- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Ed and Nick,
Is there only ONE possible translation of John 1:1c? MUST the Greek words be translated as “the Word was THE God?
From the 25 Trinitarian scholars of NETNotes:
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.Are you guys able to understand that there are THREE different, faithful ways to translate 1:1c? Here are the three ways:
1. the god – meaning that God was with Himself and later became flesh
2. a god – meaning that the Word was also a mighty being, but not THE god he was with
3. god qualitatively – which would be similar to saying, In the beginning, Cain was with THE adam (the man), and Cain was adam (of mankind).
(A fourth option of “the Word was divine”, or “the Word was God-like”, is ruled out by Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, which says: The noun form is here used, not the adjectival theios, which would be required to simply classify the Word as “god-like.”)
And of the three remaining possibilities, there is only ONE of these possible translations that the 25 NETNotes scholars eliminate:
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”)Can you guys grasp this simple point they made? Are you able to understand that God cannot possibly be said to be with God? You have grown up reading and believing “the Word was God”. It is now so hard set in your psyches that it is hard for you to let it go. And because of your insistence upon this flawed and illogical translation of 1:1c, you have gone to great and even more illogical steps to iron out your doctrines.
Here is some more information for your consideration:
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.”
Harris and Dodd are two more TRINITARIAN Greek experts who acknowledge the possible translation of “a god”.
Origen of Alexandria, a teacher in Greek grammar of the third century, wrote about the use of the definite article:
We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God…. The true God, then, is The God (ho theos).”
Origen is saying that John knew exactly what he was doing by preceding only ONE of the theos mentioned with the definite article “the”. Had John wanted to teach that the Word was with THE god and was THE god, he would have written it that way.
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. Rodney J. Decker stated, “it has often been misused by well-intentioned defenders of the deity of Christ.”
In case you forgot, Colwell's Rule is the one that says we can add the definite article in 1:1c, causing a translation of “THE god”, or “God”. Are you able to see that the only reason “the Word was God” is even in our English Bibles is because this rule “has often been misused by well-intentioned defenders of the deity of Christ”? It is there because the majority of English translators were Trinitarians, and wanted to FORCE this scripture to teach that Jesus was God Himself – despite the illogical consequence of 1:1b, which would say that God was with God. Refer back to the first NETNotes info I quoted above, and you'll see that 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 rendering as “a god” is justified by some non-trinitarians by comparing it with Acts 28:6 which they claim has a similar grammatical construction. “The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead; but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.”
Are you able to see that in the similar construction of Acts 28:6, all English Bibles render “a god” instead of “THE god”, or “God”? So why do so many people fault an “a god” translation of 1:1c, but readily accept “a god” in 28:6?
Listen guys, there is MUCH more information I could post on this subject, such as the first language into which the Greek scriptures were translated, that used indefinite articles like we do, was the Coptic language. And in the Coptic translation of 1:1c, it reads “a god”. But I list this very small bit of information in an effort to get you guys to at least acknowledge the possibility of “the Word was a god”.
Will you do that honest thing? Or will you ignore the FACTS of the matter, and continue to INSIST upon “the Word was God” – despite the facts of the matter?
This is the one question I want answered DIRECTLY: According to the Greek experts I've quoted in the above, is it equally grammatically possible to translate John 1:1c either as “God”……………or as “a god”? YES or NO?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 11 2012,20:21) Hi MB,
I have told you that i do not know.
What do you not understand about this?
Nthis is a slimy answer
but what else can an person seek from unrighteousnessQuote (terraricca @ June 11 2012,14:25) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 11 2012,20:21) Hi MB,
I have told you that i do not know.
What do you not understand about this?
Nthis is a slimy answer
but what else can an person seek from unrighteousness
Hi “T”:Nick is right. Who are you to make that statement? In the first place, the question was addressed to Ed, and Nick, not to you.
And I ask you, what good is a statement like that? Does that answer Mike's question? If you know the answer to Mike's question, just answer it so that we all may benefit from your wisdom.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (Nick Hassan @ June 10 2012,20:21) Hi MB,
I have told you that i do not know.
This is the first time I'm hearing any kind of a direct answer from you at all, Nick. If you could produce the post where you have already answered with “I don't know”, I will humbly apologize for overlooking it.In the meantime, I will accept your current “I don't know” as an acceptable answer to my question. Thank you.
Great.
An “I don't know” answer from someone.
Hopefully we see more of this in future rather than avoidance to save face.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 11 2012,18:29) Hi MB,
I accept your apology.
The apology comes if and when you show me the post where you said “I don't know” to my question before today.Until that time, I will remained baffled about how all the experts I quoted said “YES”, and my question said, “ACCORDING TO THE EXPERTS I QUOTED”, yet you came up with “I don't know” and Ed came up with “No”.
Apparently, scriptural truth is just a game to you guys.
Nick,
Do you think a person would even have to resort to what you call “bullying” if others just honestly and directly answered the questions that were put to them?
I disagree. I think the one who is too scared to answer simple questions honestly and directly not only needs a break, but needs not come back until he is ready to answer the questions put to him.
Hi MB,
Do you have the right to interrogate to your satisfaction?By whose authority?
We are not prisoners and you do not own truth
Hi ED,
You think you know a lot but you understand so little
Why are you still satisfied with your carnal “answers”Quote (942767 @ June 12 2012,15:50) Quote (terraricca @ June 11 2012,14:25) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 11 2012,20:21) Hi MB,
I have told you that i do not know.
What do you not understand about this?
Nthis is a slimy answer
but what else can an person seek from unrighteousness
Hi “T”:Nick is right. Who are you to make that statement? In the first place, the question was addressed to Ed, and Nick, not to you.
And I ask you, what good is a statement like that? Does that answer Mike's question? If you know the answer to Mike's question, just answer it so that we all may benefit from your wisdom.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Martyjust for the record the answer is YES.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 12 2012,13:19) Hi ED,
You think you know a lot but you understand so little
Why are you still satisfied with your carnal “answers”
Hi Nick,Could you please fill me in
on exactly what you're talking about?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
