Exposing freak greek

Participant

Dennison,
That sounds like a comparison to Jesus being incarnated into flesh where He is fully God and fully man. That is not what I asked though. I was wondering if perfect divine nature would mean that it was eternal…can a person/spirit being have a perfect divine nature and not be eternal?

Kathi

April 18, 2011 at 5:21 am#243625

SimplyForgiven

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ April 18 2011,10:15)

Kathi

Ohh Ok.
Eternity is like a Ocean, and whats temporal is like a bubble within that ocean.
So in that concept, a Divine nature is already within eternity.

April 18, 2011 at 6:29 pm#243654

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 15 2011,21:52)

Hi Keith,

I prefer “a god” in John 1:1, because I know that Jesus is a god who was with the God in the beginning, but who was not that God he was with. Kathi agrees with this, but for some reason feels the capitalized “God” in part c says this just the same as using “a god” would.

You, Keith, seem to prefer “the God”, which goes against even the Trinitarian scholars, due to part b. From NETNotes:

Mike

Where did you get that Idea? I have never said that John 1:1c should be arthrous. That was the whole point of John not adding the article because he could leave it out and still convey that both the Father and the Word are God yet not the same person. Your source says…

Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. ”The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (or the Word is not the Father) this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God; RATHER IT AFFIRMS THAT THE WORD AND GOD “ARE ONE” IN ESSENCE.

I completely agree with the above.

I think it is rather silly on your part to accuse me of not agreeing with the scholars because the truth is, it is you Mike that does not agree with your own source and you definitely do not agree with the scholars and especially their final conclusions.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 15 2011,21:52)

1. Keith, do you see that there are THREE possibilities, not TWO?

I see your above source has three possibilities, but I as well as many other scholars believe for other reasons there is only “one possibility”.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 15 2011,21:52)

2. Do you see that one of those possibilities is “a god”?

Yes, I see that he says that it could be, however the conclusion was if you make John 1:1c arthrous then it would be promoting Polytheism, therefore it is “NOT POSSIBLE” for John’s intent to show there are 2 gods in John 1:1. John uses the same language as in Gen 1:1 (in the beginning “God”, not gods created the heavens and the earth), and then in verse 3 of John 1 he accredits the creation to Jesus by stating nothing came into being without him.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 15 2011,21:52)

3. Do you further notice that of the three discussed, the Trinitarian NETNotes scholars only rule out one of them?

Yes, and your point is? What was the 'Net Books” conclusion?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 15 2011,21:52)

4. Did you notice it was YOUR possibility that is ruled out by these Trinitarian scholars?

Look again for it is your possibility that is ruled out and that is why the majority of the major translations render John 1:1c as anarthrous.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 15 2011,21:52)

It was NOT my possibility nor t8's possibility that was ruled out…………but YOURS!

No Mike, it is yours that is ruled out because none of the translations except a few obscure versions like the NWT added to the text an [a] therefore turning John into a Polytheist. You have rejected not only the cream of Greek scholarship but even the early writings of the Forefathers, well most of them anyway.

BTW Mike, you see how easy it was for me to answer all of your questions in one post?

When are you going to start answering all those questions I have left you?

April 19, 2011 at 3:12 am#243714

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 18 2011,12:29)

BTW Mike, you see how easy it was for me to answer all of your questions in one post?

When are you going to start answering all those questions I have left you?

Yeah? Easy? Look back through this thread and check for the first time I posted these questions to you. I could have answered them one at a time about 400 times by now!

Keith, I reserve my right to answer only ONE question per post with you, for you have the “gift of gab” my friend. I only request that you answer one of mine per post, and I will always bold that ONE that I want answered.

Now…………….my apologies for the misunderstanding. I could have sworn that both Jack and t8 were trying to convince you that 1:1c had an anarthrous god, and you refused to budge on the issue. And I based my (apparently wrong) understanding about what you believed on what I thought those discussions were about.

Moving on……………the NETNotes scholars do not, as far as I can see, rule out “a god” at all. They rule out the arthrous god, and list the anarthrous god as a THIRD possibility – never ruling out the “a god” in their explanation of what the anarthrous translation would mean in their opinion. Based on their own translation, it is clear which of the two remaining possibilities they PREFER, but they don't ever rule out “a god” AS a possibility, do they? YES or NO?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 18 2011,12:29)

however the conclusion was if you make John 1:1c arthrous then it would be promoting Polytheism,

I REALLY want to discuss this claim with you, but I don't read remember reading that “conclusion” in NETNotes. Is it there and I missed it? Or you adding some other scholar's thoughts into what NETNotes wrote?

Anyway, I want to discuss the fact that we both know “a god” wouldn't “promote polytheism” any more than “God of gods” promotes polytheism. And so it is a “trumped up” claim made by some Trinitarian scholars intended to “scare” people who are ignorant to the many gods mentioned in the scriptures away from the possibility of the “a god” translation.

And there is something else in the NETNotes explanation I also want to discuss very badly. But please just address my bolded part above, because I want it acknowledged that not only the three scholars I've already quoted, but also the (how many again?) scholars of NETNotes all agree that “a god” IS A GRAMMATICAL POSSIBILITY of 1:1c.

That has been my first and foremost point since Jack started this thread……………..and I want the truth of the matter acknowledged by you.

peace,
mike

April 19, 2011 at 2:24 pm#243755

Participant

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 18 2011,00:21)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 18 2011,10:15)

Kathi

Ohh Ok.
Eternity is like a Ocean, and whats temporal is like a bubble within that ocean.
So in that concept, a Divine nature is already within eternity.

Dennison,
Do you believe that God MUST have always existed in order to be God or do you believe that He might have come from someone/something?

April 19, 2011 at 2:30 pm#243756

Participant

Mike,
you said:

Quote

prefer “a god” in John 1:1, because I know that Jesus is a god who was with the God in the beginning, but who was not that God he was with. Kathi agrees with this, but for some reason feels the capitalized “God” in part c says this just the same as using “a god” would.

I do not feel like 'a god' and 'God' are saying the same thing necessarily. The presence of the 'a' opens the door for the Son to be one of many gods which I do not believe to be so.

April 19, 2011 at 4:41 pm#243757

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 18 2011,22:12)

Based on their own translation, it is clear which of the two remaining possibilities they PREFER, but they don't ever rule out “a god” AS a possibility, do they? YES or NO?

Mike

You will have to clarify your question with proof that the Net notes say it is a possibility, because as I read their notes I see that they are only “quoting” Colwells rule and this is what they conclude…

”The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too”. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. “Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) IS ONE IN ESSENCE WITH GOD THE FATHER“. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father”.

So the Net translated the verse as…

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. John 1:1 NET

The 25 Scholars agreed based on the above information and what the writer John wanted to convey that John 1:1c is anarthrous and therefore qualitative, and so that leaves them with the “correct” and only “possibility” to them to translate John 1:1c as qualitative and so they did.

Do the Net notes say or even infer that “a god” is a grammatical possibility?

The Net notes chose another option that Colwells rule didn't address and that is John 1:1c is neither definite nor indefinite but qualitative.

April 19, 2011 at 7:04 pm#243761

Participant

Mike

Earlier in this thread Jack posted some pertinent information on this subject of John 1:1…

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 10 2011,10:03)

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 grammatical 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.

Source

According to this Mike, if you look at the “grammatical” use of “theos” by John in every place outside of John 1:1 and John 1:18 where the singular form of the word is used it is always referring to the “One True God”. That means that 250 times out of 252 times John uses the word in the singular form he is referring to the “One True God”. That should tell you something.

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“.

So therefore the following is a true statement…

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.

WJ

April 19, 2011 at 7:51 pm#243764

Baker

Participant

Keith!

Deu 4:35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he [is] God; [there is] none else beside him.

Deu 6:4 ¶ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:

1Cr 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

1Cr 8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

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.

1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Jhn 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.

To many Scriptures for me to ignore and believe in the trinity, a man made doctrine. You know who that is, right?

Jesus is the Son of God, and The Word of God John 1:1, but that will never make Jesus equal with His Father. He also had a beginning. Question, is your Son the same then you are? Jesus never claimed to be equal with Jehovah God. Yes, He is God, but not as great as His Father. God, The Word of God, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords and LORD are titles….The footnotes in our Rye Study Bible says so…..
Hey, no offense taken….

This is an article from the internet”Then cometh the end, when he (Christ) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; and when all things shall be subdued unto him (Christ) , then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (God the Father) that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (I Cor. 15:24, 28).

Look at the word “subject.”

The word “subject” in the verse above is “hupotasso” in the Greek (#5293 in Strong's Concordance) , and means ” subordinate…to be under obedience .” The root word is “hupo” (#5259 Strong's) and means ” beneath…in an inferior position .” The Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) declared that Jesus is “co-equal” with God, but the apostle Paul did not know that. He says that Jesus will live eternally “subject” (subordinate, under obedience, and in an inferior position to) God the Father. The Scriptures clearly teach that Jesus has been appointed, anointed, empowered and ordained to build a kingdom and rule over it for 1000 years. But at the end of the millennium he will lay the kingdom at God the Father's feet .

Look at the word “subject – hupotasso” in the context of Scripture.

“And he (Jesus) went down with them (Mary and Joseph) , and came to Nazareth, and was subject (hupotasso) unto them” (Luke 2:51.)

“Let every soul be subject (hupotasso) unto the higher powers” (Rom. 13:1).

“As the church is subject (hupotasso) unto Christ” (Eph. 5:24).

“Principalities and powers being made subject (hupotasso) unto him (Christ)” (I Peter 3:22).

“A bishop must be blameless…having his children in subjection (hupotasso)” (I Tim. 3:2, 4).

My book is written from the KJV but this truth is expressed very well in the New Living Translation. “So you see, just as death came into the world through a man , now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man . After that the end will come, when he will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having destroyed every ruler and authority and power. For Christ must reign until he humbles all his enemies beneath his feet. And the last enemy to be destroyed is death. For the Scriptures say 'God has put all things under his authority' (of course, when it says 'all things are under his authority,' that does not include God himself, who gave Christ his authority .) Then, when all things are under his authority, the Son will put himself under God's authority, so that God , who gave his Son authority over all things, will be utterly supreme over everything everywhere.” (All a quote from the NLT) (I Cor.15:21, 24-28). Read it in your favorite translation, it will say the same!

Jesus has a “God,” a higher power to whom he always has been and always will be subject . There are many Scriptures throughout the N.T. to prove it, but the ones cited above should be sufficient.

“Then cometh the end, when he (Christ) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; and when all things shall be subdued unto him (Christ) , then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (God the Father) that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (I Cor. 15:24, 28).

Look at the word “subject.”

Look at the word “subject – hupotasso” in the context of Scripture.

“And he (Jesus) went down with them (Mary and Joseph) , and came to Nazareth, and was subject (hupotasso) unto them” (Luke 2:51.)

“Let every soul be subject (hupotasso) unto the higher powers” (Rom. 13:1).

“As the church is subject (hupotasso) unto Christ” (Eph. 5:24).

“Principalities and powers being made subject (hupotasso) unto him (Christ)” (I Peter 3:22).

“A bishop must be blameless…having his children in subjection (hupotasso)” (I Tim. 3:2, 4).

Jesus has a “God,” a higher power to whom he always has been and always will be subject . There are many Scriptures throughout the N.T. to prove it, but the ones cited above should be sufficient.

Joel Hemphill

Peace and Love Irene

April 19, 2011 at 9:21 pm#243767

Participant

Quote (Baker @ April 19 2011,14:51)

Yes, He is God, but not as great as His Father.

Irene

So you believe in more than one God also?

You say Jesus is “God”, but is Jesus “YOUR” God?

April 20, 2011 at 12:02 am#243773

Baker

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 20 2011,08:21)

Quote (Baker @ April 19 2011,14:51)

Yes, He is God, but not as great as His Father.

Irene

So you believe in more than one God also?

You say Jesus is “God”, but is Jesus “YOUR” God?

Keith!

Hbr 1:8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

God is a title, in Ancient times many were called God. That does not mean that Jesus or anyone else id equal to Jehovah, Yahweh in Hebrew. If you would have read all of my previous post, I said that God is a title.
The trinity was invented by men, not according to Scriptures I gave…Peace Irene

April 20, 2011 at 1:57 am#243796

Blocked

Quote (Lightenup @ April 19 2011,08:30)

Mike,
you said:

Quote

I do not feel like 'a god' and 'God' are saying the same thing necessarily. The presence of the 'a' opens the door for the Son to be one of many gods which I do not believe to be so.

Hi Kathi,

So then, in your understanding, Jesus is not one of the many gods mentioned in scripture, but THE God he was WITH in 1:1b?

April 20, 2011 at 2:33 am#243797

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2011,10:41)

“Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) IS ONE IN ESSENCE WITH GOD THE FATHER“. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father”.

Are you not able to see that these people are justifying their addition of the word “fully”, which isn't even in the Greek, because this is the message THEY want to put across to “the average English reader”? What ever happened to translating the words and letting the chips fall where they may? It's like Greek expert Jason BeDuhn said: “To me, it expresses a lack of courage, a fear that the Bible does not back up their ‘truth’ enough.”

I'd say Jason's statement really hits home here, huh? The NET position of “This is what WE THINK the overall Bible teaches, therefore we are justified in changing the words to slant the Bible towards our thinking” has been going on for centuries. Jehovah, I publically praise you and thank you for commissioning the NWT!

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2011,10:41)

Do the Net notes say or even infer that “a god” is a grammatical possibility?

They sure do:
Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite.

The NET scholars say that many invoke Colwell's rule to “unsupport” the “a god” translation. They further say that this rule isn't even applicable for this purpose, although many, like Jack, try to use it to rule out “a god”.

Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb.

How many POSSIBILITIES do they mention, Keith? THREE, right? Let me walk you through their statement using a paraphrase:

The THREE possibilities of John 1:1c are:

1. a god
2. the god
3. god

Number 2 is ruled out by 1:1b, for it says the god in 1:1c was WITH the god in 1:1b, and any idiot could figure out from the word “with” that John was speaking of TWO here, not ONE. So while we haven't said one word about ruling out “a god” as a POSSIBILITY, we will choose to go with the anarthrous rendering and ADD TO THE SCRIPTURE the word “fully”, for we think it might persuade the average English reader to see things OUR way. We do this knowing full well about the warnings that Moses and God gave about adding to or taking away from scripture; but we must do it, because without slanting the translation, we fear that people might not come to our own conclusion that Jesus is the God he is the Son of.

So, I ask you again:

Keith, based on their own translation, it is clear which of the two remaining possibilities the NET scholars PREFER, but they don't ever rule out “a god” as ONE OF THE THREE POSSIBILITIES THEY LISTED, do they? YES or NO?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2011,10:41)

The Net notes chose another option that Colwells rule didn't address and that is John 1:1c is neither definite nor indefinite but qualitative.

Yes…………the same understanding t8 is arguing for in his debate with you, right?

mike

April 20, 2011 at 2:44 am#243798

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2011,13:04)

Hi Keith,

What it tells me is that someone is forgetting about 20:28, where he is also NOT referring to the “One True God”, because he is not referring to the Father.

Also, it tells me that out of the 252 times that John used the singular form of theos, he was using it to refer to the Father 249 of those times.

Big deal! So he called the Father “theos” many more times than he called Jesus “theos”. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?

The statistics for the other NT writers are probably very similar Keith. It only means that most of the time they wrote “god”, they were writing it in reference to “God Almighty”.

But remember your statement about 1:18. I'll use it later.

mike

April 20, 2011 at 2:50 am#243800

Blocked

(Just a reminder to myself to discuss polytheism, 1:18, and the other point the NET scholars mentioned if and when Keith answers my question.)

April 21, 2011 at 8:07 pm#243939

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 19 2011,20:57)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 19 2011,08:30)

Mike,
you said:

Quote

I do not feel like 'a god' and 'God' are saying the same thing necessarily. The presence of the 'a' opens the door for the Son to be one of many gods which I do not believe to be so.

Hi Kathi,

So then, in your understanding, Jesus is not one of the many gods mentioned in scripture, but THE God he was WITH in 1:1b?

Mike,
You know better than that. He was the only Begotten God with the one who beget Him.

Kathi

April 21, 2011 at 11:00 pm#243966