- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2013,07:33) Kerwin, The word “tis” is an “enclitic indefinite pronoun” – according to Strong's. This is in line with the info you posted. It is not the indefinite article “a”, which is probably why the NET Bible doesn't translate it as “a” one single time – out of the 448 times they translate it.
Here is the list of how they translate “tis”:
some 91, anyone 83, someone 54, one 25, anything 24, something 20, any 16, Some 9, a man 7, a certain 6, what 6, a person 4, anyone's 4, certain 4, several 3, whatever 3, a man's 2, Some people 2, some men 2, Someone 2, others 2, Whoever 2, any one 1, A man 1, A certain one 1, One of 1, A certain 1, Whatever 1, a kind 1, There 1, What 1, a single thing 1, man 1, somebody 1, some people's 1, some people 1, person 1, someone's 1, spoke out 1, who 1, where 1, to anyone 1, things 1, ones 1, one of them 1, with some 1, for some 1, for others 1, for any 1, of a certain 1, of some 1, one of 1, on some 1, of them 1, certain people 1
Now let's compare that with John 1:6, where we DO add an indefinite article:
There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John.
Do you think that we in English need the added “a” in that verse? John the Baptist was indeed “a man”, right?
There are 448 instances of the pronoun “tis” in the NT…….. compared to THOUSANDS of times we have to add the indefinite article “a” into the Greek scriptures. Comparing the pronoun “tis” to the indefinite article “a” is like comparing apples to oranges.
So are you willing to delete the thousands of added indefinite articles in the entire NT – just to avoid the Word being “a god” in John 1:1?
Because unless you ARE willing to delete every last one of them, you have no leg to stand on in the case of 1:1.
Mike,“A man” is one choice, but there are other indefinites in the list.
I am thinking of looking at it more.
As for John 1:6 it is left ambiguous as is god later in the same sentence.
“There came man who was sent from god; his name was John.” There is no definite or indefinite article on either man or god. Both are inferred by the context.
Let's go through the entire NT, removing the added indefinite articles, okay Kerwin? Here's the first one:
Matthew 1:20
When he had contemplated this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream……..Let's change that to, When he had contemplated this, angel of the Lord appeared to him in dream….
Does that work for you?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2013,08:19) Let's go through the entire NT, removing the added indefinite articles, okay Kerwin? Here's the first one: Matthew 1:20
When he had contemplated this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream……..Let's change that to, When he had contemplated this, angel of the Lord appeared to him in dream….
Does that work for you?
Miike,That is another example of the vagueness of the non inferred Koine Greek.
You seemed to have missed my words that go:
Quote “There came man who was sent from god; his name was John.” There is no definite or indefinite article on either man or god. Both are inferred by the context. I believe there are three possible translations to English, “an angel”, “the angel”, and “angel”. There is not a definite article before “of Lord” either. There is also no “a” before dream. The translators placed them there as they thought best. Again they seem clearly inferred by the context.
John 1:1 seems to lack that accompanying context.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2013,13:19) Quote (t8 @ April 11 2013,03:44) …….if Satan is the God of this world, then yes he is a god as well to an English speaker at least.
Are you implying that John the Baptist is not “a man” unless there is a scripture somewhere that calls him “the man”?And Gabriel cannot be “an angel” unless some scripture identifies him as “the angel”?
That makes no sense to me at all, t8. But it seems like you're saying you'll only acknowledge Jesus as “A god” if it is said somewhere that he is “THE god”.
Okay. As Kerwin pointed out, Jesus is called “THE god” in Hebrews 1:8. Will you now accept that Jesus is a god?
Sure we both know that John the Baptist is a man. That is not even worth discussing because it is obvious to all.I think the real point is that Greek doesn't have the indefinite article because you use the definite article or it is inferred in the context. Both should be sufficient to explain all without needing the indefinite article. That is Greek at least.
In English we use it to refer to not just man, but a specific man for example. But the reference is not automatically taken to mean that it is singling out a person or being because it can refer to the nature of the word you are using. Judas being called a devil is an example.
Cain and Abel are adam/man. That works. It just so happens that Cain is man too. Where in English we would change it to say, Cain is a man or was a man. And why does 'Cain is man' work in Greek? Because using the name Cain tells us that it is a particular human being. If Cain meant a tribe, then given the understanding of what Cain represents, it would then be a group and that would be understood by the context.
So the argument is not that Cain is not a man, but that when we say in Greek, Cain is man, are we actually saying that Cain is a man or Cain is an individual of the nature 'man'? IN Greek it is the word Cain that would tell us it was a single person.
Further, if we say 'the Word was a god' in English that would be pretty much saying the Word was one god because the indefinite article is used in the sense of the number one as we do not use it with two or more. And yes even though The Word is one particular entity that is divine or from God, is John 1:1c actually saying that the Word is one/a god or is that meant to be understood by “LOGOS” instead?
To me the issue is this. If we put in the word 'a', then a Trinitarian is entitled to put in the word 'the'. And why could they do that? Because both are equally added in to make the sentence intelligible in English. This is why I think you will be arguing this for the rest of your natural life. It might just boil down to this point in the end.
Wikipedia has this to say about the subject. I think this is one of the best explanations I have heard to date on John 1:1c. The conclusion according to below is that you cannot just read John 1:1c and get a full understanding of it because it cannot stand without explanation.
The proper rendering into English from the original Koine Greek text continues to be a source of vigorous debate among Bible translators.
…
The most common rendering in English is:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”…
“[It] is clear that in the translation “the Word was God,” the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in normal English usage “God” is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, “the Word was God” suggests that “the Word” and “God” are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity… The rendering cannot stand without explanation.”
Translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed render part of the verse as “…and the Word was divine.”
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.'”Other variations of rendering John 1:1 also exist:
1966, 2001 The Good News Bible reads: “…and he was the same as God.”
1970, 1989 The Revised English Bible reads: “…and what God was, the Word was.”
14th century – Wycliffe's Bible (from the 4th century Latin Vulgate) reads: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word.
1956 The Wuest Expanded Translation reads: “In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity”
1808 “and the Word was a god” – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text , London.
1864 “the LOGOS was God, This was in the Beginning with God” A New Emphatic Version (right hand column)
1864 “and a god was the Word” (left hand column interlinear reading) The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
1935 “and the Word was divine” – The Bible—An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
1955 “so the Word was divine” – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
1984 “and the Word was a god” – New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, a rendition by the New World Translation Committee, published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. An interlinear translation of the New Testament was published in 1969 under the name The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures.
1978 “and godlike sort was the Logos” – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.
1975 “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word” Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany
T8,
Whenever anyone insists that a Koine Greek word has a Trinitarian specific definition my eyes roll up in my head. Other than that the article seems OK.
Quote (kerwin @ April 11 2013,23:11) Again they seem clearly inferred by the context.
Bingo Kerwin!And since we, in English, don't say, came to him in dream, context surely seems to dictate that it was A dream. Why? Because there had been no particular dream mentioned before. If there had, then we could say “THE dream” – referring back to that particular dream that was mentioned. But since none was mentioned, context dictates “A dream”, doesn't it?
Now, in John 1:1, there are also three possibilities – EACH ONE OF THEM accurate based solely on grammar. Those three are:
1. THE god
2. A god
3. Qualitatively godThe first one is ruled out by common sense, ie: THE god cannot possibly be said to have been with THE god.
The last two possibilities are really identical, for anyone who is “qualitatively god” is equally “a god”.
So let context dictate, Kerwin. (As opposed to your own personal wishes, which are what HAS BEEN dictating your understanding of scripture thus far.)
Quote (t8 @ April 12 2013,00:50) Judas being called a devil is an example.
And what exactly is “a devil”, t8? A devil is a “false accuser”, and a “slanderer” – according to Strong.Was Judas actually a “false accuser”? If he was, then he was actually “a devil”, right? So no need to imagine that Jesus really meant that Judas “had qualities that the Devil has”. He could call him “A devil”, and mean exactly what he said, right?
t8, when will you address Heb 1:8? Is Jesus identified as a god in that verse?
Quote (t8 @ April 12 2013,00:50) If we put in the word 'a', then a Trinitarian is entitled to put in the word 'the'. And why could they do that? Because both are equally added in to make the sentence intelligible in English. This is why I think you will be arguing this for the rest of your natural life. It might just boil down to this point in the end.
So you are saying that even though we have to add many definite and indefinite articles into the Greek to make the scriptures understandable in English, we shouldn't add any in John 1:1, because if we add our choice, we give “ammo” to the Trinitarians to add their choice?
You may not have noticed, but virtually every translation says “the Word was God”. What do you think “God” – with a capped “G” – is saying, t8? Of course it's saying “THE god”. That how WE, in English, specify that we're talking about THE god……….. we cap the “G”.
So they are already adding the definite article, t8. Can't you see that?
Secondly, how could adding the indefinite article (which DOES make sense since Jesus IS a god who is not THE God) help them feel “entitled” to add the definite article? Can THE god actually be with THE god? Of course not. So THEIR addition of a definite article makes them look like they've lost their minds and are speaking gobbledygook.
On the other hand, MY addition of an indefinite article makes perfect sense, and takes very little explanation. Here is the explanation: The scriptures teach of many gods – and identify Jesus as one of those many gods. Jesus was with God Almighty in the beginning, since he was the beginning of the creation by God. And scripture says all things were created through him. So how far of a stretch is it, really, to understand that Jesus was this other god who was with God Almighty in the beginning before all things were created through him?
t8, just address Hebrews 1:8, and this thing can be settled.
To all,
John 1:1-3
Moffatt, New TranslationQuote The Logos existed in the very beginning,
the Logos was with God,
the Logos was divine.
He was with God in the very beginning:
through him all existence came into being,
no existence came into being apart from him.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 13 2013,09:56) Quote (kerwin @ April 11 2013,23:11) Again they seem clearly inferred by the context.
Bingo Kerwin!And since we, in English, don't say, came to him in dream, context surely seems to dictate that it was A dream. Why? Because there had been no particular dream mentioned before. If there had, then we could say “THE dream” – referring back to that particular dream that was mentioned. But since none was mentioned, context dictates “A dream”, doesn't it?
Now, in John 1:1, there are also three possibilities – EACH ONE OF THEM accurate based solely on grammar. Those three are:
1. THE god
2. A god
3. Qualitatively godThe first one is ruled out by common sense, ie: THE god cannot possibly be said to have been with THE god.
The last two possibilities are really identical, for anyone who is “qualitatively god” is equally “a god”.
So let context dictate, Kerwin. (As opposed to your own personal wishes, which are what HAS BEEN dictating your understanding of scripture thus far.)
Mike,There was a particular God mentioned first. That is “the God” in ” “the Word was with the God”.
Quote (kerwin @ April 11 2013,08:43) T, Jesus' relationship to Jehovah, angels, men, and beast is Heir. It is because of this likeness and others he is called the Son.
Jehovah does not beget sons as his creations do.
Kerwinif you would know the scriptures as a whole ,you would understand it better,
your believe is contrary to scriptures ,and become repetitiveness
to going back to quote the scriptures and plan of God again ,IT IS CLEAR TO ME YOU ARE REJECTING THAT THE ONLY SON OF GOD CAME DOWN FROM THE FATHER (GOD) TO GIVE UP HIS LIVE FOR OUR SINS ,AND TO GIVE US A WAY BACK TO HID FATHER .
Quote (kerwin @ April 13 2013,01:09) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 13 2013,09:56) Quote (kerwin @ April 11 2013,23:11) Again they seem clearly inferred by the context.
Bingo Kerwin!And since we, in English, don't say, came to him in dream, context surely seems to dictate that it was A dream. Why? Because there had been no particular dream mentioned before. If there had, then we could say “THE dream” – referring back to that particular dream that was mentioned. But since none was mentioned, context dictates “A dream”, doesn't it?
Now, in John 1:1, there are also three possibilities – EACH ONE OF THEM accurate based solely on grammar. Those three are:
1. THE god
2. A god
3. Qualitatively godThe first one is ruled out by common sense, ie: THE god cannot possibly be said to have been with THE god.
The last two possibilities are really identical, for anyone who is “qualitatively god” is equally “a god”.
So let context dictate, Kerwin. (As opposed to your own personal wishes, which are what HAS BEEN dictating your understanding of scripture thus far.)
Mike,There was a particular God mentioned first. That is “the God” in ” “the Word was with the God”.
Okay. But now reread the part of my post above that I've supersized. THAT, my friend, is your CONTEXT.Let's assume that “THE god” the Word was WITH is the entire being of God Almighty Himself. (Why would we assume anything differently?)
So if we are to add the DEFINITE article to the theos in part c, the following must be true: The ENTIRE being of God Almighty Himself can be WITH the ENTIRE being of God Almighty Himself.
Our God-given common sense tells us that the above statement CANNOT be true.
Do YOU think it is true?
Quote (kerwin @ April 13 2013,13:02) To all, John 1:1-3
Moffatt, New TranslationQuote The Logos existed in the very beginning,
the Logos was with God,
the Logos was divine.
He was with God in the very beginning:
through him all existence came into being,
no existence came into being apart from him.
KGod as no beginning ,so what beginning do they talk about ,???
Is it not the beginning of creation
YesSo who the bible says was there in that beginning
? And through all things came to be created ?It could diffinettly not be God the creator ,so it must be someone else that was created the very first ,and then through which all other things were created ,
Quote (terraricca @ April 14 2013,20:15) Quote (kerwin @ April 13 2013,13:02) To all, John 1:1-3
Moffatt, New TranslationQuote The Logos existed in the very beginning,
the Logos was with God,
the Logos was divine.
He was with God in the very beginning:
through him all existence came into being,
no existence came into being apart from him.
KGod as no beginning ,so what beginning do they talk about ,???
Is it not the beginning of creation
YesSo who the bible says was there in that beginning
? And through all things came to be created ?It could definitely not be God the creator ,so it must be someone else that was created the very first ,and then through which all other things were created ,
T,It is a third possible translation of the “logos was theos” .
I have heard your interpretation.
Just that one clause of John 1:1 has three possible translations. Those translations can be interpreted in one or more ways.
This is my understanding
The Utterance existed in the very beginning,
the Utterance was with God,
the Utterance was divine.
It was with God in the very beginning:
through it all existence came into being,
no existence came into being apart from it.A question about yours. It is written:
Quote The Logos existed in the very beginning Why doesn't it read The Logos was created in the very beginning if the Spirit desires to impart that information?
Quote (terraricca @ April 14 2013,07:57) Quote (kerwin @ April 11 2013,08:43) T, Jesus' relationship to Jehovah, angels, men, and beast is Heir. It is because of this likeness and others he is called the Son.
Jehovah does not beget sons as his creations do.
Kerwinif you would know the scriptures as a whole ,you would understand it better,
your believe is contrary to scriptures ,and become repetitiveness
to going back to quote the scriptures and plan of God again ,IT IS CLEAR TO ME YOU ARE REJECTING THAT THE ONLY SON OF GOD CAME DOWN FROM THE FATHER (GOD) TO GIVE UP HIS LIVE FOR OUR SINS ,AND TO GIVE US A WAY BACK TO HID FATHER .
T,You appear to disagree with the statement:
Quote Jehovah does not beget sons as his creations do. If that is so then consider:
John 1:13
King James Version (KJV)13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Do you agree that “born” in “born of God” is a likeness to birth?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 14 2013,08:50) Quote (kerwin @ April 13 2013,01:09) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 13 2013,09:56) Quote (kerwin @ April 11 2013,23:11) Again they seem clearly inferred by the context.
Bingo Kerwin!And since we, in English, don't say, came to him in dream, context surely seems to dictate that it was A dream. Why? Because there had been no particular dream mentioned before. If there had, then we could say “THE dream” – referring back to that particular dream that was mentioned. But since none was mentioned, context dictates “A dream”, doesn't it?
Now, in John 1:1, there are also three possibilities – EACH ONE OF THEM accurate based solely on grammar. Those three are:
1. THE god
2. A god
3. Qualitatively godThe first one is ruled out by common sense, ie: THE god cannot possibly be said to have been with THE god.
The last two possibilities are really identical, for anyone who is “qualitatively god” is equally “a god”.
So let context dictate, Kerwin. (As opposed to your own personal wishes, which are what HAS BEEN dictating your understanding of scripture thus far.)
Mike,There was a particular God mentioned first. That is “the God” in ” “the Word was with the God”.
Okay. But now reread the part of my post above that I've supersized. THAT, my friend, is your CONTEXT.Let's assume that “THE god” the Word was WITH is the entire being of God Almighty Himself. (Why would we assume anything differently?)
So if we are to add the DEFINITE article to the theos in part c, the following must be true: The ENTIRE being of God Almighty Himself can be WITH the ENTIRE being of God Almighty Himself.
Our God-given common sense tells us that the above statement CANNOT be true.
Do YOU think it is true?
Mike,This issue is being addressed in another conversation on the thread in the beginning.
Note: I am going by my known to be flawed memory on the thread name.
Quote (kerwin @ April 14 2013,23:33) Quote (terraricca @ April 14 2013,07:57) Quote (kerwin @ April 11 2013,08:43) T, Jesus' relationship to Jehovah, angels, men, and beast is Heir. It is because of this likeness and others he is called the Son.
Jehovah does not beget sons as his creations do.
Kerwinif you would know the scriptures as a whole ,you would understand it better,
your believe is contrary to scriptures ,and become repetitiveness
to going back to quote the scriptures and plan of God again ,IT IS CLEAR TO ME YOU ARE REJECTING THAT THE ONLY SON OF GOD CAME DOWN FROM THE FATHER (GOD) TO GIVE UP HIS LIVE FOR OUR SINS ,AND TO GIVE US A WAY BACK TO HID FATHER .
T,You appear to disagree with the statement:
Quote Jehovah does not beget sons as his creations do. If that is so then consider:
John 1:13
King James Version (KJV)13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Do you agree that “born” in “born of God” is a likeness to birth?
KThose that are talked about are the 144k the only redeemed of the earth,
Those are not ; THE WORD of God ,
And John did not say that all believers will be spiritual sons of God but some
And you pick your answer to make it easy on you ,
You try to tell me the entire picture with only a few pieces of the puzzle
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
