- This topic has 18,301 replies, 269 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Is 1:18,
I was gone for the weekend.
John 1:18 is grammatically different than John 1:1. There really is no comparison of the two.
A verse that resembles John 1:1 is found in John 6:70. It Reads in the Greek: “..and of you one a devil is?” (NKJV Greek English Interlinear. They supply the word 'a') John 1:1 as you already know reads in Greek: “…and God was the Word.” (NKJV)
Notice Jesus answers Peter and the disciples that one of them was a devil, not THE devil as if one of them were Satan himself. Rather, one of them was acting, had traits, like the devil. Thus, a devil. The predicate noun (devil) precedes the verb (was) which in greek in most cases represents predication rather than identification. This is why even the NKJV imports the indefinite article 'a' in this verse and others even though 'a' is not in the Greek.
This is the same grammatical sentence structure in John 1:1. The second theos, predicate nominative count noun, precedes the verb (was). Hence predication rather than identification.
Some other great examples of this would be: Mark 6:49, 11:32; John 4:19, 8:34, 8:44, 8:48, 9:17, 9:24, 10:1, 10:13, 10:33, 18:35-37.
All translations insert the indefinite article 'a' in these verses because like John 1:1 they demand predication rather than identification. Hope this helps.
In Christ
Quote (kejonn @ July 18 2007,14:07) Nick, No, I must have the last word
. Hehe just kidding. Here is my point: Yeshua was and is Messiah, we are not. That difference is all we need. Case closed.
Of course there are differences. There are some apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, elders.Some have different gifts etc.
But all in the one Spirit.
All under God.
We are sons of God.
We are brothers.There is only one who is first. Then there are those that follow.
Yeshua is the prototype we are not. We are made in the image of God. Yeshua is the image of God.Nevertheless we are brothers.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 20 2007,16:09) So does the omission of the definite article automatically means the noun “theos” should be interpreted qualitatively? Is that what you are saying? “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” (John 1:18)
No article is supplied with theos in this verse, does this mean John is speaking of “godliness” here?
Hi BF,
The point I was making was that “theos” in John 1:18 does not have a definite article and yet it is undoubtedly definite. So in that sense it's not “gramatically different” at all. E. C Colwell showed that pre-verbal predicate nominatives are, in fact, NORMALLY definite. To be precise, he discovered that 87% of definite predicate nominatives were anarthrous in the NT. The presence/absence of a definite article has absolutely no bearing on whether theos in John 1:1c is rendered definitely, indefinitely or qualitatively.I don't think that the fact the a doctrine changes and evolves should necessarily nullify it. God may be perfect, but we are not, and neither are our understandings.
King David was purported to have many wives and concubines, whereas St Paul supported having just one spouse (if any).
St Paul lived in a world where there were slaves, and never explicitly spoke against slavery, yet in our age we condemn it utterly.
I think it is inevitable that doctrines are going to evolve, just as I think it inevitable that we interprete the Judeo-Christian writings differently to how our predecessors interpreted them.
That said, I do think that there is something to be said for challenging the basis of a belief (any belief), rather than just letting it evolve to suit a changing culture.
Hi Casiphus,
Indeed the trinity doctrine, which never appeared in any of the sacred writings, has continued to evolve ever since it appeared 200 years or so after Christ. Both facts argue against it having any origin in God at all.Hi Is,
The definite article does not have to be used in Greek in order to clarify that a noun is definite, such as you mentioned in John 1:18. Coming from your perspective I would agree that John 1:18 without the article is definite, thus not grammatically different.:D
However, my point was and still is that John uses the definite article in John 1:1 to differentiate between God and the Word. In other words, if John wanted to say the Word was The God he really didn't have to use the article at all as in 1:18. So using the article in 1:1 is grammatically different because John intentially used the article to seperate God from the Word.
I mentioned this simply because Michael in his original post left out the article, which, to me seemed to be on purpose for theological reasons.
Regarding Colwell's so-called 'rule', the truth is it is not a rule at all. For example Nigel Turner in A Grammer of the NT Greek says: Colwell's rule “may reflect a general tendency it is not absolute by any means.” (Vol. 3, p. 184, 1963) Please let me explain as best as I am able.
One does not have to go far in the scriptures to see examples of definite predicate nouns that do not drop their article when placed before the verb. Notice the following please.
John 16:51; John 15:1; John 20:15; John 21:7, etc…
Is Colwell right or wrong after reviewing these verses? I believe he is wrong. It is obvious that Colwell had predetermined that the nouns he was seeing were definite before he even began his research. In other words, he assumed the nouns he saw which were definite were actually without the article because of some rule of grammer. Thus, his 'rule.' Just because something is definite in English does not necessarilly make it definite in Greek. Would you agree with this?
Note that even Colwell himself found exceptions to his own 'rule.' 15 to be exact. Luke 4:41; John 1:21; 6:51; 15:1; Romans 4:13; 1Corinthians 9:1, 2; 11:3; 11:25; 2Corinthians 1:12; 3:2; 3:17; 2Peter 1:17; Revelation 19:8; 20:14.
Another helpful point is the rendering of the Coptic translation of John 1:1 from the second century CE. The Egyptian Christians understood John's meaning the way we do today: it says 'a god.'
Hope this helps to clarify my position.
Hi BF,
Thanks for the clarification. One question for you though, does the grammar in John 1:1c demand an indefinite “a god” rendering in your opinion?Hi Is,
Absolutely not. I do however see it as needing clarification in English. I am also not truly sold on 'a god' as the best rendering, but it does clarify and distinguish. Personally, I would like the rendering 'and the Word was Godly or Godlike.” What do you think?
Here's what I think:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….75;st=0
(scroll to “My interpretation of John 1:1c” – half way down post)
Hi Is,
Wow! I am impressed with your depth of knowledge through study of God's word. Very commendable. I think you would concur that many today do not spend as much time searching the srciptures for truth. That is indeed disappointing and sad.
Your thoughts and conclusions are well thought out and from what you presented i would have to almost agree with you. I think we can agree that our understanding of the Greek is comparable. I would like to perhaps add a little more to your spritual knowledge and ask only that you test it out and consider it as a possibility.
Before I get into sharing some more of what I have learned, what is your definition of monotheism? In other words, do you believe in strict monotheism, that there is only one true living God and all other gods are false? This isn't a trick question, only for me to understand a little more of where you are coming from.
Thanks
Hi BF,
Thanks. Actually my grasp of Greek is very poor, I have just spent a lot of time researching and debating John 1:1 (and a few others) and must have learnt some of the basics by osmosis…
I definitely adhere to strict monotheism. I affirm that there is only one divine being, namely YHWH. I'm interesting in your thoughts though.
Hi Nick,
Quote Indeed the trinity doctrine, which never appeared in any of the sacred writings, has continued to evolve ever since it appeared 200 years or so after Christ. Both facts argue against it having any origin in God at all. I think it is a bold assertion to say that this doctrine never appeared in any of the sacred writings. It doesn't seem to be there explicitly, but I think there is certainly room within the text for interpretation.
Leo Tolstoy, who spent much of the later part of his life researching the scriptures, challenging (with quite forceful arguments) post-Constantine translations and alterations, and a whole body of Church tradition, never to my knowledge questioned the doctrine of the trinity. This of course does not prove anything, except that for Tolstoy the trinity must have been implicit enough in the text to escape close scrutiny.
Even by asserting that the trinity doctrine is an adaptation of pre-Christian triune beliefs, this does not negate the possibility that it is implicit in the scriptural texts, because there is much in the writings of St John and St Paul especially, that is explicitly derived from Greek thought (significantly Plato); and St Jude and to a lesser extent St Peter both seem to be influenced by apocryphal Hebrew writings (or Hebrew mysticism).
One could just as easily say that these pre-Christian ideas were a shadow of the truth.
Hi Casiphus,
So you agree trinity is not taught by Jesus or the prophets or apostles?
Jesus told his followers the Spirit he would leave them would not speak of His own initiative but take us back to his teachings.
That seems to leave little room for expansion of what he taught into a new revelation of God.
Indeed 2 Jn warns us that those who would go beyond the teachings of Christ are antichrist.
So where does that leave the speculators?Quote Jesus told his followers the Spirit he would leave them would not speak of His own initiative but take us back to his teachings.
Hi NH,
I think we need to read that verse in context.John 16:12-14
12″I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13″But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14″He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.Yeshua was actually saying that He didn't give them all the truth because they could not bear it. He reassured them by telling them that they would get the truth transmitted to them by Him via the Holy Spirit, but this declaration was not present tense, it would happan at a later date (post ascention).
My thoughts.
Quote (Casiphus @ July 24 2007,20:42) Hi Nick, Quote Indeed the trinity doctrine, which never appeared in any of the sacred writings, has continued to evolve ever since it appeared 200 years or so after Christ. Both facts argue against it having any origin in God at all. I think it is a bold assertion to say that this doctrine never appeared in any of the sacred writings. It doesn't seem to be there explicitly, but I think there is certainly room within the text for interpretation.
Leo Tolstoy, who spent much of the later part of his life researching the scriptures, challenging (with quite forceful arguments) post-Constantine translations and alterations, and a whole body of Church tradition, never to my knowledge questioned the doctrine of the trinity. This of course does not prove anything, except that for Tolstoy the trinity must have been implicit enough in the text to escape close scrutiny.
Even by asserting that the trinity doctrine is an adaptation of pre-Christian triune beliefs, this does not negate the possibility that it is implicit in the scriptural texts, because there is much in the writings of St John and St Paul especially, that is explicitly derived from Greek thought (significantly Plato); and St Jude and to a lesser extent St Peter both seem to be influenced by apocryphal Hebrew writings (or Hebrew mysticism).
One could just as easily say that these pre-Christian ideas were a shadow of the truth.
You continue to be a source of many great insights Cas. I really enjoy reading your posts.Hi Is,
I too believe that there is only one (numerically speaking
) true living God. I also agree his name is YHWH no matter how one chooses to interpret it, Jehovah/Yahweh/Yehovah, etc… It is in this sense that I too am monotheistic. Obviously, we agree on this because this is what scripture tells us. The only true God YHWH is creator as you mentioned. He is known to possess so many attributes such as justice, wisdom, power, and of course the most important is Love. (As an aside, if you want scriptures for anything i say which is not given a verse just ask. I am going on the notion from your posts that you are aware of most scriptures.)
I believe that YHWH does everything because of love. You know 1 John 4:8 “God is love.” One way I have seen through reading the Bible that God expresses his love is through giving. The greatest example of giving is that of his Son Jesus as a ransom for us.
I have often wondered if God would be willing to ever share his authority with anyone. I have found this to be Biblically true and I want to share some of what I have found.
The reason for approaching things this way is to at least show from scripture that YHWH's monotheism is not comparable to man's understanding of strict monotheism.
Perhaps I should give a definition of man's strict monotheism. My understanding is when someone says 'I believe in strict monotheism,' they mean that there is only one true living God [as you and i believe], but that all other gods are false. No exceptions. In other words there is a true living God YHWH and then there are false gods. I am not saying this is what you believe.
What do you mean when you say you believe in strict monotheism? Does my definition fit?
Thanks
Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 24 2007,21:19) Quote Jesus told his followers the Spirit he would leave them would not speak of His own initiative but take us back to his teachings.
Hi NH,
I think we need to read that verse in context.John 16:12-14
12″I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13″But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14″He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.Yeshua was actually saying that He didn't give them all the truth because they could not bear it. He reassured them by telling them that they would get the truth transmitted to them by Him via the Holy Spirit, but this declaration was not present tense, it would happan at a later date (post ascention).
My thoughts.
Hi Is 1.18,
So there was much more truth to be taught even about the nature of God Himself that Jesus did not even mention?
That leap of faith is a little wide for most in view of 2 Jn.HI BF,
I don't think I can express my view more plainly than this:There is one God (YHWH) and ALL else in existence is creation.
Do you agree with this statement?
Hi Is,
Yes, I completely agree. That is an excellent choice of words. I will have to use that sometime in the future.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
