- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Baker @ April 19 2011,19:02) 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.
IreneSo you believe in more than one God also?
You say Jesus is “God”, but is Jesus “YOUR” God?
WJ
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
IreneWhy beat around the bush? If you say Jesus is “a god” then why don't you answer the question…
You say Jesus is “God”, but is Jesus “YOUR” God?
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ April 21 2011,14:07) Mike,
You know better than that. He was the only Begotten God with the one who beget Him.
Hi Kathi,So then he WAS “a god” who was with “THE God”? If Jesus is not THE God, then he is ANOTHER god. And if he is ANOTHER god, then he is “a god” who was with THE God in the beginning.
mike
Mike,
If you substitute the word 'God' with 'divine' in 1c then you would clearly see that there is no need for the 'a.'In the beginning was the word and the word was with the God and the word was divine…not 'a divine.' So if John 1c is talking about what the word is, regarding His nature, then 'a' would be out of place…can't you see that?
If you can read the verse with that understanding you can accept it without the 'a.' Theos can be understood as 'divine' and still translated as God.
You can say 'a God' when referring to the Son, the only begotten God, but when it comes to John 1:1c the 'a' is not appropriate, nor necessary.
Kathi
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2011,17:00) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 19 2011,21:33) 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?
Of course they say it is a possibility
So now we have C.H. Dodd, Dr. Jason BeDuhn, Murray Harris, and the 25 NETBible scholars that ALL say “a god” is a grammatically possible translation of 1:1c. Is that right?And you have NO rule of Greek to English grammar and NO scholar that says it is an impossible translation based only on grammar. Is that also right?
So I'll ask my very first question to you again:
Keith, based on grammar alone, is “a god” a possible translation of John 1:1c?
If you still answer “NO”, then I think it's time you show some proof. And a bunch of Trinitarian's OPINIONS and PREFERENCES do not constitute proof. If I can show you MANY scholars that say it's possible, and you can show NONE that say it's not, then it's time you admit the truth you've been denying, don't you think?
I've admitted right from the beginning that there are THREE grammatical possibilities……….and I listed them. Am I smarter than you are, Keith? How is it that I knew way back then what I've just recently noticed the NETNotes scholars saying? How is it all of us seem to know this fact, but you don't?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2011,17:00)
Yes, and the same reason he and you loose the debate because no one can show us how the Word which is God is less God qualitatively than the Father.
I've never debated this with you, but I could show you in one simple scripture. But you and I have got two discussions going on already, and besides, I wouldn't want to steal t8's thunder.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2011,17:00)
Can you or the Watchtower NWT translators prove that “GRAMMATICALLY” John 1:1c should be “arthrous”? Yes Or No?
Keith, I don't understand the question or the word “arthrous”.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2011,17:00)
If the scholars say there are “3” possible Grammatical ways of translating John 1:1c, then why do you fault them and accuse them of bias for choosing an option that contradicts the NWTs own bias?
If the scholars say there are “3” possible Grammatical ways of translating John 1:1c, then why won't you admit it? And I wasn't faulting the NET scholars for choosing the anarthrous translation. I was faulting them for adding in the word “fully” to slant the “average English reader's” understanding of the scripture.
Also, I've been wanting to discuss the “biases” and the “preferences” since Jack started this thread. But how can I make a case for MY preference if you're not willing to admit it's even a grammatical possibility?
You may be right that “a god” was never John's intention. But to be honest, you would have to admit that it's at least a possible translation from Greek to English. And so far, you have not taken that step.
mike
Quote (Lightenup @ April 21 2011,21:42) Mike,
If you substitute the word 'God' with 'divine' in 1c then you would clearly see that there is no need for the 'a.'
But we're not talking about Moffett's translation, which DOES say “divine”. We're talking about all these translations that DON'T add the definite article in 1:1b and that DO cap the “G” in 1:1c, making the God in b seem the same as the god in c when we both KNOW that's not the case.But, since you brought up “divine”, why don't you answer my point about “mighty”? I've asked twice on this thread, but I don't believe anyone answered.
Could 1:1c mean “the Word was mighty”? If not, why?
mike
Mike,
I am just trying to give you understanding of John 1:1c. The other translations do give the word 'with' and that is enough to show that there are two different ones spoken of here. The word 'mighty' is not appropriate either because 'mighty' is not a type of nature, divine is.Kathi
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 21 2011,22:47)
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2011,17:00)
Can you or the Watchtower NWT translators prove that “GRAMMATICALLY” John 1:1c should be “arthrous”? Yes Or No?
Keith, I don't understand the question or the word “arthrous”.
OK. Let me reword it even though I think you knew what I meant…Can you or the Watchtower NWT translators prove that there is a rule “GRAMMATICALLY” that demands John 1:1c should be with the indefinite article?
Since you didn't answer the question then after you answer it I will respond to the rest of your post and your question.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 23 2011,10:53) Can you or the Watchtower NWT translators prove that there is a rule “GRAMMATICALLY” that demands John 1:1c should be with the indefinite article?
I can't speak for the NWT translators, but I can tell you that it is a complete impossibility from the words that are there to INSIST it must be “a god”.I've said from the start that it could be:
1. the god
2. a god
3. godThese are the facts that I've clearly admitted from the beginning Keith. I'm just waiting for you to acknowledge fact #2.
THEN we can discuss our views and supporting scriptures as to which one of the THREE possibilities it SHOULD be.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2011,12:26) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 23 2011,10:53) Can you or the Watchtower NWT translators prove that there is a rule “GRAMMATICALLY” that demands John 1:1c should be with the indefinite article?
I can't speak for the NWT translators, but I can tell you that it is a complete impossibility from the words that are there to INSIST it must be “a god”.I've said from the start that it could be:
1. the god
2. a god
3. godThese are the facts that I've clearly admitted from the beginning Keith. I'm just waiting for you to acknowledge fact #2.
THEN we can discuss our views and supporting scriptures as to which one of the THREE possibilities it SHOULD be.
mike
MikeWell then this is a waste of our time if all we are going to do is throw at each other the opinions of the scholars.
If there are more than one possibility for John 1:1c then how can you or I prove what is right?
If there are no “rules of Grammar” that dictate John 1:1c has to be anarthrous or with the indefinite article then we just have to decide what we believe is the proper and “grammatically correct” translation, right?
That is why I think that “Debuhn's” accusations against all the other scholars are senseless since he agrees that there are other possiblities yet he faults them for choosing one of those possibilities based on their bias, when it seems that his theology and bias is clearly evident.
This was settled centuries ago by the Forefathers and the modern tranlators of the modern translations and the majority of the evidence is in favour of the Trinitarian view which far outways the anti-Jesus is God crowd,
WJ
Keith,
I believe I have much more evidence to support “a god” than you do to support a capitalized “God”, which only leads people to think the Word was the exact same capitalized “God” mentioned in 1:1b – even when the scholars agree that is NOT the case.
So please address my questions so we can move on. I've known where I was going with this from the start. Just because you can't see the end result right now is no excuse to bail on the discussion.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2011,13:39) Keith, I believe I have much more evidence to support “a god” than you do to support a capitalized “God”, which only leads people to think the Word was the exact same capitalized “God” mentioned in 1:1b – even when the scholars agree that is NOT the case.
So please address my questions so we can move on. I've known where I was going with this from the start. Just because you can't see the end result right now is no excuse to bail on the discussion.
mike
MikeI never said I would bail. But I am merely making a point. In fact you do not have more evidence to support the Arian view, but we shall see.
As far as your quesiton I will answer in my next post, “AGAIN”. OK
WJ
As long as “AGAIN” means “WITH THE HONEST AND CORRECT ANSWER THIS TIME”.
I will remind you of your own words:
If the scholars say there are “3” possible Grammatical ways of translating John 1:1c………….
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2011,13:57) As long as “AGAIN” means “WITH THE HONEST AND CORRECT ANSWER THIS TIME”. I will remind you of your own words:
If the scholars say there are “3” possible Grammatical ways of translating John 1:1c………….
mike
MikeExactly, “IF THE SCHOLARS SAY?
wj
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2011,13:57) As long as “AGAIN” means “WITH THE HONEST AND CORRECT ANSWER THIS TIME”. I will remind you of your own words:
If the scholars say there are “3” possible Grammatical ways of translating John 1:1c………….
mike
I answered honestly. You agreed that I did, twice!You know what you are still making the accusation that I was dishonest. I will not debate you or even talk to you if you keep that up Mike. Last warning!
WJ
I await your answer. If “the scholars say so”, then WHO ARE YOU to say differently? Do you have any proof that these scholars are wrong? Remember that most of these scholars actually believe that Jesus is God, and they're still honest enough to admit that “a god” is a possibility.
And where is your answer in the “One question for Keith” thread? Are you stuck again in your own words?
mike
Hi Mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 21 2011,22:47) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2011,17:00) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 19 2011,21:33) 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?
Of course they say it is a possibility
So now we have C.H. Dodd, Dr. Jason BeDuhn, Murray Harris, and the 25 NETBible scholars that ALL say “a god” is a grammatically possible translation of 1:1c. Is that right?
Actually only one source that you have quoted uses the term “Grammatically possible”. But yes I agree they say it is possible for John 1:1c to be with the article. So what? They say it is also possible that John 1:1c should be anarthrous (without the article)! And once again the majority of the Translators found enough evidence to conclude that John 1:1c should be anarthrous and that it is not only “Contextually incorrect” to make it indefinite but it is also “Grammatically incorrect”.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 21 2011,22:47) And you have NO rule of Greek to English grammar and NO scholar that says it is an impossible translation based only on grammar. Is that also right?
And you have no rule of Greek to English Grammar that states it should be translated with the article, isn’t that right? What we do have are scholars with varying opinions and the vast majority chose to leave John 1:1c anarthrous.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 21 2011,22:47) So I'll ask my very first question to you again: Keith, based on grammar alone, is “a god” a possible translation of John 1:1c?
And you get the same answer again. NO! IMO it is not grammatically possible because of many factors mainly Polytheism. But yes I agree that scholars say it is, but do I personally have to agree with them in everything Mike? Do You?Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 21 2011,22:47) If you still answer “NO”, then I think it's time you show some proof.
Proof of what? That they say it is possible? I have given you all the proof I need Biblically.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 21 2011,22:47) And a bunch of Trinitarian's OPINIONS and PREFERENCES do not constitute proof. If I can show you MANY scholars that say it's possible, and you can show NONE that say it's not, then it's time you admit the truth you've been denying, don't you think?
Do you say the same things about Jason BeDuhn? He is not a Trinitarian. Could it be he has bias? Does Jason BeDuhn have a “Greek rule” that demands John 1:1c should have the article? If not isn't his opinions also “a bunch of Arian OPINIONS and PREFERENCES”?Once again do I have to agree with them in everything? Do you agree that the NET Translators are right in their translation of John 1:1? Prove how they are wrong.
They chose a possibility that they believe is one of three possible ways it could be rendered. So did your buddy BeDuhn, right?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 21 2011,22:47) I've admitted right from the beginning that there are THREE grammatical possibilities……….and I listed them. Am I smarter than you are, Keith? How is it that I knew way back then what I've just recently noticed the NETNotes scholars saying? How is it all of us seem to know this fact, but you don't?
What are you talking about? I have agreed that they say there are other possibilities and I have chosen what I think is the only “grammatical possibility” for John 1:1c, and guess what practically all the major Bibles render the verse that way and that would include the opinions of 100s of scholars putting their credentials on the line.It is amazing to me that you are trying to force me to agree with something the scholars say when you yourself reject the majority of what not only the scholars say but even what most of the early Fathers say. How hypocritical of you.
WJ
Hi Mike
Do you agree with these following scholars and if you do then how would it be possible to translate the verse in any other way?
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.” Source!
And…
While the scholars we have considered have some differences with regard to the applicability of Colwell's Rule to John 1:1c and the particular semantic force of THEOS in this clause, they are unanimous in regarding the proper understanding of John's meaning: The Word has all the qualities, attributes, or nature of God, the same God referenced in the previous clause. The absence of the article, all agree, is purposeful; John intends to remove any possibility of a convertible proposition. The definite article signifies a personal distinction, thus the Person of God is in view in John 1:1b. The absence of the article signifies that the nature or essence of God is in view in 1:1c. John is not teaching that the Logos is the same Person as the Father.
Nor, do the scholars believe, is John teaching that the Logos is a second god. All agree that the indefinite semantic force is unlikely.
It is my view that those who argue that the definite semantic force would signify a convertible proposition have the best case (but, see note #2, below). The purely qualitative nuance is well-attested in the Greek New Testament3, as has been demonstrated by Harner, Dixon, Wallace, and Hartley. The latter has demonstrated its application to both mass and count terms, and thus its application to THEOS in John 1:1c. It is important to note that even those scholars who maintain that THEOS is definite nevertheless argue that the significance of John's words are virtually identical with those who argue for a qualitative nuance.
Based on the evidence presented here, we may confidently take John's meaning as:
“In the beginning of all creation, the Word was already in existence. The Word was intimately with God. And the Word was as to His essence, fully God.”4 Source
And…
An Orthodox Bible Commentary notes: “This second theos could also be translated ‘divine’ as the construction indicates a qualitative sense for theos. The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: 'God (qualitative or derivative) from God (personal, the Father), Light from Light, True God from True God… homoousion with the Father.'”[4] Source
Dr. Harry A. Sturz: (Dr. Sturz is Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College) “Therefore, the NWT rendering: ““the Word was a god” is not a “literal” but an UNGRAMMATICAL and tendential translation. A literal translation in English can be nothing other than: “the Word was God.” – THE BIBLE COLLECTOR July-December, 1971 p.12
According to Dr. Sturz is the NWT rendering “the Word was a god” not a “literal” but an UNGRAMMATICAL and tendential translation?
How can anything be “grammatically possible” if it is not “grammatically correct”?
Why are you arguing for an incorrect translation of the verse? Remember “Grammatically” the Greek did not have an indefinite article.
WJ
Hi Mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 21 2011,22:47) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2011,17:00)
If the scholars say there are “3” possible Grammatical ways of translating John 1:1c, then why do you fault them and accuse them of bias for choosing an option that contradicts the NWTs own bias?
If the scholars say there are “3” possible Grammatical ways of translating John 1:1c, then why won't you admit it?
I have admitted they say it is possible.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 21 2011,22:47)
And I wasn't faulting the NET scholars for choosing the anarthrous translation. I was faulting them for adding in the word “fully” to slant the “average English reader's” understanding of the scripture.
What is wrong with that since they clearly explain why they came to that conclusion…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. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. 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.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 21 2011,22:47)
Also, I've been wanting to discuss the “biases” and the “preferences” since Jack started this thread. But how can I make a case for MY preference if you're not willing to admit it's even a grammatical possibility?
I have chosen one possiblitiy out of the three that the scholars claim and you have chosen one. So lets just go from there.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 21 2011,22:47) You may be right that “a god” was never John's intention. But to be honest, you would have to admit that it's at least a possible translation from Greek to English. And so far, you have not taken that step.
I know I am right because John could have used another word instead of Theos yet he didn’t and I know John was not a Polytheist.So here is the deal Mike. You cannot prove that John 1:1c should have the indefinite article, but lets just say it is a “possibility” that it could be though the scholars have opinions as to why it should or shouldn't be.
Show us Scholars and their reasons why it should and I will show you Scholars and reasons why it shouldn't.
Here is my one question…
Was John the Beloved a Polytheist who believed in other gods? Yes or no!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 22 2011,10:11) Quote (Baker @ April 19 2011,19:02) 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.
IreneSo you believe in more than one God also?
You say Jesus is “God”, but is Jesus “YOUR” God?
WJ
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
IreneWhy beat around the bush? If you say Jesus is “a god” then why don't you answer the question…
You say Jesus is “God”, but is Jesus “YOUR” God?
WJ
Keith! I don't beat around the bush. Jesus in Hebrew and John 1 is called God. But that does not make Jesus equal to God. by His own words He says
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.
God the Word of God, King, lord and LORD are all titles. I said this before, and I will say itr again, if you come at me with a statement like that….
I gave you plenty of scriptures that prove the trinity wrong….
Whatever YOU want to believe its your prerogative…
Peace Irene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
