- This topic is empty.
- Posts
WJ.
It is not just my interpretation but of many scholars, bible translators, and even Trinitarians.
Because to literally read it as “the Word IS THE God” is to actually exclude others including the Father as God and that interpretation is clearly wrong. And to read it as “the Word WAS THE God” is to exclude the Father as God in the beginning.Here are some other views of John 1:1c. Besides hundreds of scriptures, you might not be aware that many disagree with you view on John 1:1c.
Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2
“We next notice John's use of the article [“the”] 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 Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article and theos without it prevail also between the Word with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the theos who is over all is theos with the article not without it, so the Word is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature.John Martin Creed in The Divinity of Jesus Christ.
When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor think of him as God. He is God's Christ, God's Son, God's Wisdom, God's Word. Even the prologue to St. John {John 1:1-18} which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous theos [the word “god” at John 1:1c without the article] than it appears in English.-Philip Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7
The word for “god” in Greek is QEOS. In John 1:1 the last occurrence of QEOS is called “a predicate noun” or, “a predicate nominative”. Such a noun tells us something about the subject, instead of telling what the subject is doing. This use of QEOS has reference to the subject, the Word, and does not have the article preceding it; it is anarthrous. This indicates that it is not definite. That is to say, it does not tell what position or office or rank the subject (the Word) occupies. The verb HN “was” follows the predicate noun QEOS; this is another factor in identifying QEOS here as qualitative. This discloses the quality or character of the Word.G. Lucke, “Dissertation on the Logos”, quoted by John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428.
We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite [“qualitative” would have been a better word choice] sense of a divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite absolute God [the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to “the image of God'' of Paul, Col. 1:15.The Bible—An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago. reads” “and the Word was divine”
The Good News Bible reads: “…and he was the same as God.”
The Revised English Bible reads: “…and what God was, the Word was.”
Wycliffe's Bible (from the Latin Vulgate) reads: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word.
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”Even some (honest) Trinitarians admit that it is qualitative.
The more you look at it WJ, the more that the Trinity Doctrine looks and smells like a Catholic doctrine that is designed to get you aligned to it, thereby making the Catholic Church the father of your faith, if indeed the Trinity Doctrine is your faith and creed.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 08 2011,17:34) Good post Mike.
You think so, t8? Well, in that case, let's bump it for them.
Jack and Keith,
There's really nothing more to be said on the matter of John 1:1, is there?
You both agree that being called “god” does not make that one God Almighty.
Add to that the fact that one is called “god” while the other is called “THE God”. The indefinite article is added into scripture over 9000 times, to make the words understandable in the English language. This is the ONE time out of all of those where it SHOULD BE added, but is not by trinitarian translators. The meaning is clear that the Word was A mighty one who was with THE Almighty One in the beginning.
Add to that the fact that God is ONE SINGLE BEING, in that there is only ONE God Almighty. If the Word was WITH the ONE BEING of God Almighty in the beginning, then the Word couldn't very well BE the ONE BEING of God Almighty. The ONE SINGLE BEING of God cannot be said to be WITH the ONE SINGLE BEING OF GOD. (Remember, it doesn't say the Word was with “the Father”, but with “THE GOD“.)
To us, this is just simple common sense. But the god of this age has blinded your minds in an effort to have you worship someone besides God – in direct violation of both God's AND Jesus' commands.
So Keith, to answer your points: YES, being called “god” COULD mean that one IS God, and many times we know this is true in scripture. But when the one who is being called “god” is said to be WITH the One who is called “THE God”, your opportunity just flew out the window.
And that's only considering what is said in that one verse. Add in all the other things we know about the Jesus/God relationship, and you don't have a prayer.
Jack, to answer your points: The indefinite article is added over 9000 times. For you to INSIST it cannot be added in 1:1 is simply a matter of you closing your eyes to the truth. You KNOW that the “A” is not only grammatically possible, but also probable. The NWT has this one right, and there is NO rule of Greek grammar you can conjure up to say it CAN'T be the way they translate it. You can PREFER it another way, but you absolutely cannot DENY the fact that their way is a grammatical possibility.
And to your other point: Are you saying that for “dia” to be rendered as “through”, another MUST be mentioned in the same sentence? Are you saying that the Greeks could not possibly use a sentence with the word “through” unless they included another person?
I believe you to be wrong on that matter.
John 1:17 NIV
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.We all know that God is the one who gave the Law. He did this THROUGH His servant Moses, as is said many times in scripture. But according to YOUR new rule, it was Moses himself who GAVE, or MADE the Law in the first place, because God is not mentioned in this sentence.
Both of these “throughs” above are the word “dia”………….just like in 1:3. Your claim that John could not have said that all things came THROUGH Jesus without mentioning God in the same sentence is false. Simple as that.
mike
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 08 2011,18:35) Even some (honest) Trinitarians admit that it is qualitative.
Yes t8But no Trinitarian says that he is “less God” qualitatively do they?
“Those that are “honest” would admit that the word “God” in John 1:1c qualitatively says the Word is everything that God is?”
“The “DISHONEST” make the claim that the Word in John 1:1c is “less qualitatively” than God”
Notice your Trinitarian sources…
The Good News Bible reads: “…and he was the same as God.”
The Revised English Bible reads: “…and what God was, the Word was.”
Wycliffe's Bible (from the Latin Vulgate) reads: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word.
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”Do you admit that the above is true or not?
WJ
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 08 2011,18:35) The more you look at it WJ, the more that the Trinity Doctrine looks and smells like a Catholic doctrine that is designed to get you aligned to it, thereby making the Catholic Church the father of your faith, if indeed the Trinity Doctrine is your faith and creed.
Another straw man being burnt to the ground.t8 Do you believe the Bible is the scriptures?
That Bible that you claim so much as being Gods word was copied translated and preserved by the RCC since the early first century.
Not to mention you believe in a lot of the Catholic doctrine yourself lile the death, burial and ressurection of Jesus, so I guess that makes them the Father of your faith also.
The more you look at it the more you realize that Arius and his followers have rejected the truth for centuries.
Your doctrine liines with the JWs which stinks of Arianism. Actually they are the modern day “Arians”.
WJ
Quote Jack, to answer your points: The indefinite article is added over 9000 times. For you to INSIST it cannot be added in 1:1 is simply a matter of you closing your eyes to the truth. You KNOW that the “A” is not only grammatically possible, but also probable. The NWT has this one right, and there is NO rule of Greek grammar you can conjure up to say it CAN'T be the way they translate it. You can PREFER it another way, but you absolutely cannot DENY the fact that their way is a grammatical possibility. Great! So it is a grammatical possibility that John 8:54 may be translated thus:
“It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, He is a god of you.”
So have it your way Mike! The Father is 'a God' of the Jews but a bigger God than Jesus.
Pure Henotheistic Polytheism Mike! According you you the Father and the Son are two separate Gods in John 1:1. Therefore, they are both “a God” with the Father being a bigger God.
So there is no rule of Greek Grammar you can conjure up that says that John 8:54 cannot be translated the way I have suggested.
Mike said:
Quote We all know that God is the one who gave the Law. He did this THROUGH His servant Moses, as is said many times in scripture.
Stephen said the law was given to Moses by the Angel (the Messenger).Quote 38 “This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us, Acts 7:38
Quote But according to YOUR new rule, it was Moses himself who GAVE, or MADE the Law in the first place, because God is not mentioned in this sentence.
Moulton's Analytical Greek Lexicon says that the preposition “dia” with the genetive means “immediate agency.” Then he says that “dia” with the accusative means “not direct and immediate” (page 90).The preposition “dia” is with the genetive in 1:3 in reference to the Word creating and in 1:17 in reference to Moses giving the law. According to Moulton this means that the Word is the IMMEDIATE AGENT in creation and Moses is the IMMEDIATE AGENT in the giving of the law. Moulton even gives 1:3 as an example of “dia” with the genetive indicating “immediate agency.”
In verse 17 Moses is being viewed as the immediate agent in in the giving of the law in comparison with Christ who is the immediate agent in the coming of grace and truth.
This is one of your better arguments Mike but it is still lacking because you are grammatically incorrect. And I stand to be corrected. I should have said that the preposition “dia” is in John 1:3 is genetive and must indicate immediate agency.
Quote 8 But TO THE SON He says: “ Your throne, O GOD, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”[a]10 And:
“ YOU, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of YOUR hands.It looks like God the Father agrees with me that Christ is the IMMEDIATE agent in the creation spoken of in Hebrews 1!
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 14 2011,12:17) So there is no rule of Greek Grammar you can conjure up that says that John 8:54 cannot be translated the way I have suggested.
No………..there is NOT. It IS grammatically possible. It is not CONTEXTUALLY FEASIBLE, but it IS GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE.See how easy it is to be HONEST and DIRECT Jack?
Now YOU try it:
Jack, is it grammatically possible to translate 1:1c as “the Word was a god”?
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 14 2011,13:52) This is one of your better arguments Mike but it is still lacking because you are grammatically incorrect. And I stand to be corrected.
Good. So it stands that God ALONE created everything, but He chose to do that THROUGH His Son.GRAMMATICALLY speaking, I have won this one. Hebrews 1:10 is for a different time, Jack. I won't divert until you and Keith CLEARLY ADMIT what you both know to be true – that it is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to add the indefinite article in 1:1c.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 15 2011,14:46) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 14 2011,13:52) This is one of your better arguments Mike but it is still lacking because you are grammatically incorrect. And I stand to be corrected.
Good. So it stands that God ALONE created everything, but He chose to do that THROUGH His Son.GRAMMATICALLY speaking, I have won this one. Hebrews 1:10 is for a different time, Jack. I won't divert until you and Keith CLEARLY ADMIT what you both know to be true – that it is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to add the indefinite article in 1:1c.
mike
I was being sarcastic Mike.Jack
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 15 2011,14:46) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 14 2011,13:52) This is one of your better arguments Mike but it is still lacking because you are grammatically incorrect. And I stand to be corrected.
Good. So it stands that God ALONE created everything, but He chose to do that THROUGH His Son.GRAMMATICALLY speaking, I have won this one. Hebrews 1:10 is for a different time, Jack. I won't divert until you and Keith CLEARLY ADMIT what you both know to be true – that it is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to add the indefinite article in 1:1c.
mike
Nope I did not say that. Look at verse 16:Quote 15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”
16 And FROM HIS FULNESS we have all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came THROUGH Jesus Christ.It says that we have all received FROM HIS (Christ's) FULNESS grace for grace. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came THROUGH Jesus Christ.”
It CLEARLY says that grace is FROM CHRIST'S FULNESS. Therefore, the expression “Grace and truth came THROUGH Jesus means that He is the IMMEDIATE AGENT of grace to us. Grace is FROM HIS fulness.
1. All things came into being THROUGH Him (Immediate agent).
2. Grace and truth came THROUGH Him (Immediated agent because it is from HIS FULNESS)Quote I won't divert until you and Keith CLEARLY ADMIT what you both know to be true – that it is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to add the indefinite article in 1:1c.
It ain't going to happen because the predicate is written in the nominative case and is a proper name. You guys say there are 2,000 examples where the indefinite article is inserted when the definite article is missing before a predicate. But there are only a few examples where the subject and the predicate are both written in the nominative case and the predicate is a proper name. Note the rule when the subject and the predicate are both written in the nominative case and the predicate is a proper name.Quote If both nominatives are articular, or if one is articular and the other is a proper name or a pronoun, then both are definite, and are interchangeable. Consider: Mt. 16:16: σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός. It makes no difference whether σὺ (you) or ὁ χριστός (the Christ) is treated as the subject. The sentence is equally true either way.
Both the subject and the predicate are DEFINITE.Mike said:
Quote I won't divert until you and Keith CLEARLY ADMIT what you both know to be true – that it is GRAMMATICALLY POSSIBLE to add the indefinite article in 1:1c.
TO ALL,I don't know Mike's folly to be true and I could never admit to the possibility of it.
Quote Greek scholars are in general agreement that the wording “The Word was God” or “the Word was divine” is the correct way to understand the last clause of John 1:1. Competent scholarship does not support the argument that the lack of a definite article in a predicate nominative indicates an indefinite reference. “To say that the absence of the article bespeaks of the nonabsolute deity of the Word is sheer folly. There are many places in this Gospel where the anarthrous [used without the article] theos appears (e.g., 1:6, 12, 13, 18), and not once is the implication that this is referring to just 'a god’” [Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, editor, volume 9, page 30].
http://www.gci.org/jesus/wasgodKJ
Quote Comparing the Use of the Word “God” and the Definite Article in John Chapter 1 In the first chapter of John, the word ‘God’ (‘theos’ in Greek) is used 12 times. In almost half of these instances (five times) it does not have the definite article. One would be hard pressed to find a translation that suggests that these other instances without the definite article should be translated as ‘a god’. That is, the lack of a definite article does not mean that the noun is indefinite. Clearly the meaning of these instances is the Only True “God”, even though no definite article is used. But if one wanted to be consistent with how some have proposed to translate John 1:1 as ‘a god’, that same rule would have to be followed here.
Take for example the word ‘God’ in John 1:6. The definite article is lacking here, just as it is in verse one in the phrase ‘the Word was God’. If the lack of a definite article means there should be an indefinite article, then this passage should be translated something as follows. ‘There was a man sent from a god’. The meaning here is obscured if not altogether changed since it is clear that the writer means to convey the fact that this man was sent from the True Living God, not from a false god.
As another example, see John 1:18. Being consistent with the other instance of the absence of the definite article, the verse would be translated as, ‘No one has ever seen a god; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.’ Again the meaning is distorted by this translation since John is saying that no one has ever seen the Only True Living God. (cf. Exodus 33:20 and Deuteronomy 4:12).
In fact, if the over-generalization of ‘lack of definite article makes an indefinite meaning’ is applied to other words in the first few verses of John 1, the following phrases would be found:
1:1,2 ‘a beginning’ rather than ‘the beginning’
1:4 ‘a life’ rather than ‘life’
1:6 ‘from a god’ as noted above
1:6 ‘a John’ rather than ‘John’
Thus if an implied indefinite article (‘a’) is assumed to be present in every place where no definite article (‘the’) appears in Greek, it can often change the intended meaning of a passage.
These are clear instances that exemplify the fact that Greek cannot be translated according to some imposed English equivalent. The use of the definite article in the two languages has separate meanings and uses altogether.
http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/answer-frame-john1_1.htmBAM! BOOM! ZAP!
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 15 2011,19:43) Quote Comparing the Use of the Word “God” and the Definite Article in John Chapter 1 In the first chapter of John, the word ‘God’ (‘theos’ in Greek) is used 12 times. In almost half of these instances (five times) it does not have the definite article. One would be hard pressed to find a translation that suggests that these other instances without the definite article should be translated as ‘a god’. That is, the lack of a definite article does not mean that the noun is indefinite. Clearly the meaning of these instances is the Only True “God”, even though no definite article is used. But if one wanted to be consistent with how some have proposed to translate John 1:1 as ‘a god’, that same rule would have to be followed here.
Take for example the word ‘God’ in John 1:6. The definite article is lacking here, just as it is in verse one in the phrase ‘the Word was God’. If the lack of a definite article means there should be an indefinite article, then this passage should be translated something as follows. ‘There was a man sent from a god’. The meaning here is obscured if not altogether changed since it is clear that the writer means to convey the fact that this man was sent from the True Living God, not from a false god.
As another example, see John 1:18. Being consistent with the other instance of the absence of the definite article, the verse would be translated as, ‘No one has ever seen a god; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.’ Again the meaning is distorted by this translation since John is saying that no one has ever seen the Only True Living God. (cf. Exodus 33:20 and Deuteronomy 4:12).
In fact, if the over-generalization of ‘lack of definite article makes an indefinite meaning’ is applied to other words in the first few verses of John 1, the following phrases would be found:
1:1,2 ‘a beginning’ rather than ‘the beginning’
1:4 ‘a life’ rather than ‘life’
1:6 ‘from a god’ as noted above
1:6 ‘a John’ rather than ‘John’
Thus if an implied indefinite article (‘a’) is assumed to be present in every place where no definite article (‘the’) appears in Greek, it can often change the intended meaning of a passage.
These are clear instances that exemplify the fact that Greek cannot be translated according to some imposed English equivalent. The use of the definite article in the two languages has separate meanings and uses altogether.
http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/answer-frame-john1_1.htmBAM! BOOM! ZAP!
Ka-blew-ey!Hi WJ,
The HolySpirit is, not 'a god' but, “God”!
The “HolySpirit” was with God in the beginning.
And now He is inside all who are Born Again(from above).Eph.4:4-6 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord,
one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who
is above all, and through all, and in you all.“YHVH” ↔ “God”…………………………………..(Rom. 1:20)
“Christ”(77) = “And Father”(77)…………………..(Coloss.2:9)
“Body”(46) = “of all”(46)……………………………(Matt.10:29)
“Witness”(109) = “in you all”(109)…………………….(Acts 17:29)Witnessing to a worldwide audience in behalf of YHVH!
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14 / Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org (Ecl.9:12-16)t8:
Quote Genesis 6:2
the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful,…WJ replied:
Quote Once again no mention of the angels, and many scholars understand this verse to be speaking of the Sons of Seth.
WJ,You are correct. The sons of God were the line of Seth who intermarried with the daughters of Cain. This corrupted the line through which the Seed would come. So God wiped them all out in the flood and started all over again. Hebrews 1 says that God has not at any time called angels his son.
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 15 2011,16:55) t8: Quote Genesis 6:2
the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful,…Hebrews 1 says that God has not at any time called angels his son.
Jack
JackYea I keep forgetting that scripture! Thanks!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 15 2011,04:24) Yes t8 But no Trinitarian says that he is “less God” qualitatively do they?
“Those that are “honest” would admit that the word “God” in John 1:1c qualitatively says the Word is everything that God is?”
“The “DISHONEST” make the claim that the Word in John 1:1c is “less qualitatively” than God”
WJ, whether he is equal, less, or greater has no bearing on the argument because I teach that he can be called theos in a qualitative sense just as others can.My point still stands, and that is the Father is the only one who is the only true theos in identity.
You can't dispute that point.
For US, there is one God the Father.
For YOU, there is one God the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.The sons of God are mentioned two or three times in Job.
Who are they?
NIV
One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.NLT
One day the members of the heavenly court came to present themselves before the LORD, and the Accuser, Satan, came with them.ESV
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.NASB
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
