- This topic is empty.
- Posts
As many trinitarian scholars agree, it is of course grammatically possible to translate John 1:1 as “a god.” It is simply not preferred by the trinitarians. I wonder why.
They often say things like: “it is grammatically possible but not grammatically favored.” Or, “'a god' is possible, but in the context clearly not what is intended.” Or, “According, from the point of view of grammar alone,[theos en ho logos]could be rendered “the Word was a god.” Or, “”If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [theos en ho logos]; would be “The Word was a god”. . . .The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole.”
It is a matter of context, much like the new thread that quotes WJ as saying that just because Jesus is called “god” does not mean he is God, but it is a matter of context. Same here. The exact same thing applies here.
The problem is, it seems that the context demands that it be translated as “a god” UNLESS you already believe in the trinity, in which case it would make sense to translate it the other way. If you look at John 1:1 while already believing in the trinity, then it's not going against the immediate trinitarian viewed context to translate it as “God.”
THE VERY FIRST PEOPLE WHO EVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TRANSLATE IT AS “A GOD” DID IN FACT DO THAT!
1300 years before those English translations began, it was translated into Coptic, which like English does have the indefinite article in it's language.
And so how did those Coptic translators, who lived at a time when koine Greek was still spoken and at a time when they definitely understood it…how did they translate John 1:1c?
This way: “a god.” (SEE coptic thread)It's all about CONTEXT and how you, as a trinitarian or non-trinitarian see the context.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 11 2011,09:31) 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
And you even capitalized the words “GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE.”I don't think WJ understood the question.
WJ, leaving trinitarian/non-trinitarian bias aside, and only looking at that one verse, is it “G r a m m a t i c a l l y P O S S I B L E” to translate it that way?
You did an extraordinary job of trying to justify your answer without specifically saying that it is grammatically impossible.
So, to simplify the question:
John 1:1 'a god'
1. Grammatically possible
2. Grammatically impossiblePS. Notice the word: “Grammatically.”
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 11 2011,13:19) 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
I was thinking the exact same thing about KJ's argument here. Except I was thinking of the word “Lord.” It is an extremely week idea.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 11 2011,13:28) 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
Mike, i can't believe you got him to actually say “yes” to that question. It seems like that is something I have tried 100 times before. We should really start writing down the page numbers of these words.Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 14 2011,07:07) Hi Mike, Every verse is open to interpretation to some degree.
The only reason they put John 1:1 the way they do
is, they believe “The Word” (FALSELY) to be Jesus.ONLY once you “UNDERSTAND” that The Word is the “HolySpirit”,
is there reason for manipulating John 1:1 to match their bias gone!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
bump for DavidAgain, 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.–WJ
And I will go with EVERY MAJOR ECONOMIST of 2006 and say that there is was no housing bubble in the U.S.
I will go with EVERY MAJOR ECONOMIST and say there was no internet bubble and that they were living in a new era, and that it was sustainable.Every major translation was translated by and for trinitarians. How well would any of your Bible's sold if they had “a god” in them, or if they restored “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” or “YHWH” 7000 times? They would have been dead on arrival. People would have been fired, or replaced.
When there is a choice that depends on perceived context, and you are a respected “trinitarian” scholar who has a job and gets paid, what is the easier path? What is the only path?Let's take the money and popularity out of the equation.
THE VERY FIRST PEOPLE WHO EVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TRANSLATE IT AS “A GOD” DID IN FACT DO THAT!
1300 years before those English translations began, it was translated into Coptic, which like English does have the indefinite article in it's language.
And so how did those Coptic translators, who lived at a time when koine Greek was still spoken and at a time when they definitely understood it…how did they translate John 1:1c?
This way: “a god.” (SEE coptic thread)Quote Are there elohim mentioned in scripture who are neither “God Almighty” nor “false gods”? –Mike
Quote Mike Yes
–WJ
WJ clarifies this saying:
Quote No Mike. I said they are mentioned in scriptures. I didn't say I believe they are Gods. So, WJ, to be clear, you acknowledge that there are “gods” who are “mentioned” in scripture that are neither Jehovah, nor false gods. yet, they are only “mentioned” in scripture and are not “Gods,” despite being mentioned as, what?…”gods”?
What are they? How are they described? I find it remarkable that you finally acknowledge that there is another group who are “mentioned” as “gods,” yet are not false gods.
Between this and the other statement you made…I really don't understand what is happening with you.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 13 2011,03:13) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 12 2011,09:40) Keith, why do you think the Coptic version has been “hidden away” by the trinitarian “cream of Greek scholarship”?
MikeDavids so called evidence has already been debunked! Do some research and come again. What will you have? Nothing to stack against the translations and translators today.
WJ
I just find it insanely remarkable and extraordinarily interesting that the VERY VERY VERY VERY first people had the “a” in their langauge, who had the choice to use it, and who lived when common greek was spoken and who used an alphabet based on Greek translated it….wait for it…that's right: “a god.”I know you want to push this fact out of your head and forget it exists. I would too if I were you.
Quote The burden of proof is on you since all the major translations we use have it the same. I've noticed that WJ keeps repeating this argument. The “majority is right” is neither logical, nor Biblical. Ever hear of the flood?
Quote Hi everyone This is proof that no matter what answer we give Mike it is not an answer unless it agrees with him!
Whenever someone disagrees with Mikes answer then they are dishonest according to Mike.
–WJ (underline added)
Then, Ed's immediate response:
Quote Hi WJ, I did not agree with Mike, and Mike did not call any of us 'dishonest'!
This is more evidence of the spin that you, WJ, put on the facts!–Ed
WJ's response to Ed:
Quote ED Mike didn't say you were not answering his question “honestly” did he?
Mind your own buisness if all you have to do is accuse and insult.
(It's just funny, in view of WJ's post, that Ed immediately disagreed with him and then WJ told him to mind his own business.)
Quote (david @ Mar. 14 2011,19:13) Quote The burden of proof is on you since all the major translations we use have it the same. I've noticed that WJ keeps repeating this argument. The “majority is right” is neither logical, nor Biblical. Ever hear of the flood?
Hi David,Apparently, you have used that same argument as well; huh?
Quote (david @ July 17 2010,17:31) Apparently, I and a lot of people on here cant see it. Did it work when you used it?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote Hi Mike, What you have not even considered is
that the Coptic may need the indefinite article
in John 1:1 for it to make sense in the Coptic language.
We know that it is not necessary (in this case) to add it in English!–Ed.
Hi Ed.
Just like English, the Coptic language had both an indefinite and definite article. A choice was made to add the “a,” just like we in the English language make the choice to add “a” thousands of times in the Bible. Some interesting things about coptic:The Greek of John 1:1c has no indefinite article. (“a”) So, if someone translates it into a language that does have indefinite articles (such as English, Coptic, etc) the translator must put the “a” or “an” in where it is needed. (Every English Bible does this thousands of times.)
It was translated from Greek (which has no indefinite article) into other languages such as Latin, syriac, aramaic (which also have no indefinite article.)
But around 1500, it was translated into English which does have the indefinite article. Those first English Bibles did not translate it with an indefinite article. (But then again, people were being burned at the stake for less.)
What people don't know:
1300 years before those English translations began, it was translated into Coptic, which like English does have the indefinite article in it's language.And so how did those Coptic translators, who lived at a time when koine Greek was still spoken and at a time when they definitely understood it…how did they translate John 1:1c?
This way: “a god.”
Their language was actually based on the Greek, using the Greek alphabet, and a couple other letters. They lived when koine Greek was actually spoken. They lived before trinity doctrine became law. And so they had both an understanding and the ability to translate it, not how the authorities demanded, but how they understood it.
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 14 2011,19:34) Quote (david @ Mar. 14 2011,19:13) Quote The burden of proof is on you since all the major translations we use have it the same. I've noticed that WJ keeps repeating this argument. The “majority is right” is neither logical, nor Biblical. Ever hear of the flood?
Hi David,Apparently, you have used that same argument as well; huh?
Quote (david @ July 17 2010,17:31) Apparently, I and a lot of people on here cant see it. Did it work when you used it?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed, I wasn't using the “majority is right” argument, was I?I wasn't saying: The majority are right. I was saying that some, myself included can't see it. (I have no idea what “it” is, because you didn't explain where this quote came from or what it's about. But it doesn't seem to apply.)
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 13 2011,10:08) WJ said to ED J: Quote Looking in that mirror again aren't you. Do you like beating people over the head with scriptures in an attempt to accuse of wrong doing rather than admit you were wrong.
You are not getting much respect out of me Ed, and you make it less and less desirable to have dialogue with you.
WJ
Keith,I am the only person here who gets tiled for making accusations. And Mike is the only person here who tiles me. I think it's because my accusations hit a nerve because they have substance and are well thought out.
Jack
I've been away. Who are the moderators on here now? Who can give tiles?Quote English translators add the indefinite article into over 8000 scriptures to make them understandable to us in English. There is no special Greek wording, circumstance, or rule of Greek grammar that would prohibit a translator from adding the indefinite article in 1:1c. –Mike.
Reading a lot of these threads, you would think that the one and only one place where “a” was used, was at John 1:1 and not the other 8000 times as well, in every Bible.
Quote (david @ Mar. 14 2011,19:36) Quote Hi Mike, What you have not even considered is
that the Coptic may need the indefinite article
in John 1:1 for it to make sense in the Coptic language.
We know that it is not necessary (in this case) to add it in English!–Ed.
Hi Ed.
Just like English, the Coptic language had both an indefinite and definite article. A choice was made to add the “a,” just like we in the English language make the choice to add “a” thousands of times in the Bible. Some interesting things about coptic:The Greek of John 1:1c has no indefinite article. (“a”) So, if someone translates it into a language that does have indefinite articles (such as English, Coptic, etc) the translator must put the “a” or “an” in where it is needed. (Every English Bible does this thousands of times.)
It was translated from Greek (which has no indefinite article) into other languages such as Latin, syriac, aramaic (which also have no indefinite article.)
But around 1500, it was translated into English which does have the indefinite article. Those first English Bibles did not translate it with an indefinite article. (But then again, people were being burned at the stake for less.)
What people don't know:
1300 years before those English translations began, it was translated into Coptic, which like English does have the indefinite article in it's language.And so how did those Coptic translators, who lived at a time when koine Greek was still spoken and at a time when they definitely understood it…how did they translate John 1:1c?
This way: “a god.”
Their language was actually based on the Greek, using the Greek alphabet, and a couple other letters. They lived when koine Greek was actually spoken. They lived before trinity doctrine became law. And so they had both an understanding and the ability to translate it, not how the authorities demanded, but how they understood it.
Hi David,You are making the assumption that there are times that the Sahidic Coptic
doesn't use their version of the indefinite article proceeding the word “God”.
Let's examine them if they exist. Please produce the verses. (1Thess.5:21)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 13 2011,21:14) TO ALL, I give another example of the use of the word “God' without the definite article. The NWT translators did not insert the indefinite article 'a' in this instance. Their rule is that the indefinite article 'a' must be inserted when there id no definite article
“It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, He is your God.”
There is no definite article before the word “God.” When the predicate is written in the nominative (theos) as opposed to the genetive (theou) it means “God.”
But according to the NWT translator's rule it should be written thus:
“It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, He is a god of you.”
So why did the NWT translators depart from their rule? Answer: THEOLOGICAL BIAS!
KJ
I have never heard of or seen this rule. Perhaps you could show me where this rule exists? Please do. If it once was a “rule” I don't think it is anymore.I think the “rule” would be more like:
Where the CONTEXT demands it, it is translated with the indefinite article.
Quote Hi David, You are making the assumption that there are times that the Sahidic Coptic
doesn't use their version of the indefinite article proceeding the word “God”.
Let's examine them if they exist. Please produce the verses. (1Thess.5:21)Ed, I really don't think you know very much about this. All over the place, everywhere. Just check.
Ed, just like English, they have both the indefinite and definite article. Translating from Greek, they had to decide if the indefinite article should be used.
Quote I am a REAL student of Greek and I don't go against the scholars unless I have compelling evidence. –Kangaroo
So,
1. Sometimes it makes sense to “go against the scholars.”
2. You are a “REAL” student of Greek.I am curious if you are a “REAL” scholar of Greek that was spoken back then? A lot of people today speak Greek. We could just go to Greece and settle this in 2 minutes if that were the case. Problem is, languages change over time. If only there was a group of people living back then that actually used the indefinite article and translated John 1:1…. wait, there is. Oh, but they translated it in a way you would rather not mention….I see.
Kangaroo, for you to keep using the logic that you are a student of Greek, and therefore, we should just bow to your knowledge is absurd. Whether a student of Greek or a teacher of Greek, there are those who disagree with you. And every time you say you are a student of Greek, we could equally say, there are other students of Greek.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
