JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 14 2008,23:18)

It just wouldn’t be right to not include John 1:1 in my allotment of six proof texts in this debate. It’s a watershed verse, probably the most contentious verse in the entire Bible in trinitarian/antitrinitarian discussions. I thought I had developed a basic understanding of the verse a few years ago but in researching for this post it soon became clear that that there are nuances that had escaped me then. Nevertheless, what I have learnt has only strengthened my opinion that this one verse unequivocally refutes t8’s position, as defined in his writings found HERE. BTW t8, I note that few of paragraphs in your article bear a striking resemblance to some of the material on this website. Curiously, there was no sign of an acknowledgement of your source.

If you actually read the web page you quoted you would see that the author is not claiming that he wrote what is written, so why should I quote that web site. I also said in my rebuttal to Is that I don't ever remember going to that website and I may be right.

Yes it is true that I quote others and I learn from others. In fact probably most of what I have learned came from other people. So if that is a crime, then organise an angry mob of Pharisees and hang me on a cross.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 15 2008,01:44)

WJ, Holy cow!  My brain hurts and may never recover.  You put a lot of time and effort into that post so even though I do not completely agree with you I do appreciate all your thought and time.  I hope that I am not intruding here by addressing your post since you specifically asked for t8's response.  I would like to say a few things about it though.

WJ just did a copy and paste from a post made by Isaiah.

Somewhere in here I think:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1375

[Proclaimer]

OK, here is a copy and paste from something I wrote in that debate. It might help to clarify what I said earlier.

=========

Please read the 2 examples below and guess which one is correct:

1)
a) In the beginning was the woman,
b) and the woman was with the man
c) and the woman was the man

2)
a) In the beginning was the woman,
b) and the woman was with the man
c) and the woman was man

The correct one is the second example because it is saying that the woman belongs to mankind, or that the woman is a man in the sense that God made man, male and female, as it is written. (See what a difference the definite article and the lack of can make in the last sentence?)

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

In other words the word 'man' is used as an attribute or to describe one's nature. It is not used in an identity sense like the other instances of the words 'woman' and 'man' in the above correct example.

But in Isaiah's (a member of this forum) way of thinking regarding 'God' and the 'Word', he chooses number 1, so he sees it like:

a) In the beginning was the Word    / similarly – In the beginning was the woman,      
b) the Word was with (the) God     /  similarly – the woman was with the man        
c) and the Word was God (himself) /   similarly – and the woman was the man

NOTE: Adam is the name of the first man, but is also the word used for 'man' in general. So it is both a name and a nature. The definite article is used to differentiate Man/man from being used in an identifying role and a qualifying role.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 15 2008,01:51)

BTW, in regards to the above post, the Greek word written as “hn” in John 1:1 is transliterated as “en” and is translated as “was”.  I know that might be confusing.

Hi LU

Thanks for the compliiment. But it should be given to Isa 1:18, a Trinitarian who visits here accasionally.

He is very versed in Greek and the scriptures.

You were reading a post from the debate he had with t8 in the debates thread.

I posted the article with a link to the source.

Blessings. WJ

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 15 2008,02:37)

T8…..Your assuming the (Word) as a Noun when in fact it is a descriptor or an attribute of the one GOD.  And your references to the upper and lower cases is also wrong seeing that (ALL) original Greek is written in capital letters.

My use of uppercase was only to highlight those words. That was all. It had nothing to do with your conclusion and I am fully aware of the situation regarding case in scripture.

In English we might say 'Adam' meaning the person and adam (which is man) as a quality or nature. Same word but different usage.

So in Greek Adam is defined like 'the adam' and 'adam' (lowercase) just doesn't have the definite article.

So uppercase in English is like using the definite article in Greek and lowercase is not using it.

This is admittedly a very simple way to look at it and doesn't take into consideration any exceptions.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,10:59)

I do not agree gol. I gave you sound reasoning and backed it up with another instance when Jesus said “one of you is devil” (no article). is devil is theos No article, then not a person, but a quality. You can argue against it all you like, but it is the way Greek works. It is said by some however that the last theos in John 1:1 is lacking the article because the way the sentence is constructed forces it to be so, but even in that case, you still cannot rule out the qualitative use of theos. Go ask an expert in Greek about the definite article and the lack of the definite article. I have. It is not a contoversy but an excepted rule in Greek that you use an article when referring to a person. Scholars recognise what the article means in Greek, and even some Trinitarian scholars admit this is the case with John 1:1, including some bible translators too. If you argue that the Word being God is talking about God the person, then you should be consistent and at least argue equally that Jesus said of Judas that he was The Devil/Satan. You can't chop and change things to suit your view. Also as I said before, the article is used with the Logos, so this rules out the interpretation of reading the Logos as an attribute or quality of God.

Hi t8

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,10:59)

Scholars recognise what the article means in Greek, and even some Trinitarian scholars admit this is the case with John 1:1, including some bible translators too.

If this is true, then why did the 100s of scholars translate John 1:1 on Biblegateway.com and Blueletterbible.org as you say?

They all translate it “The Word was God” or “God was the Word”

They could have translated it “the Word was divine” or “the Word was a god” if what you say is true.

But they didnt did they?

Also your argument about the definite article is a red herring because there are many places in the scriptures the definite article is not used in referring to the Father.

The Lack of a Greek Definite Article

   Another common confusion in John 1:1 comes from the fact that in Greek there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ (‘theos’) in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’.  The confusion arises from an assumption that if there is no definite article in the Greek, then it must have an indefinite meaning and thus should be translated with the indefinite article “a”.  Based on this understanding, some argue that this phrase in John 1:1 should be translated “the word was a god,” rather than “the word was God.”  It is important at this point to understand that the Greek language has a definite article (‘the’), but does not have an indefinite article (‘a’ or ‘an’).  In certain instances, when the Greek omits a definite article, it may be appropriate to insert an indefinite article for the sake of the English translation and understanding.  But we cannot assume that this is always appropriate.  Greek does not operate in the same way as English does in regard to the use of the words ‘the’ and ‘a’.  In many instances in which English would not include the word ‘the’, the Greek text includes it.  (We don’t see it in the English translations because it would sound non-sensible in our language.)  (See Note 1, below.)  And in many cases where the Greek omits the definite article, the English translation requires it to convey the correct meaning of the Greek. (See Note 2, below.)  Therefore it cannot be assumed that if the definite article is absent, then an indefinite article should be inserted.  (For a clear illustration of this, see an example of the use of the word ‘God’ and the definite article in John chapter one.)  Furthermore, even though the Greek language does not have an ‘indefinite article’ like we think of in English, there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea and thus avoid confusion.  This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun ‘tis’.
   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.
   (For a more thorough explanation of the function and use of the Greek article (and meaning of its absence), see ‘Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics’, by Daniel Wallace.  He includes fifty pages – entitled ‘The Article, Part I’ – which is a more complete treatment of the subject that many grammar books present and explains all the general uses of the article.  He actually has a ‘Part II’ which discusses some special issues with the article.  Fifteen pages of this second section apply directly to understanding this passage in John 1:1.  It is highly recommended for those who really desire an honest and thorough understanding of this passage.)

Source.

Besides t8 the following scriptures refer to Yeshua as God with the definite article.

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. John 20:28

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13

Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: 2 Peter 1:1

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. 1 John 5:20

WJ

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,12:09)

If this is true, then why did the 100s of scholars translate John 1:1 on Biblegateway.com and Blueletterbible.org as you say?

Because they assume that Jesus is God and Jesus is the Word.

So if they think there are 2 ways of looking at it, which one will they choose?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,12:09)

Another common confusion in John 1:1 comes from the fact that in Greek there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ (‘theos’) in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’. The confusion arises from an assumption that if there is no definite article in the Greek, then it must have an indefinite meaning and thus should be translated with the indefinite article “a”.

I am neither putting in THE or A.

I am leaving it the way it is.

JWs put in the A and Trinitarians put in THE.

I argue that both are not there.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,12:09)

They all translate it “The Word was God” or “God was the Word” They could have translated it “the Word was divine” or “the Word was a god” if what you say is true.

“In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.”
An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173

“The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine”
by Dr. James Moffatt

As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue's “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved.
-Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25.

As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue's “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved.
-Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25.

Of course the majority of people are blinded by the Trinity doctrine and that is why you have other biases such as 1 John 5:7 and other things.

Translators are not above bias.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,12:17)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,12:09) Another common confusion in John 1:1 comes from the fact that in Greek there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ (‘theos’) in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’.  The confusion arises from an assumption that if there is no definite article in the Greek, then it must have an indefinite meaning and thus should be translated with the indefinite article “a”. I am neither putting in THE or A. I am leaving it the way it is. JWs put in the A and Trinitarians put in THE. I argue that both are not there.

t8

Yes but your conclusion is the Word was divine and not “theos”.

You disagree with the translators and basically all the translations.

Do you have any Greek or Hebrew skills?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,12:09)

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. John 20:28

It's obvious. Jesus is not an attribute but a person.

But this still doesn't make Jesus the Almighty God.

Satan is a god and he is a person. He is THE God of this world.

You need to look at more than one thing here.

90% of people who are run over by trains are run over when they wait for a train to pass, then cross while unaware that a second train is coming the other way.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,12:27)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,12:09) They all translate it “The Word was God” or “God was the Word” They could have translated it “the Word was divine” or “the Word was a god” if what you say is true. “In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.” An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173 “The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine” by Dr. James Moffatt As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue's “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved. -Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25. As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue's “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved. -Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25. Of course the majority of people are blinded by the Trinity doctrine and that is why you have other biases such as 1 John 5:7 and other things. Translators are not above bias.

t8

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,12:27)

Translators are not above bias.

But of course you are, and the 100s of scholars that translated the scriptures in the many credible translations were all disingenuous.

Should we believe you over what is written?

I think not!

WJ

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,12:27)

t8 Yes but your conclusion is the Word was divine and not “theos”. You disagree with the translators and basically all the translations. Do you have any Greek or Hebrew skills?

I see it the way it is written. THE Word was theos.

I don't disagree with translators but Trinitarians.

It would be fair to say that most Christians and translators subscribe to the Trinity.

I am aware that Babylon has made the whole world drunk on her wine. Translators are not above being influenced by babylon.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,12:31)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,12:09) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. John 20:28 It's obvious. Jesus is not an attribute but a person. But this still doesn't make Jesus the Almighty God. Satan is a god and he is a person. He is THE God of this world. You need to look at more than one thing here. 90% of people who are run over by trains are run over when they wait for a train to pass, then cross while unaware that a second train is coming the other way.

t8

Can you give me an example where any of the Apostles used the term logos with the definite article in refering to any other being besides the arch enemy of God?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,12:33)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,12:27) t8 Yes but your conclusion is the Word was divine and not “theos”. You disagree with the translators and basically all the translations. Do you have any Greek or Hebrew skills? I see it the way it is written. THE Word was theos. I don't disagree with translators but Trinitarians. It would be fair to say that most Christians and translators subscribe to the Trinity. I am aware that Babylon has made the whole world drunk on her wine. Translators are not above being influenced by babylon.

t8

But you just quoted this…

Quote

“In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.” An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173 “The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine” by Dr. James Moffatt

I think you are the one drunk with the wine of your own pride in denying the translations and the Greek and Hebrew scholars who disagree with you, when you have no credentials at all for interpreting Greek or Hebrew.

Should we follow you and your adulterous interpretation of the word?

WJ

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,12:35)

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,12:31) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,12:09) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. John 20:28 It's obvious. Jesus is not an attribute but a person. But this still doesn't make Jesus the Almighty God. Satan is a god and he is a person. He is THE God of this world. You need to look at more than one thing here. 90% of people who are run over by trains are run over when they wait for a train to pass, then cross while unaware that a second train is coming the other way. t8 Can you give me an example where any of the Apostles used the term logos with the definite article in refering to any other being besides the arch enemy of God?

Logos cannot be compared to the title God.

Satan is called theos, so were judges, angels were called elohim. As far as I know, Logos isn't applied to them.

The term Logos also reflects the term dabar Yahweh” (“Word of God”) in the Old Testament. So look up where that is mentioned and you can answer your own question.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,12:40)

t8 But you just quoted this… Quote “In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.” An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173 “The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine” by Dr. James Moffatt I think you are the one drunk with the wine of your own pride in denying the translations and the Greek and Hebrew scholars who disagree with you, when you have no credentials at all for interpreting Greek or Hebrew. Should we follow you and your adulterous interpretation of the word? WJ

What are you going on about.

You said there are no bibles translated with the view that a quality is being referred as I mention, and I give you some examples of bibles and also scholars.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,12:42)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,12:35) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,12:31) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,12:09) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. John 20:28 It's obvious. Jesus is not an attribute but a person. But this still doesn't make Jesus the Almighty God. Satan is a god and he is a person. He is THE God of this world. You need to look at more than one thing here. 90% of people who are run over by trains are run over when they wait for a train to pass, then cross while unaware that a second train is coming the other way. t8 Can you give me an example where any of the Apostles used the term logos with the definite article in refering to any other being besides the arch enemy of God? Logos cannot be compared to the title God. Satan is called theos, so were judges, angels were called elohim. As far as I know, Logos isn't applied to them. The term Logos also reflects the term dabar Yahweh” (“Word of God”) in the Old Testament. So look up where that is mentioned and you can answer your own question.

t8

You didnt answer the question?

We are not talking about the OT. We are talking about the NT.

Give me one example where the word “theos” is ascribed to any other being with the definite article besides the arch enemy of God!

WJ

[Proclaimer]

Taken from Wikipedia.

After giving as a translation of John 1:1c “and divine (of the category divinity) was the Word,” Haenchen goes on to state: “In this instance, the verb 'was' ([en]) simply expresses predication. And the predicate noun must accordingly be more carefully observed: [the·os′] is not the same thing as [ho the·os′] ('divine' is not the same thing as 'God').” Other scholars, such as Philip B. Harner elaborate on the grammatical construction found here (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87). Apart from Jehovah's Witnesses and some others, the understanding of the language of the original makes the “Word” emphatically “God,” as the absence of the definite article makes the “Word” God by nature; ie, not 'a' god, but the Word was God.

Some scholars have suggested that John made creative use of double meaning in the word “Logos” to communicate to both Jews, who were familiar with the Wisdom tradition in Judaism, and Hellenic polytheism, especially followers of Philo (Hellenistic Judaism).[citation needed] Each of these two groups had its own history associated with the concept of the Logos, and each could understand John's use of the term from one or both of those contexts.

Emphasis is mine.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 15 2008,12:44)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2008,12:40) t8 But you just quoted this… Quote “In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.” An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173 “The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine” by Dr. James Moffatt I think you are the one drunk with the wine of your own pride in denying the translations and the Greek and Hebrew scholars who disagree with you, when you have no credentials at all for interpreting Greek or Hebrew. Should we follow you and your adulterous interpretation of the word? WJ What are you going on about. You said there are no bibles translated with the view that a quality is being referred as I mention, and I give you some examples of bibles and also scholars.

t8
So now you misrepresent my words.

I said there is no “credible translation”. And all of the translations disagree with you on biblegateway.com and blueletterbible.org.

[Author]

Posts