULD add the “a” in those cases, DOES assert that it is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to do so.
And that is the only point I'm making about John 1:1c. But so far, I've got a bunch of “NO's” that are supported by Trinitarian scholars who say it SHOULDN'T BE added; but I've seen no support from ANY scholar that says it is GRAMMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to add it. Here are the statements from MY Trinitarian Greek Scholars:
Murray J. Harris has written: “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,….” -Jesus As God, 1992, p. 60.
C. H. Dodd says: “If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god“. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”
I have quoted from the biographies of both of these very learned and highly acclaimed experts in the Greek language last night. Their reputations as Biblical scholars are impeccable. They are both Trinitarians. And both of them CLEARLY tell us that based on the grammar and the words alone, the translation from Greek to English of “a god” in 1:1c “cannot be faulted”, for it “could be” translated that way.
It's time for you three to do one of these following things:
1. Show where YOUR OWN credentials are greater than these two Trinitarian Bible Scholars that I've quoted.
2. Show information from another acclaimed Bible Scholar who CLEARLY tells us that not only is “a god” UNPREFERRABLE, but also GRAMMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
3. Admit that the scholarly evidence, along with our own limited knowledge of the Greek language proves that “a god” IS GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE, because we all know “a god” is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE many times in scripture even when there is NO CHANCE that it is CONTEXTUALLY POSSIBLE.
4. Insist upon repeating your answer of “NO”, in the face of CLEAR scholarly evidence that supports MY answer of “YES”, and NONE that supports your answers of “NO”.Option #4 is tantamount to telling a LIE. So, will you all become LIARS in an effort to pretend something that clearly is not true, is true? Will your consciences approve of this? How about your Godhead?
I will ask the question once more, and anyone answering with a “NO” needs to show some SCHOLARLY evidence to support that answer. And once again, I'm NOT talking about OPINIONS that say “a god” in 1:1c is UNPREFFERABLE or MONSTROUS or UNTHINKABLE or CONTEXTUALLY FAULTY. I'm talking about evidence that says “a god” in 1:1c is a complete GRAMMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY when translating the Greek of that verse into English.
Is it GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to translate John 1:1c as “the Word was a god”?
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 17 2011,13:12) Mike asked: Quote 1. Based on the words of the scholars quoted above, is it GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to add the indefinite article into John 1:1c? YES or NO?
NO!
Show your scholarly evidence to support your answer of “NO”………….and the link to where I can also read it in full.Remember, I'm asking if it is GRAMMATICALLY possible, not CONTEXTUALLY preferrable.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 17 2011,10:23) It seems that if it was possible to do that without violating the overall theme of the Bible which is a book about Monotheism, then they would have translated it as “a god” but they didn't did they?
The first people who had the chance to add the “a” did so. And the English scholars who have translated that Coptic have also rendered the Coptic as saying “a god”.I'm not talking about anyone's OPINION about violating the overall theme of the Bible, Keith. I'm talking about the GRAMMATICAL possibility ONLY.
We can discuss the theme and the CONTEXTUAL possibilities after you've admitted to me what you KNOW to be true.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 17 2011,13:55)
The translation of the second 'theos' as 'a god' is NOT a possibility.
Please show scholarly evidence that supports your claim that “a god” is not a GRAMMATICAL possibility.Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 17 2011,13:55)
The ONLY other possibility is that the second 'theos' is qualitative which means that the Logos is the same UNCREATED essence as His own Father.
Well, now you're at least claiming what the majority of Trinitarians claim. For even the trinni's know that 1:1b precludes any possibility of “THE God”, for the god in 1:1c is said to be WITH “THE God”.And you are also now acknowledging what t8 has been claiming all along. Why couldn't you acknowledge that to him? Why have you never told t8 that you agree with him?
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 17 2011,13:55)
This is why t8 can't win the debates with WJ for when t8 says that Jesus is God qualitatively he is saying that Jesus is the same UNCREATED essence as His Father.
I don't see any words that mention “same UNCREATED essence”, do you? I DO, however, see words that say Jesus was BEGOTTEN BY his UNBEGOTTEN Father and God. I DO see words calling Jesus the FIRSTBORN of creation. I DO see words telling us how he is the SON of his God, thereby implying that he was brought forth from his Father just as every other son we've ever heard of was brought forth from his father.I just can't seem to find “same UNCREATED essence” in the scriptures though.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 17 2011,14:55)
Mike has also “admitted” that it is “possible” that it could be translated “the Word was God”.
Yes Keith,Because I AM HONEST! It is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to translate the Greek three ways:
1. “the word was god”
2. “the word was a god”
3. “the word was the god”Don't you agree that ALL THREE of these are GRAMMATICALLY possible?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 17 2011,14:55)
So his argument is already lost because his premise is to disprove that Jesus is God using scriptures.
When YOU are ready to give THE ONLY HONEST ANSWER to my question about 1:1c, then I will CONTINUE to disprove that Jesus is God Almighty – just as I have been successfully doing for two years here.mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 17 2011,15:42) So Mike tried to bully us into conceding the grammatical possibility that it may be translated 'a god' but instead he concedes to us. 
What exactly did I “concede”? I wasn't the one ruining my personal reputation on this site by speaking falsehoods and claiming it COULDN'T be translated as “the word was god” in the first place, was I?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 17 2011,19:53) I will ask the question once more, and anyone answering with a “NO” needs to show some SCHOLARLY evidence to support that answer. And once again, I'm NOT talking about OPINIONS that say “a god” in 1:1c is UNPREFFERABLE or MONSTROUS or UNTHINKABLE or CONTEXTUALLY FAULTY. I'm talking about evidence that says “a god” in 1:1c is a complete GRAMMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY when translating the Greek of that verse into English. Is it GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to translate John 1:1c as “the Word was a god”?
MikeYou are beating a dead horse again and keep repeating the same question that has been “honestly” answered though you insist that we are being dishonest. Shouldn’t you get a tile for that?
Grammar also includes context does it not?
The definition of Grammar” is…”THE WHOLE SYSTEM AND STRUCTURE” of a language or of languages in general.
It also means…“the study of the classes of words, their inflections, and their functions and relations in the sentence..”
You have quoted a few sources opinions that it possibly could be translated that way and one of the sources admits that in context it could not be translated anarthrous because of the entire context of the scriptures which teaches Monotheism. Why are they still “Trinitarians” Mike? Why did none of them translate it anarthrous (should be arthrous – see edit). It seems that you should be able to find a few “anti-trins” who are Biblical Hebrew and Greek scholars can't you?
Mark makes a good point that the Greek does not have an “indefinite article” which means unless it is absolutely necessary an [a] should not be added to the text since the language doesn’t include them. Based on grammar which includes the context, it should not be translated as “the Word was [a] god”. Even t8 and most of your anti-Jesus is God crowd disagrees with you.
WJ
Edited for misquote of the word “anarthrous” it should be “arthrous”.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 17 2011,20:23) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 17 2011,15:42) So Mike tried to bully us into conceding the grammatical possibility that it may be translated 'a god' but instead he concedes to us.
What exactly did I “concede”? I wasn't the one ruining my personal reputation on this site by speaking falsehoods and claiming it COULDN'T be translated as “the word was god” in the first place, was I?
MikeAre you saying we are liars? Seriously Mike your inferrence seems to imply that. If this is true, where is your integrity to call another person a liar just because they don't agree with you and a couple of scattered opinions.
The point is, if to you John 1:1 is ambiguous and “CAN BE” translated arthrous then you cannot possibly prove that John 1:1 is not saying Jesus is God Almighty.
You have admitted he could be. How are you going to unambiguously prove your claim with what you think is an ambiguous scripture?
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 17 2011,19:55) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 17 2011,13:12) Mike asked: Quote 1. Based on the words of the scholars quoted above, is it GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to add the indefinite article into John 1:1c? YES or NO?
NO!
Show your scholarly evidence to support your answer of “NO”………….and the link to where I can also read it in full.Remember, I'm asking if it is GRAMMATICALLY possible, not CONTEXTUALLY preferrable.
mike
Grammatics includes context!WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 17 2011,14:55)
So his argument is already lost because his premise is to disprove that Jesus is God using scriptures.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 17 2011,20:20) When YOU are ready to give THE ONLY HONEST ANSWER to my question about 1:1c, then I will CONTINUE to disprove that Jesus is God Almighty – just as I have been successfully doing for two years here.
MikeSo I am dishonest huh? So that appology you made earlier was not an appology?
Do you think I am dishonest Mike?
Please let me hear it in clear words. You are inferring I am.
Where is your proof my answer is dishonest? What because I don't agree with you and your sources who ultimately agree with me?
You are something else Mike.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 18 2011,12:07)
Grammar also includes context does it not?
Not according to Dictionary.com: gram·mar /ˈgræmər/ Show Spelled
[gram-er] Show IPA–noun
1. the study of the way the sentences of a language are constructed; morphology and syntax.
2. these features or constructions themselves: English grammar.
3. an account of these features; a set of rules accounting for these constructions: a grammar of English.
4. Generative Grammar . a device, as a body of rules, whose output is all of the sentences that are permissible in a given language, while excluding all those that are not permissible.
5. prescriptive grammar.
6. knowledge or usage of the preferred or prescribed forms in speaking or writing: She said his grammar was terrible.
7. the elements of any science, art, or subject.
8. a book treating such elements.I even looked up “morphology” and “syntax” and still found nothing about “CONTEXT”. But even so, I've clearly and many times EXCLUDED context in the explanations of my question.
Keith, apparently you have a problem with the words of Murray J. Harris, who wrote: “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god”.
This is almost precisely the way I've been asking the question. Let me try it using the words of the other Trinitarian Greek Scholar I quoted, who wrote: “….a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, 'The Word was a god'. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” – C.H. Dodd
Keith, as a WORD FOR WORD TRANSLATION, is “the Word was a god” a POSSIBILE TRANSLATION of John 1:1c? YES or NO?
Can it be faulted? YES or NO?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 18 2011,12:07)
You have quoted a few sources opinions that it possibly could be translated that way and one of the sources admits that in context it could not be translated anarthrous because of the entire context of the scriptures which teaches Monotheism.
No Keith, what I've done is quote two Trinitarian Greek experts who, while not PREFERRING the “a god” translation of 1:1c, still are HONEST ENOUGH to admit it COULD be translated that way.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 18 2011,12:07)
Mark makes a good point that the Greek does not have an “indefinite article” which means unless it is absolutely necessary, [a] should not be added to the text since the language doesn’t include them.
And WHO exactly determines whether it is “absolutely necessary” or not? YOU? Besides, I have repeatedly “screamed” that I'm not asking you if it SHOULD BE translated as “a god”, or if it's NECESSARY that it is translated as “a god”. I'm asking if it is a POSSIBLE WORD FOR WORD translation of the Greek into English.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 18 2011,12:07)
Even t8 and most of your anti-Jesus is God crowd disagrees with you.
And most Trinitarians disagree with your “THE God” take on it.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 18 2011,12:07)
The point is, if to you John 1:1 is ambiguous and “CAN BE” translated arthrous then you cannot possibly prove that John 1:1 is not saying Jesus is God Almighty.
All I'm doing is eliminating John 1:1 as YOUR “proof” that Jesus IS God Almighty. I can prove he's not a million different ways. I'm only eliminating this one scripture from YOUR “proof texts” by showing it to be ambiguous, and therefore not proof of what you claim.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 18 2011,12:07)
Where is your proof my answer is dishonest? What because I don't agree with you and your sources who ultimately agree with me?
The proof is in the pudding, Keith. Imagine 1:1c is the sum of six. Every honest person in the world will admit the the sum of 6 can be arrived at three different ways by using two whole numbers:1+5=6
2+4=6
3+3=6What you are doing is INSISTING that only TWO of those equations add up to six, just because you don't like one of them. That, my friend, is a bald faced LIE.
What will it take, Keith? I've showed you quotes from two different TRINITARIAN Greek experts, who most likely think “a god” is the farthest thing from the truth of what this scripture teaches. But both of them are nonetheless still HONEST ENOUGH to admit that “a god” is a GRAMMATICAL POSSIBILITY.
Do YOU know more than them? You can “NOT WANT IT” to be possible until the cows come home. But for you to insist that it is not even GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE as a WORD FOR WORD translation of the Greek words into English is a lie, my friend.
I'm not really the one CALLING you a liar. I'm only reporting the fact that these SCHOLARS are calling you a liar.
Don't let these scholars be right in calling you a liar, Keith. If your doctrine is scriptural, then there is never any need to lie about scriptures to make them fit into it.
Keith, pay heed to t8's signature:
An honest but mistaken man, once shown the truth, either ceases to be mistaken, or ceases to be honest.
You have been mistaken on this subject. You have been shown the truth from experts in the field. The only question that remains is which you will cease to be – honest, or mistaken?
peace and love,
mikeAn honest man, who is shown something honest and told is dishonest, who has the discernment to keep it honest because he is honest, is not only honest, but wise too.
Hi Mark,
Funny how you will make a joke as a distraction from giving a truthful answer. Let's try again:
Murray J. Harris has written: “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,….” -Jesus As God, 1992, p. 60.
C. H. Dodd says: “If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”
Mark, ACCORDING TO THESE VERY LEARNED TRINITARIAN EXPERTS IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE, is “the word was a god” a grammatically possible translation of John 1:1c? YES or NO?
Keith, Jack and D, the same question goes out to you.
mike
It is not a distraction. I have read from other experts who say that from the context of the chapter, that is what John ment, because he knew that Jesus was one with the Father also, and the word made flesh. So did all the other bible translators I posted, and other experts. You asked a question. I gave an answer, and you don't believe. One day, when “The King” sets on his throne, and you are assembled in front of him, I wonder of you are going to tell those around you who are bent over in worship “Don't worship him,make sure this is obience?- he is not God”, while they say “my Lord and my God”, Not “my a Lord and my a God.” Honestly -Mark
Hi Mark,
But you have read from NO scholar that teaches you the “a god” translation is impossible. The Greek words and the Greek grammar allow for it, and EVERY scholar knows this. I know it. Every scholar who ever learned Koine Greek knows it. In fact, it seems the 4 resident “Jesus is God” people on HN are the only ones in the world who DON'T know it.
Whick makes me wonder………are you four expert enough in the Greek language to go against the very accomplished and published TRINITARIAN Greek scholars whom I've quoted? Of course not.
Do you four have a Greek scholar of your own that you can quote as saying the “a god” translation is grammatically faulty or impossible? Of course not, for there are none.
Or is it that you four would rather cling to your doctrine so tightly that it is okay in your eyes to be dishonest in doing so?
I'm trying to have an honest discussion about the “a god” translation of 1:1c. And maybe during the course of that honest discussion, you four would be able to shed some light and bring up details I've never considered before, thereby causing me to re-evalutate my beliefs and come to accept Jesus as God Almighty. But you four won't even allow that chance. Because there is no reason for me to consider what you have to say about anything if you can't honestly admit what is a clear and undeniable FACT.
I showed you the words of two Greek scholars who just happen to be TRINITARIANS. According to their words, which you can plainly read, they clearly and without mincing words, say the “a god” translation IS “possible” and “cannot be faulted”. And my question to you asked if ACCORDING TO THEIR WORDS the “a god” translation is possible.
There are only three choices in this matter, Mark. Answer with the TRUTH of “YES”, (which none of you has done), refuse to answer at all, (which you've done), or answer with a blatant LIE of “NO”, (which Keith has done).
You see, I haven't asked you how most translators render 1:1c. I haven't asked you about “my god” or “obeisance”. I've asked a very simple question about Greek grammar. Then I proceeded to give you the correct answer in the words of TRINITARIAN scholars. Yet this seems to have been too much of a task for you to read those words, and answer accordingly.
I didn't start this thread. Jack is the one who started this thread to RIDICULE me and the “a god” translation. And this thread has clearly backfired on him (as do most of his adamant claims), because as it turns out, the “a god” translation of 1:1c is acknowledged as possible by even harecore Trinitarian scholars
Mark, do you know how hard it is to discuss scriptural things with someone who is not even willing to be honest when shown the truth of the matter? This point isn't up for interpretation or conjecture. This point amounts to a clear FACT of Greek grammar. And whether or not you PREFER the “a god” translation, to be HONEST, you must acknowledge that it is a POSSIBILITY.
Will you be honest, Mark? If not, then why would I waste my time discussing anything with you?
mike
But those trinitarian scholars, are indicating “a god” as a possibility as in the context of a triune God imo. one but three. The creator, the spirit(who inspires the word), and the word made flesh. You are indicating it was more. You are implying their stand opens the possibility that he was one of many. That is what I am saying is not possible, in addition to the “a” not being in the greek. To add “a” is the subject of personal interpretation,and the NWT and you seem to be running that way in saying Jesus was not one with God, which is stated later in John. He also said that when you see him, you have also seen the Father. It seems that you and they are the ones not being honest. John 1:14 “The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us”, and the opening three words “In the beginning” The same words that open the bible. Ment to be there to say that Christ was one with God ( he was the word to become flesh), so the word was with God from the beginning, they were all one in the same, the only things that originated with God at the Creation of all things. Therefore, I do not think it was the correct translation to put the “a” before God, unless it was in the context of the word and Jesus being one with God from eternity. It is far more likely that it would not make sense in context to put it there. Is it a possibility? Like you said , a was added thousands of times to make things make sense. I give you my opinion, like others do. In the context you imply, it is not possible. In my opinion. Peace-Mark .
I answered you question honestly. Now please answer mine. What does it mean for you to believe it means “a God”? How many “Gods” would there be?(capital G)Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 20 2011,11:41) Hi Mark, But you have read from NO scholar that teaches you the “a god” translation is impossible. The Greek words and the Greek grammar allow for it, and EVERY scholar knows this. I know it. Every scholar who ever learned Koine Greek knows it.
MikeProve it! You see these are the kind of broad statements that you make all the time to add vaildity to your claims which obviously shows your desperation.
Prove the claim that every Greek Scholar teaches the “a” in grammar which includes context is possible in John 1:1c.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 18 2011,19:03) You have been mistaken on this subject. You have been shown the truth from experts in the field. The only question that remains is which you will cease to be – honest, or mistaken?
MikeAnd you are a liar to be calling me dishonest when you have not proven anything except the opinions of a couple of scholars. The fact that all the evidence is John 1:1c should not have the article is found in the fact that nearly all the Translators with any credentials at all have signed off their reputations on John 1:1c as being anarthrous.
Context is included in Grammar and you cannot prove it isn't, in fact it is impossible to know how any language is translated without context and you know this yet you keep lying against us.
WJ
Mike said:
Quote The Greek words and the Greek grammar allow for it, and EVERY scholar knows this.
TO ALL,It is not true that “EVERY” scholar knows that it is grammatically possible to translate John 1:1c 'a god.'
First, it is not grammatically possible because the word 'theos' is a proper name
Quote “In the third place, in the NT theos (like kurios) is virtually a proper name and consequently shares the imprecision with regard to the use of the article that seems to mark all proper names. “It is therefore NOT POSSIBLE to maintain that whenever theos is anarthrous it differs from ho theos in meaning or emphasis.” (Pp. 37-38; capital and underline emphasis ours)
To support Harris’ statement we will present several examples from the NT, specifically from the writings of John, where theos is used without the article to denote the one true God:
“There came a man who was sent from God (theou); his name was John.” John 1:6
“Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God (theou)— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God (theou).” John 1:12-13
“No one has ever seen God (theon), but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.” John 1:18
“But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God (theo).” John 3:21
“Jesus replied, ‘If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God (theos), is the one who glorifies me.’” John 8:54
“Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God (theou).” John 16:30
“The Jews insisted, ‘We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God (huion theou).’” John 19:7
“How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God (theou)! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Dear friends, now we are children of God (theou), and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” 1 John 3:1-2
“Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father (theou patros) and from Jesus Christ, the Father's Son, will be with us in truth and love… Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God (theon); whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.” 2 John 1:3, 9
Second, there are many instances in the scripture where 'theos' appears both with and without the article and it is DEFINITE both times
Quote And here are some verses where theos appears both with and without the article in the same context, yet without any change in meaning: “He came to Jesus at night and said, ‘Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God (theou). For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God (ho theos) were not with him.’ John 3:2
“Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God (theou) and was returning to God (ton theon);” John 13:3
“No one has ever seen God (theon); but if we love one another, God (ho theos) lives in us and his love is made complete in us.” 1 John 4:12
“For although they knew God (ton theon), they did not honor him as God (theos) or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” Romans 1:21
“Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father (theo patri) and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace. We give thanks to God (to theo) always for all of you, constantly mentioning you in our prayers, remembering before our God and Father (to theou kai patros) your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. For we know, brothers loved by God (tou theou), that he has chosen you, … For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith in God (ton theon) has gone forth everywhere, so that we need not say anything. For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God (ton theon) from idols to serve the living and true God (douleuein theo zonti kai alethino), and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.” 1 Thessalonians 1:1-4, 8-10
“As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s (theou) varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God (theou); whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God (ho theos) supplies—in order that in everything God (ho theos) may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.” 1 Peter 4:10-11
Third, it depends upon how the word 'theos' is used IN CONTEXT.
Quote “In identifying Jesus as God, Thomas, of course, was not identifying him as the Father. Earlier in the same passage, Jesus had referred to the Father as his God. It is interesting to compare Jesus’ wording with the wording of Thomas. Jesus told Mary Magdalene, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and to your God’ (theon mou kai theon humon, John 20:17). As in John 1:1 and John 1:18, the Father is called ‘God’ in close proximity to a statement affirming that Jesus is also ‘God.’ Here again, as in John 1:18, we do not see the apostle John distinguishing between the Father as ‘the God’ (ho theos) and Jesus the Son as only ‘God’ (theos without the article). In fact, whereas Jesus calls the Father ‘my God’ without the article (theon mou, 20:17), Thomas calls Jesus ‘my God’ with the article (ho theos mou, 20:28)! One could not ask for any clearer evidence that the use or nonuse of the article is irrelevant to the meaning of the word theos. What matters is how the word is used IN CONTEXT…” (Robert M. Bowman Jr. & J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ [Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI 2007], Chapter 12. Immanuel: God with Us, p. 143; bold emphasis ours) TO ALL,
The word 'theos' twice used in John 1:1 is a proper name and is therefore definite both times with and without the article.
“Theoretically a proper name should not need an article because it is by its very nature definite“ (Syntax of New Testament Greek, James A. Brooks, page 75).
The absence of the article before 'theos' in 1:1c indicates only that it is the predicate. That's it! It's that simple!
Jack
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
