- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I found the following paragraph very interesting:
“The next point is that when John (and Matthew, Mark, and Luke also) clearly meant “God” when writing theos (the form of the Greek word which ends in ς), he always used the definite article (‘the’ in English – ‘ho’ in Greek): ho theos. (You can tell that o in NT Greek is ‘ho’ if it has a tiny c-shaped mark above it – ὁ.)”
So in all the gospels when they meant “God” (alone without “a”) they always used “ho theos”, and all bible translations render it without the “a”, except at John 1:1 where it does not have “ho” in front of “theos” but yet it is still translated without the “a”.. ? Which is why it is probably a mis-translation.
I just want to make sure I am picking up what you are putting down. So basically, based on the translation of John’s writing, if the following clause:
En arche en ho logos and ho logos en pros ton theon and theos en ho logos
was actually –
En arche en ho logos and ho logos en pros ton theon and ho theos en ho logos
Only then it would be correct to render it “the word was God”… ?
Umb5 and tigger2,
It is the modern custom to call God by the name God but I am not sure if that custom existed in the first century. In John 1:1 and in other passages of the NT the word ho should have been translated to a English definite instead of dropped so it is more like “The Word is with the God and the Word is God …” or “The Word is with God and the Word is a God …”
The lack of an indefinite in Koine Greek either means they did not have the concept that requires an indefinite or it was melded with another concept English may or may not have. It is impossible to translate the letter of Koine Greek to the letter of English. The best that can be done is translate the spirit of the words from one language to another.
tigger,
So, we find in John 10:33 that John has used the form for ‘God’ (or a ‘god’ in some translations) which is used as a direct object (theoN) not the theoS form that needs to be examined throughout John’s writings.
Some Trinitarians are fine with the translation of “a god” as all they do is capitalize the word God so it become “a God” as thy already Jesus is one of the three Gods the comes the individual God. I have no difficulty with that translation as Philo already called the word that comes out of God’s mouth an archangel. He was personifying the Word of God as is done in Scriptures elsewhere. Your main opposition will be Traditionalist that object to changing the letter of the English version they endorse.
As far as I know the ending of “on” and “os” determine where the word god falls in a clause and little if anything else.
UMB5 wrote,
“So in all the gospels when they meant “God” (alone without “a”) they always used “ho theos”, and all bible translations render it without the “a”, except at John 1:1 where it does not have “ho” in front of “theos” but yet it is still translated without the “a”.. ? Which is why it is probably a mis-translation.
“I just want to make sure I am picking up what you are putting down. So basically, based on the translation of John’s writing, if the following clause:
“En arche en ho logos and ho logos en pros ton theon and theos en ho logos
“was actually –
“En arche en ho logos and ho logos en pros ton theon and ho theos en ho logos
“Only then it would be correct to render it ‘the word was God’… ?”
………………….
It can also be written: En arche en ho logos and ho logos en pros ton theon and ho logos en ho theos and would also mean “the word was God.” Only those NT Greek clauses which had ho theos would mean the word was God.
Kerwin wrote:
“Umb5 and tigger2,
“It is the modern custom to call God by the name God but I am not sure if that custom existed in the first century. In John 1:1 and in other passages of the NT the word ho should have been translated to a English definite instead of dropped so it is more like “The Word is with the God and the Word is God …” or “The Word is with God and the Word is a God …”
“The lack of an indefinite in Koine Greek either means they did not have the concept that requires an indefinite or it was melded with another concept English may or may not have. It is impossible to translate the letter of Koine Greek to the letter of English. The best that can be done is translate the spirit of the words from one language to another.”
…………………………………..
If you would please read what I have written in Lessons A and B, this would all be made clear. For example, I wrote in Lesson B:
“It is basic knowledge for NT Greek beginners that there is no indefinite article in the Greek. So a count noun without the article (anarthrous) in the Greek is properly translated into English with an indefinite article (‘a,’ ‘an’).”
An important exception noted by trinitarian Greek scholars themselves (“prepositional” constructions) is also noted.
Kerwin wrote:
“tigger and Umb5,
“John 1:6 uses theou without the ho to mean God.”
…………………………
I have already pointed out that the other forms (theou, theon, etc.) are inconsistent with their article usage and, therefore, like”prepositional” constructions, are improper examples. We are interested only in the examples of theos (which consistently uses the definite article to indicate ‘God’ in English [‘the god’ in NT Greek]).
Again, I am very pleased that you are responding, but I wish you would carefully read what I have written first.
Hi,
All this is useful.
But of course it is by comparison with other scriptures we find the truth
2Cor 13.1
can you show similar usage?
We find the truth of John 1:1c by examining all parallel constructions in John‘s writings and grammar (as explained in Lesson A).
Tigger,
theos is the same word as the theou and theon so any noun whose form ends with “s” may requite the definite article.
Tigger…….GOD AND HIS WORDS ARE ONE AND THE SAMETHING, Jesus said the word he was telling us was not “HIS” words, buth the words of him who sent him,so how do you conclude JESUS IS THE WORD HIMSELF? Jesus said the FATHER WAS “IN” HIM SHOWING HIM EVERYTHING TO SAY AND DO, DO YOU BELIEVE JESUS WAS THE GOD THAT WAS “IN” HIM? NO SCRIPTURE SAYS JESUS WAS A GOD OF ANYKIND, JESUS CERTANLY NEVER SAID HE WAS A GOD,BUTTHAT HEHAD A GOD AND IT WAS THE SAME GOD AS OURS WAS.
YOUR USING TRINITARIAN TEACHINGS and REASONING TO DRAW TRINITARIAN CONCLUSIONS, that is a biased conclusion, you are not taking all s ripture into concederation on the subject of a triune GOD. IT IS THE SUM OF GOD’S WORD THAT IS TRUTH, WE MUST GATHER ALL SCRIPTURES TO MAKE A PROPER DETERMINATION OF A TRUTH. This is espically when you are taking words that have been translated into three different languages ,Aramaic, Greek, English and espically if translated by biased trinitarian believers. IMO
peace and love to you and yours. ………………….gene
GeneBalthrop wrote:
“Tigger…….GOD AND HIS WORDS ARE ONE AND THE SAMETHING, Jesus said the word he was telling us was not “HIS” words, buth the words of him who sent him,so how do you conclude JESUS IS THE WORD HIMSELF? Jesus said the FATHER WAS “IN” HIM SHOWING HIM EVERYTHING TO SAY AND DO, DO YOU BELIEVE JESUS WAS THE GOD THAT WAS “IN” HIM? NO SCRIPTURE SAYS JESUS WAS A GOD OF ANYKIND, JESUS CERTANLY NEVER SAID HE WAS A GOD,BUTTHAT HEHAD A GOD AND IT WAS THE SAME GOD AS OURS WAS.
YOUR USING TRINITARIAN TEACHINGS and REASONING TO DRAW TRINITARIAN CONCLUSIONS, that is a biased conclusion, you are not taking all s ripture into concederation on the subject of a triune GOD. IT IS THE SUM OF GOD’S WORD THAT IS TRUTH, WE MUST GATHER ALL SCRIPTURES TO MAKE A PROPER DETERMINATION OF A TRUTH. This is espically when you are taking words that have been translated into three different languages ,Aramaic, Greek, English and espically if translated by biased trinitarian believers. IMO”
………………..
Gene,
If you would just carefully read the first few lessons, you could never honestly say that I believe Jesus is equally God! I am obviously not trinitarian!
John 1:1c says that the Word (ho logos) was a god. I really don’t care in this discussion if anyone believes the Word was a pre-existing person or not. But I am concerned about what John really intended when he wrote John 1:1c. And I have found that John’s very grammar and usage demands that it meant that the Word is a god!
I am not here examining whether God is a trinity (or binity) or not – just how John 1:1c should be honestly translated according to the words of John himself!!
Kerwin wrote:
“Tigger,
theos is the same word as the theou and theon so any noun whose form ends with “s” may requite the definite article.”
……………………
Kerwin,
John 1:1c uses the nominative form ‘theos.’ That is one important reason why we need to see John uses this same case throughout his writings. Another important reason is that the nominative case (when not further modified by a possessive pronoun or “prepositional phrase” [such as ‘theos OF Jesus’ or ‘theos TO us’]) is consistent in its need to have the definite article when intended for ‘God’ in John’s writings.
Other cases such as the genitive (‘theou’ – ‘of God’) take the article irregularly (even when intended for God) and, therefore are not honest examples when determining what is intended by article use.
So, as the first step, we must examine all the uses of the nominative case ‘THEOS’ found in all of John’s writings to see what was intended at John 1:1c. It would prove nothing to examine other cases. ‘Theou,’ for example frequently does not use the article for ‘God,’ but we can find numerous other places where it does use the article for ‘God’ (tou theou).
How can you Know that?
The ‘a’ was not in the original text.
The Holy Spirit does not add the ‘a’.
Man adds the ‘a’.She can’t know that. No one can know either way on this one based on the scripture itself.
(But tiven that no indefinite article exists in the Greek, if you see an “a” in the Greek scriptures you know it was “added,” as you say.)This verse really does depend on if God is a trinity or not. If he is then it would be okay to translate t that way. If scripture says he ain’t the it would be okay to translate it as “a” God. The problem is, no one enters this scripture with a neutral stance. The bias you come in with will determine how it may or may not be translated. I come to this conclusion after 3000 posts and 10 years on this subject. It is pointless debating it. No one should ever start with this scripture to prove or disprove the trinity.
Hi Tigger,
When YOU use the term ‘a god’ – what exactly do YOU mean?
I ask, because I asked if YOU were ‘a god’ and you replied ‘No’.So defining the term that YOU use (a god) becomes necessary to any discussion
we may have of your seven part (or maybe five) lesson series you studied on John 1:1._______________
God bless
Ed Jdavid,
My problem with adding an indefinite is that it is not a Koine Greek concept. They did not see a need for it. For example when the islanders thought Paul was “a god” the Koine Greek would have said he was god. In short he has the characteristics of a god. Paul’s lack of objection shows us they did not believe he was a deity to be worshiped.
There is also a place where translators state the Pharisees said “being a human” but it would have been more accurate to say “you being human”.
I do not know if there is any place in the New Testament is mandated as English has the same concept that Koine Greek uses instead.
Other that technical issue it does not make a significant difference on how the verses are interpreted.
tigger,
I looked through a few verses of John 1 and the nominative form of a noun is always proceeded by a definite article that matches its gender and value. All I can say is that hypothetically it may be that a rule of Koine Greek is that a nominative noun is always preceded by an indefinite nominative article with the same gender and value.
@Ed J
I believe Lesson B tells you that “a god” and “gods” are used in scripture for God’s angels, earthly kings, and judges. There is also a very long list of sources there where I found Trinitarian scholars confirming that fact.
….
Kerwin wrote:
“I looked through a few verses of John 1 and the nominative form of a noun is always proceeded by a definite article that matches its gender and value. All I can say is that hypothetically it may be that a rule of Koine Greek is that a nominative noun is always preceded by an indefinite nominative article with the same gender and value.”
…
Yes, quite often the nominative is definite and uses the definite article in Greek and English translation.
If you only looked at a few verses, you have no idea how John uses nominative nouns without the article and how they are translated into English in nearly all Trinitarian-translated Bibles. Even John 1:6 gives a prime example in ‘anthropos’ (‘man’) which is among those listed in Lesson B. https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John%201:6
Apparently you still have not read the first two lessons or you wouldn’t be making such errors.
@Ed J
I believe Lesson B tells you that “a god” and “gods” are used in scripture for (1)God’s angels, (2)earthly kings, and (3)judges. There is also a very long list of sources there where I found Trinitarian scholars confirming that fact.
Hi Tigger,
You mean the definition of the Hebrew word “EL-o-heem”;
“EL-o-heem” does indeed define as all three of those,
but also as #4…4) God
Great, now we’re getting somewhere.
Now which of the “four” (4) definitions do you think
JEHOVAH was referring to when he said the following…”ye are even my witnesses.
Is there ’a God’ beside me? yea,
there is ‘no God’[b]; I know not any”[/b] (Isaiah 44:8)(1)God’s angels? I think it’s safe to say there are more than one of these
(2)earthly kings? And we know there are more than one of these
(3)judges? And there’s lots and lots of these
(4) God? (looks like a fit)Oh no, Isaiah 44:8 (along with definition #4) renders your conclusion
of ‘a god’ in John 1:1 as ineffectual and disharmonious with Isaiah 44:8. Sorry ):_______________
God bless
Ed J
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
