- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Ed J wrote:
“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’; I know not any” (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”………………
Ed,
The Greek ‘theos’ is also used in the same way.
But as for Isaiah 44:8, the word for God is eloah. This can be used for “God or a ‘god,’ but it clearly means ‘God’ in this verse.
Yes, Jehovah is saying in 44:8 (as he does in other places) that he alone is God. There is no one else. But in other places scripture show that there are gods! There are many gods who are false gods and there are many who are gods in the service of God (Jehovah alone).
In English translations the initial capital letter is very important to the meaning. There is only one God (the Father alone),but there are many gods.
‘A god’ at John 1:1c is more sensible than ‘God.’ More important for this discussion is the fact that John’s own grammar and usage prove it! I’m sorry that you won’t even give it a chance, but that is certainly your choice.
So, I’m back to asking: Will anyone here carefully study what I have written and then comment about it?
Hi Tigger,
“The Word” is God’s “HolySpirit” rather than Christ, and therefore “God” not ‘a god’.
“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven
or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But
to us there is but one God, the Father” (1 Cor 8:5-6)To this YOU say both “yes” and “no”
depending which verse you are comparing it to.
I only say yes, as there are no ‘god’s besides JEHOVAH.
No ‘a god’ in John 1:1 – “The Word” was God and still is God!“ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said,
I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God” (2 Cor 6:16)_______________
God bless
Ed JIn English translations the initial capital letter is very important to the meaning. There is only one God (the Father alone), but there are many gods.
‘A god’ at John 1:1c is more sensible than ‘God.’ More important for this discussion is the fact that John’s own grammar and usage prove it! I’m sorry that you won’t even give it a chance, but that is certainly your choice.
So, I’m back to asking: Will anyone here carefully study what I have written and then comment about it?
Hi Tigger,
When Jesus said ‘ye are gods’ (to the Pharisees)
who are these ‘gods’ he was referring to?I ask because before I asked before if you were ‘a god’ and
you said no – so who are these ‘gods’ then if not “God’s Children”?_______________
God bless
Ed J‘A god’ at John 1:1c is more sensible than ‘God.’
It is only more sensible to you because “The Word” (according to your preconceived idea) is Christ.
When you understand that “The Word” is God’s HolySpirit – “The Word was God” will make more sense._______________
God bless
Ed Jtigger,
I read what you said but I find it wise to test all teachings. So far I have found nowhere where a nominative noun is preceded by the definite article. There are a lot of nominative nouns and I have not looked them all up so I cannot say for sure that they are all accompanied by definite articles.
Kerwin,
I’m glad you are (sort of) examining John’s usage, but you obviously are not carefully reading what I have written!
PLEASE read my first post on this page which ends with: “Apparently you still have not read the first two lessons or you wouldn’t be making such errors.” Nor have you clicked on the link in that post.
If you don’t even read my responses to you, how can I expect you to carefully examine the Lessons that this discussion is solely concerned with (which you obviously have not done)?
Tigger,
I dropped the not.
So far I have found nowhere where a nominative noun is not preceded by the definite article.
Sorry about that.
Kerwin wrote:
“Tigger,
“I dropped the not.
“So far I have found nowhere where a nominative noun is not preceded by the definite article.
“Sorry about that.”
……………………….
But that’s what I’m referring to. You have not read Lesson B which gives a number of examples of the nominative noun anthropos without the article being translated “a man.” In the post I referred to above, I even gave you a link to an interlinear which shows John 1:6 which is translated as “a man.”
If you wish to discuss the Seven Lessons, YOU MUST READ THEM FIRST.
In my full study of John 1:1c, I have listed all the predicate nouns (not all nouns of course) found in John’s writings. If you examine the list you will find that many of them are preceded by ‘an.’ which means that they are nominative nouns that do not have the definite article. Notice how many nominative case nouns do not use the article there. The list is found in the Appendix of the main study:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/def-part-3-appendix.html
Tigger,
The Koine Greek definite is not the equivalent of our definite as in order to be a nominative there must be a definite preceding it. I looked at some other examples and saw no exceptions. Even with name the Greek language speakers would say rough equivalent of the Tigger when addressing you in the nominative. From the evidence I have seen so far the words ho theos merely indicate the noun is a nominative.
Tigger,
I am just addressing the following words from the study you present.
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.)
Since it is a masculine nominative singular noun it is always preceded by the definite article ho. There are multiple definite articles in Koine Greek.
It is also ho logos.
Tigger,
So in John 1:6 you found an instance when a normative is used without a definite article and I do not see a way to say the same idea in English without an indefinite article.
Of course that means nothing as John 2:10 uses a normative without a definite article and translates it without an indefinite article.
If I keep looking there may be a case where a nominative without a definite article is translated to as having one but that finding or the opposite would be irrelevant.
Kerwin wrote:
“Tigger,
“The Koine Greek definite is not the equivalent of our definite as in order to be a nominative there must be a definite preceding it. I looked at some other examples and saw no exceptions. Even with name the Greek language speakers would say rough equivalent of <i>the Tigger</i> when addressing you in the nominative. From the evidence I have seen so far the words <i>ho theos</i> merely indicate the noun is a nominative.”
…………..
If you will please look at the information I have already given you… IF you actually examine it, you will see that there are MANY nominative case nouns which do NOT have the definite article.
The exceptions to the proper examples include the most important one given to you in Lesson A: when the nominative is a part of a prepositional phrase (‘man of Israel’; ‘house of God’; ‘God to you,’ etc.). Half the time such phrases will use the definite article and half the time they will not. Therefore they are not proper examples for analyzing the use of articles with nominative case count nouns that do not include such phrases.
Other nominative case nouns which are not proper for examining John’s usage at John 1:1c include non-count nouns, abstract nouns, proper names, and numeral-modified nouns. These exceptions may or may not use the article whether they are meant to be definite or not!
But don’t worry, there are hundreds of PROPER examples in John’s writings. IF you will actually read what I have written in my last few posts (especially the link at the top of this page) AND, at least, Lessons A and B, you will see some of them.
As for theos, I have actually, carefully, gone through ALL of John’s writings and found that all uses of ho theos which do not include the above exceptions (e.g., “ho theos OF….”) are intended for “God.” Those that do not have the definite article do not refer to “God,” but, in accord with John’s grammar and usage (and all the writings of the other Gospel writers) they mean “a god” and are applied to Jesus or other God-appointed men.
John 2:10 uses the modifier pas which is rendered here as “every.” So ‘every man’ is still indefinite. In effect, it is a numeral modified noun.
Tigger,
It sounds like you are discarding those variations that disagree with your conclusion. Some Trinitarians believe God is God’s proper name and that is one your discard.
Tigger,
In John 18:13 the words ēn archiereus correspond to ēn theos in John 1:1 which reveals that those Trinitarians that claim God describes the qualities of the word have a case.
There is also an instance where the word ēn preceding a nominative is translated “was a”.
Though we see these things differently that difference was either not evident to the Greek speakers of that day or something they revealed using context.
It sounds like you are discarding those variations that disagree with your conclusion. Some Trinitarians believe God is God’s proper name and that is one your discard.
I thought Trinitarians believed that Jesus was Gods name. God is not a proper name, it’s a title, right? Reading the lesson, and all the comments I had to go back and relearn some things in order to understand. i.e nomintives, and predicates, etc..(don’t judge) and yes..it does seem more likely than not that it should be rendered “a god”, but I still keep going back to the reasoning that the creator and Almighty God gave me. You simply can not be with God, and be God at the same time. I refuse to believe that God, knowing how confusing that is would fail to give me a brain that can grasp the mystery of that and then tell me that in order to gain everlasting life, I need to know who he is…yet not give me the mental ability to grasp the thought of how you can be with someone…and be that someone who you are with at the same time.
In John 18:13 the words ēn archiereus correspond to ēn theos in John 1:1 which reveals that those Trinitarians that claim God describes the qualities of the word have a case.
I have only seen Trinitarians use John 1:1 to back up that he is God himself, and not that he has Gods qualities. There is no argument there. We have some of God’s qualities. Which is how we are made in him image; he gave us the ability to love, to be just, to feel compassion..etc. That does not make us The Almighty Creator God himself? I think we are all in agreement that Jesus is not God himself, so debating whether it is “God’ or “a god” is basically debating grammar, and not who God is, right?
Umb5,
Abraham knew God by the name El, which when translated is God.
Allah is also “the God”.
So no, it is not just a title.
Kerwin wrote:
“Tigger,
“In John 18:13 the words ēn archiereus correspond to ēn theos in John 1:1 which reveals that those Trinitarians that claim God describes the qualities of the word have a case.
“There is also an instance where the word ēn preceding a nominative is translated ‘was a’.”
………………………
John 18:13 does not correspond to John 1:1c. First, John 1:1c has en ho logos not en theos. Second, I have explained numerous times that “prepositional”-modified nominative count nouns (‘prophet OF GOD‘; ‘son TO HIM‘; etc.) are inconsistent in article use and must be considered as exceptions. John 18:13 says “… who was high priest OF THE YEAR….” Since the use or non-use of the article in such constructions is uncertain, it seems that this particular one may be saying “[the] high priest of the year”. There is no “qualitative” meaning in this. It isn’t even a pre-copulative anarthrous nominative as “Qualitarians” require.
Of course there are places where en preceding an unmodified anarthrous count noun will require the indefinite article in English translation. If you disregard the exceptions, which are also acknowledged by Trinitarian grammars, there will be few or none that are otherwise.
But remember we are interested in how an unmodified anarthrous theos is understood in John’s writings.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
