- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 14 2011,19:12) Hi Mike, YEAA!!! you finally “hit” on the right question!!!
It is a matter of interpretation.
Hopefully they will give an “honest” answer?
Thanks Ed,It was a post YOU made that helped me to think of that wording.
And I also hope they will just honestly answer it…………..AND SOON!
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 15 2011,12:30) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 14 2011,19:12) Hi Mike, YEAA!!! you finally “hit” on the right question!!!
It is a matter of interpretation.
Hopefully they will give an “honest” answer?
Thanks Ed,It was a post YOU made that helped me to think of that wording.
And I also hope they will just honestly answer it…………..AND SOON!
mike
Hi Mike,You and others often pose question that are “LOADED”.
You then ask for the answer of either “Yes” or “No”.
It' is like the 'coin flip' heads I win, tails you loose.We cannot answer “Yes”, because we clearly do NOT agree;
and to answer “No” is clearly a trap to avoid.Hopefully my “staunch” game playing (with you)
has now taught you this valuable lesson.Re-wording the question “IS” the answer! I'm glad
you realized that this is the path toward agreement.Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 14 2011,20:59) Hopefully my “staunch” game playing (with you)
has now taught you this valuable lesson.
No, it just showed me you are as hard headed as them when it comes to admitting something you KNOW is true, but you don't want to.Compare the dance I had to do with you to my IMMEDIATE and DIRECT and HONEST answer to YOUR 1:1 question.
You ASKED a “YES” or “NO” question, and I answered with a YES.
Likewise, my question was also a YES or NO question, and you have yet to just say “YES Mike, it IS grammatically possible”.
Games. I'd rather just be honest, and if I'm proven wrong, then I've learned. You guys would rather just be stubborn if you think you're giving up a piece of your doctrine with the HONEST and DIRECT answer.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 15 2011,14:52) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 14 2011,20:59) Hopefully my “staunch” game playing (with you)
has now taught you this valuable lesson.
No, it just showed me you are as hard headed as them when it comes to admitting something you KNOW is true, but you don't want to.Compare the dance I had to do with you to my IMMEDIATE and DIRECT and HONEST answer to YOUR 1:1 question.
You ASKED a “YES” or “NO” question, and I answered with a YES.
Likewise, my question was also a YES or NO question, and you have yet to just say “YES Mike, it IS grammatically possible”.
Games. I'd rather just be honest, and if I'm proven wrong, then I've learned. You guys would rather just be stubborn if you think you're giving up a piece of your doctrine with the HONEST and DIRECT answer.
mike
Hi Mike,If what you say was “true”, I would gladly agree with you!
But your questions are designed to make 'errors' sound true;
and I can't agree with your errors, no matter how subtly worded!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgMike said:
Quote I won't divert until you and Keith CLEARLY ADMIT what you both know to be true – that it is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to add the indefinite article in 1:1c.
TO ALL,I don't know Mike's folly to be true and I could never admit to the possibility of it.
Quote Greek scholars are in general agreement that the wording “The Word was God” or “the Word was divine” is the correct way to understand the last clause of John 1:1. Competent scholarship does not support the argument that the lack of a definite article in a predicate nominative indicates an indefinite reference. “To say that the absence of the article bespeaks of the nonabsolute deity of the Word is sheer folly. There are many places in this Gospel where the anarthrous [used without the article] theos appears (e.g., 1:6, 12, 13, 18), and not once is the implication that this is referring to just 'a god’” [Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, editor, volume 9, page 30].
http://www.gci.org/jesus/wasgodKJ
Quote Comparing the Use of the Word “God” and the Definite Article in John Chapter 1 In the first chapter of John, the word ‘God’ (‘theos’ in Greek) is used 12 times. In almost half of these instances (five times) it does not have the definite article. One would be hard pressed to find a translation that suggests that these other instances without the definite article should be translated as ‘a god’. That is, the lack of a definite article does not mean that the noun is indefinite. Clearly the meaning of these instances is the Only True “God”, even though no definite article is used. But if one wanted to be consistent with how some have proposed to translate John 1:1 as ‘a god’, that same rule would have to be followed here.
Take for example the word ‘God’ in John 1:6. The definite article is lacking here, just as it is in verse one in the phrase ‘the Word was God’. If the lack of a definite article means there should be an indefinite article, then this passage should be translated something as follows. ‘There was a man sent from a god’. The meaning here is obscured if not altogether changed since it is clear that the writer means to convey the fact that this man was sent from the True Living God, not from a false god.
As another example, see John 1:18. Being consistent with the other instance of the absence of the definite article, the verse would be translated as, ‘No one has ever seen a god; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.’ Again the meaning is distorted by this translation since John is saying that no one has ever seen the Only True Living God. (cf. Exodus 33:20 and Deuteronomy 4:12).
In fact, if the over-generalization of ‘lack of definite article makes an indefinite meaning’ is applied to other words in the first few verses of John 1, the following phrases would be found:
1:1,2 ‘a beginning’ rather than ‘the beginning’
1:4 ‘a life’ rather than ‘life’
1:6 ‘from a god’ as noted above
1:6 ‘a John’ rather than ‘John’
Thus if an implied indefinite article (‘a’) is assumed to be present in every place where no definite article (‘the’) appears in Greek, it can often change the intended meaning of a passage.
These are clear instances that exemplify the fact that Greek cannot be translated according to some imposed English equivalent. The use of the definite article in the two languages has separate meanings and uses altogether.
http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/answer-frame-john1_1.htmBAM! BOOM! ZAP!
Mikeboll,
I remember about a year ago when I first realized you were saying that Jesus was just a prophet, or man or something. Not one with God. I remember doing a search about it and all the arguements that fit what you were trying to say were from the Jahovas witness'. Also you quoted from their translation to support your position. I remember replying to you assuming you were one, and you reminded me of the old addage “assume”. The debates you waged seemed fierce and pointed in your favor. I felt attacked and begged you to leave me alone because I felt much distress over Jesus being belittled. I grew, we talked about that. Now I would like to know, how can you not be a Jahovas Witness? How is that possible when you uphold them and suggest people contact them? Do you also think you and them are the only ones to go to heaven? Is this website and you and t8 are what all this is all about? I'm not attacking you, I would just like an honest answer. Honestly right now I feel like a straight guy that goes into a bar and notices everybody is with other guys
except this has to do with religion. How would you react if I told that young man who just lost his dad to suicide to go see a priest? You told him to contact the JWs and their would be no strings attached, but how can that be since after they convince him God exist that they will tell him that if he is not a JW he will not make it, because they are the only ones who will? Lay it on the line.Please do not bear false witness. On the honor of a child of Almighty God please tell me what you stand for. Peace and love MarkTO ALL,
David said that he has never heard of the rule of the predicative NOMINATIVE in Greek. I am shocked! Maybe David has his head buried in the sand.
Quote The absence of the article before “God” in John 1:1 is meant to indicate that “God” is the predicate nominative rather than the subject of the phrase. Because Greek does not use word order to indicate subject/object/predicate distinctions, one of its optional features is, where there is ambiguity in a subject-predicate nominative construction, to indicate the subject by preceding it with a definite article and to indicate the predicate nominative by the absence of a definite article. This is called “Colwell's Rule.” This rule is evident at 1 John 4:8, “God is love.” The Greek reads: ho [the] Theos [God] agape [love] estin [is]. If agape had the definite article, instead of Theos, then the correct translation would be “Love is God.” But the definite article on Theos indicates “God” as the subject, and the absence of the article on agape indicates agape as the predicate nominative; thus, “God is love.” This amounts to a qualification of God rather than a deification of love.
In the case of John 1:1, the writer leaves the article off of Theos in order to mark it unambiguously as the predicate nominative. The absence of the article does not indicate that theos is an indefinite noun, as Jehovah's Witnesses have incorrectly led many to believe, but that it is not the subject of the phrase. The absence of the article on Theos assures the reader that “the Word” is the subject and that “God” is the predicate nominative.
In Greek, the article is much less a marking of definiteness than it is an article facilitating syntactic clarity. Indicating definiteness is only one of eleven functions of the article in Koine Greek. Moreover, definiteness does not require the article for its indication. Many, many definite nouns in Greek are not indicated as definite by the use of the article or by any other morphological tag. These anarthrous nouns (nouns which do not have the definite article) are definite simply by virtue of their semantic function. The absence of the article with these nouns in no way indicates them as indefinite. The second occurrence of Theos in John 1:1 is one of these anarthrous nouns which are nonetheless definite.
For further reading see Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 103-114.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 14 2011,19:00) I've been trying for one week now, and so far no honest and direct answer of “YES, it IS grammatically possible”. In fact, they're stubbornly sticking with their “NO”, without showing the expert evidence of this fact that I've been asking for.
Hi MikeYour posts are becoming more full of ad hominems and chest beating rather than facts. It seems now all you are doing is focusing on what “WE” have said or try to “CORNER” us rather than focus on what the scriptures say, why is that Mike? Does anything that we say change the scriptures or what has been accepted as the truth for centuries?
Tell us how much more evidence do you need for you to accept that John was not a Polytheist? What about the fact that the “indefinite article [a]” is not found to be added ONCE as “a god” for what you call true gods or the True God?
As Jacks source pointed out that in context of John 1:1, John 1:6 and 1:18 doesn't have the indefinite article [a] does it?
You guys act like John was some kind of idiot to assume that John would have put God with God if he was not referring to the True God. He could have used any different words like, Begotten Son, Divine, Son of God, First born, or Jesus, if he wanted to but he didn't. Ha Ha!
Not to mention 27 major translations on Biblegateway.com and 12 major translations on Blueletterbible.org that render the verse “the Word was God” and not “a god”.
Your attempt to accuse 100s of the translators of signing off on John 1:1c with bias is “arrogant” to say the least not to mention the ludicrous idea of believing the Scholars had a conspiracy to do so which could mar their reputations.
It looks like it doesn't matter what we show you or what you find, because you have shut your eyes and ears from receiving the truth to the point of even doubting the scriptures.
The overwhelming evidence is John 1:1c should not have the indefinite article [a].
So once again NO it is not grammatically possible for John 1:1c should be translated as [a] god since grammar also includes context.
You are merely grasping for straws and the straw man will be burnt down with the facts.
WJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 15 2011,03:33) Mike said: Quote I won't divert until you and Keith CLEARLY ADMIT what you both know to be true – that it is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to add the indefinite article in 1:1c.
TO ALL,I don't know Mike's folly to be true and I could never admit to the possibility of it.
Quote Greek scholars are in general agreement that the wording “The Word was God” or “the Word was divine” is the correct way to understand the last clause of John 1:1. Competent scholarship does not support the argument that the lack of a definite article in a predicate nominative indicates an indefinite reference. “To say that the absence of the article bespeaks of the nonabsolute deity of the Word is sheer folly. There are many places in this Gospel where the anarthrous [used without the article] theos appears (e.g., 1:6, 12, 13, 18), and not once is the implication that this is referring to just 'a god’” [Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, editor, volume 9, page 30].
http://www.gci.org/jesus/wasgodKJ
Amen!Mike said:
Quote I've been trying for one week now, and so far no honest and direct answer of “YES, it IS grammatically possible”. In fact, they're stubbornly sticking with their “NO”, without showing the expert evidence of this fact that I've been asking for.
Keith,I can't believe that Mike has the audacity to say that we have shown no expert evidence. I think he is scrolling past my posts avoiding them.
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 15 2011,10:43) Mike said: Quote I've been trying for one week now, and so far no honest and direct answer of “YES, it IS grammatically possible”. In fact, they're stubbornly sticking with their “NO”, without showing the expert evidence of this fact that I've been asking for.
Keith,I can't believe that Mike has the audacity to say that we have shown no expert evidence. I think he is scrolling past my posts avoiding them.
Jack
JackI am not so sure he cares about the truth. I think his mind is being inspired by something and I don't think it is the Holy Spirit. He only sees and hears what he wants and I am pretty sure he has admitted in the past that he scans over post and doesn't really read it all.
WJ
Keith said to Mike:
Quote So once again NO it is not grammatically possible for John 1:1c should be translated as [a] god since grammar also includes context.
NO! NO! NO! It is NOT possible that John 1:1c may be translated 'a god.' The noun 'God' is predicate NOMINATIVE!Jack
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 16 2011,02:46) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 15 2011,10:43) Mike said: Quote I've been trying for one week now, and so far no honest and direct answer of “YES, it IS grammatically possible”. In fact, they're stubbornly sticking with their “NO”, without showing the expert evidence of this fact that I've been asking for.
Keith,I can't believe that Mike has the audacity to say that we have shown no expert evidence. I think he is scrolling past my posts avoiding them.
Jack
JackI am not so sure he cares about the truth. I think his mind is being inspired by something and I don't think it is the Holy Spirit. He only sees and hears what he wants and I am pretty sure he has admitted in the past that he scans over post and doesn't really read it all.
WJ
Keith,It is clear that Mike cannot face the evidence. My bet is he is just scrolling on down so he don't have to look at the evidence at all.
Jack
Quote (mikeangel @ Mar. 15 2011,05:59)
Is this website and you and t8 are what all this is all about? I'm not attacking you, I would just like an honest answer.
Hi Mark,I'm not sure what you're asking. I don't know t8 any more than you do, I'm sure. I only know him from what he posts, just like most of us. Are you implying a conspiracy to secretly spread JW doctrine?
I'm not a JW because I'm not on board with some of their interpretations. But they are closer to what I believe from the scriptures than anyone else…………by far.
And “NO”, I wouldn't have given it a second thought if you had referred JBL to a pastor or priest. I was trying to get him to talk to SOMEONE with a Christian background that could keep him walking WITH God instead of walking away from Him.
Mark, do you have an answer to the question of this thread?
Is it grammatically possible to translate John 1:1c as “the Word was a god”?
(Hint: It IS, and it has been translated thusly by many scholars. But I want to hear those words from all the “Jesus is God” people – just to keep them honest in our discussions. So far, I'm failing miserably on this question.
But don't lose hope for me, it took almost two years to get truthful answers on a couple of other points. I'll get the truth out of them eventually. )peace and love to you and yours Mark,
mikeHi Jack and Keith,
I've read all your posts today in this thread. You are posting a lot of trinitarian slanted information telling us how 1:1c SHOULDN'T BE translated as “the Word was a god”. Jack has posted “Colwell's Rule”, of which Wikipedia says: 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. 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).
At issue is whether Colwell's rule applies to John 1:1 and if it is a reliable standard by which grammatical constructions of this type should be measured. It has been pointed out that Colwell's rule does not help by determining definiteness. Apparently, it has been misapplied by some to defend the deity of Christ.
Again, I'm seeing nothing but “MAYBE” and “POSSIBLY”, just like in everything you guys have posted. I read the whole article, and whoever wrote it was at least smart enough to realize this part: The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.”
But whoever wrote it based their understanding (which is the same “qualitative” understanding that t8 has been trying to convey to you guys) on the “fact” that Jesus is later clearly identified as a member of the Trinity Godhead, and therefore God: The commonly held theology that Jesus is God naturally leads one to believe that the proper way to render the verse is the one which is most popular.
So even as this writer is favoring “the Word was God” over “the Word was a god”, he is at the same time insisting that the Word is NOT the “person of God”, but one who has the same essence. Well, if the Word is not the PERSON OF GOD, then I say he can't very well one of the three PERSONS in your imaginary trinity Godhead.
But so it goes when reading trinitarian supporting material. Just as t8 adeptly pointed out the other day concerning the Athanasius quote that Keith posted, “everything he said refers to THREE DIFFERENT GODS, but then he sums it up with the confusing statement, 'not three Gods, but One' – without ever clearly explaining how this jump occured or the reason for it”. (That was MY paraphrase of t8's excellent point.)
Here's what it boils down to: Some scholars staunchly oppose the translation …a god, while other scholars believe it is possible or even preferable.
Dr. Jason BeDuhn (of Northern Arizona University) in regard to the Kingdom Interlinear's appendix that gives the reason why the NWT favoured a translation of John 1:1 as saying the Word was not “God” but “a god” said: “In fact the KIT [Appendix 2A, p.1139] explanation is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject.”
Hmmmmm…………….chalk one up for the “non-Greek speaking” NWT translators.
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.”
Let's add in David's point of the Coptic version: Actual usage of the Sahidic Coptic noun “noute” in the Coptic New Testament strongly suggests that it is a count noun that, when bound with the Coptic indefinite article, should be translated into English as “a god.” For example, Coptic scholar George Horner's English translation of the Coptic at Acts 28:6 (Bohairic) has “a god.” Coptic scholar Bentley Layton gives “a god” for the literal interlinear translation of “u.noute”.
And let's not forget David's brilliant point that this version was the first language that had the option of adding the indefinite “a”………….AND THEY DID! And his other brilliant point that the people who translated the Greek into Coptic did so while koine Greek was still being spoken. Think about it – the people who did the translating had to be learned in both koine Greek and Coptic, and they added the “a”.
Look boys, I know that's a lot of info at one time. But if you don't mind terribly, just deal with these three points……………
“Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,..
“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.”
“In fact the Kindom Interlinear Translation (NWT) explanation is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject..”
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?
2. Knowing that Colwell's Rule does NOT rule out this possibility, is there any other “rule” of Greek grammar that would forbid the addition of the indefinite article in 1:1c?
Listen guys, I'm not asking which translation is “preferrable”. I'm not asking if John was a “polytheist”. I'm not asking for tons of trinitarian information telling how it is “MOST UNLIKELY”. I don't want to hear about rules that merely PERMIT the definite article, but don't DEMAND it. I don't want to see a million scripture where the indefinite article was NOT added. I'm not interested in the context just yet or for the purpose of this question. Are you getting the point?
You will have plenty of opportunity to show me scripturally how it “must” be translated without the “a” because Jesus IS God and there is only ONE God, etc. But I won't go there until we have an HONEST understanding about this.
You both KNOW for a fact that the NWT translation is grammatically possible, for NO Greek rule of grammar forbids it. And I won't stop until you ADMIT it is possible, or show the rule that ABSOLUTELY FORBIDS it.
mike
A literal translation of the end of John 1:12 in Greek reads: ‘…to those who believe into [the] his name.’ It makes our English translation sound awkward or non-sensible to include the definite article 'the’ before the words ‘his name’, even though it appears in Greek.
Literally in Greek, John 1:2 says: ‘He was in beginning with God.’ Notice that in Greek there is no definite article before the word ‘beginning’. It makes sense to include the definite article ‘the’ in our English translation for the sake of clarity and English idiom. Thus, ‘He was in the beginning with God.’
In John 1:1 there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ in the phrase, ‘and the Word was God’. However, in this instance, it cannot just be assumed that the word ‘God’ is meant to be ‘indefinite’, and therefore an indefinite article used in the English translation. Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was ‘a certain god’, but not the one he was just referring to. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1 (among many, many other examples). So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ – John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father
I got this discussion somewhere else. I agree with it. I agree that when one translates the bible, intracate renderings would be influenced by pre-concieved notions. The bible is inspired by God. The bible is Gods word. The word, like God, will stand forever. I believe also this explination:
John was a strict Jew, a monotheist. Does the Jehovah's Witness really think that John would be saying that there was another God besides Jehovah, even if it were Jesus? Being raised a good Jew, the apostle John would never believe that there was more than one God in existence. Yet, he compared the word with God, said the word was God, and that the word became flesh (John 1:1,14).
John 1:1 in a literal translation reads thus: “In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word.” Notice that it says “God was the word.” This is the actual word-for-word translation. It is not saying that “a god was the word.” That wouldn't make sense. Let me break it down into three statements.
“In beginning was the word…”
(en arche en ho logos)
A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.
“and the word was with the God…”
(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)
This same Word was with God.
“and God was the word.” — Properly translated as “and the Word was God.”
(kai theos en ho logos)
This same Word was God.
Regarding statement 3 above, the correct English translation is “…and the Word was God,” not “and God was the word.” This is because if there is only one definite article (“ho”=”the”) in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative (“subject”) form (“theos” and “logos”), then the noun with the definite article (“ho”=”the”) is the subject. In this case “ho logos” means that “the word” is the subject of the clause. Therefore, “…the Word was God” is the correct translation, not “God was the Word.”1 But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Jesus is “a god,” or the “mighty god” as was addressed above.Now, also my bible I Personally have had since I was 13 states “and the word was God”, and I have always felt close to God, and I cannot comprehend it being incorrect. “Which among you would hand your son a snake when he ask for a fish?” I also believe Jesus was God incarnate. He came into being to teach me his wisdom and sacrifice himself for me that I might have salvation through him. If he was anything less than God, than his death and sacrifice stood for nothing. Thank him that he did that for me and humanity.
Lastly, since you are not a JW, but agree with them on most of what they say, why do you follow what they translate? Why would you suggest someone contact them when you know that they will tell them that unless they join them, they will be lost? How can you trust thier translation when their predictions have failed numerous times? Why would Almighty God allow his word to be translated this way in every other bible but theirs?
New International Version (©1984)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
New Living Translation (©2007)
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.English Standard Version (©2001)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.New American Standard Bible (©1995)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.International Standard Version (©2008)
In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.King James Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.American King James Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.American Standard Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Bible in Basic English
From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.Douay-Rheims Bible
IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Darby Bible Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.English Revised Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Webster's Bible Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Weymouth New Testament
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.World English Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Young's Literal Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;Are they the only ones to have the right deal? Or were they finding a way to make it fit their view of Jesus not being God? Peace and love Mark
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
