- This topic is empty.
- Posts
In this thread, I'd like to discuss John 1, verse by verse, with Kerwin. Please don't post in this thread unless you are Kerwin or Mike…….. at least not until we open the thread up to all.
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was A god or THE God.Kerwin, are we in agreement so far that, grammatically speaking, the koine Greek words of John 1:1c could be translated as either one of the endings I've posted?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 06 2014,07:13) In this thread, I'd like to discuss John 1, verse by verse, with Kerwin. Please don't post in this thread unless you are Kerwin or Mike…….. at least not until we open the thread up to all. John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was A god or THE God.Kerwin, are we in agreement so far that, grammatically speaking, the koine Greek words of John 1:1c could be translated as either one of the endings I've posted?
Mike,I prefer the word was divine as the word is a possession of God but I will accept a god as the word can be personified with no significant change in meaning. I can the God as relationship as well as a personification.
Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says:
The noun form is here used, not the adjectival theios, which would be required to simply classify the Word as “god-like.”
“Divine” is also an adjective, which seems to be ruled out by the above information.
You seem to be okay with “a god” also, so let's go with that one for now. The bottom line for me is that we both understand that the Word was not actually God Almighty Himself, but someone or something OTHER THAN God Almighty Himself.
Are we agreed on that point?
(I can't make sense of your last sentence.)
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 07 2014,07:08) Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says: The noun form is here used, not the adjectival theios, which would be required to simply classify the Word as “god-like.”
“Divine” is also an adjective, which seems to be ruled out by the above information.
You seem to be okay with “a god” also, so let's go with that one for now. The bottom line for me is that we both understand that the Word was not actually God Almighty Himself, but someone or something OTHER THAN God Almighty Himself.
Are we agreed on that point?
(I can't make sense of your last sentence.)
Mike,Quote 3. spoken of the only and true God a. refers to the things of God
b. his counsels, interests, things due to himGod's council is theos.
He is correct that it is a noun in Koine Greek but the meaning is the same as the English adjective divine. If you know a noun that means “his counsels, interests, things due to him “.
Perhaps God's would be better than divine to express the idea of “his counsels, interests, things due to him”.
Note: theos
Kerwin,
I'm not sure where that definition #3 came from, but I can't think of a single one of those things that is called “god” in any scripture.
Certain members of His COUNCIL are called “YHWH” and “God” when they are representing Him, but I can't for the life of me think of any time those things you listed are addressed as “God”.
Help me out with that one, please.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 08 2014,07:01) Kerwin, I'm not sure where that definition #3 came from, but I can't think of a single one of those things that is called “god” in any scripture.
Certain members of His COUNCIL are called “YHWH” and “God” when they are representing Him, but I can't for the life of me think of any time those things you listed are addressed as “God”.
Help me out with that one, please.
Mike,I forgot to list my source. It is theos.
It is a definition from a lexicon and they link the word to its uses not the each definition to it uses. Theos is used a lot in Scripture.
Mike,
I did find one.
John 8:47
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)47 He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
All three are the same word but only God's appears to be the third use.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 08 2014,07:02) Also, are we agreed that “the Word” is something or someone OTHER THAN God Almighty the Father?
Mike,Yes.
Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 08 2014,00:24) Mike, I did find one.
John 8:47
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)47 He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
All three are the same word but only God's appears to be the third use.
In Greek, that use is merely the genitive form of “theos”. It literally says, “He who is of God hears the words of God.”I'm not seeing the “words of God” being CALLED “God” in that verse……… are you?
Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 08 2014,00:30) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 08 2014,07:02) Also, are we agreed that “the Word” is something or someone OTHER THAN God Almighty the Father?
Mike,Yes.
Good. I'll have more to say tomorrow. It's late and I'm really tired right now.Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 08 2014,00:30) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 08 2014,07:02) Also, are we agreed that “the Word” is something or someone OTHER THAN God Almighty the Father?
Mike,Yes.
1. Since we agree that the Word is/was something other than God Almighty the Father, doesn't the translation, “and the Word was God“ give a false impression? Wouldn't that translation make just about anyone who read it think that the Word WAS indeed God Almighty the Father?2. Okay……….. which one? Something other than God? Or someone other than God?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 09 2014,09:34) Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 08 2014,00:24) Mike, I did find one.
John 8:47
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)47 He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
All three are the same word but only God's appears to be the third use.
In Greek, that use is merely the genitive form of “theos”. It literally says, “He who is of God hears the words of God.”I'm not seeing the “words of God” being CALLED “God” in that verse……… are you?
Mike,In English the possessive case or partitive case is used instead of the genitive case and so “the word is God's” or “the word is of God” both work in English. There are a few translations that translate John 1:1 to “the word is divine” which is equivalent. In this case I am depending on those few experts.
Kerwin,
Even if you say, “the word is God's“, it is NOT a case of a “counsel” or “interest” of God actually being called “God”.
Agreed? I want to see a scripture that supports what your source wrote. I want to see a scripture where “his counsels, interests, things due to him” are actually addressed as “God”.
Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 22 2014,04:28) There are a few translations that translate John 1:1 to “the word is divine” which is equivalent. In this case I am depending on those few experts.
I'm aware that Moffatt's translation has “divine”. But what do we do with that information from Kittell? He is a scholar who says the “theos” in 1:1c is not the adjectival form. And we both know that “divine” is an adjective.In any case, it's good that we and those “few experts” all know that the Word wasn't actually God Almighty Himself. That's the important thing.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 10 2014,07:11) Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 08 2014,00:30) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 08 2014,07:02) Also, are we agreed that “the Word” is something or someone OTHER THAN God Almighty the Father?
Mike,Yes.
1. Since we agree that the Word is/was something other than God Almighty the Father, doesn't the translation, “and the Word was God“ give a false impression? Wouldn't that translation make just about anyone who read it think that the Word WAS indeed God Almighty the Father?2. Okay……….. which one? Something other than God? Or someone other than God?
Mike,It would read like this if the pronouns were translated for the neuter form used when commonly writing about the word.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God's. The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it; and without it was not any thing made that was made.
Moffatt took the genitive form and translated it to the adjective form. Possibly because being a Trinitarian the possessive or partitive sounded corrected to his bias. I do not know his translation basis for doing so,
Mike,
I did find these word's that might explain Moffatt's choice.
Quote Grammatical Role 1:
Adjectival GenitivesThis is the most fundamental role of a genitive, it describes. Whether as a true genitive or as an ablative, the genitive describes the head noun. Thus it qualifies or modifies the head noun, indicating limitations as to the scope of that noun's class of persons or things. In this way, the genitive functions much like an adjective. However, the genitive is more emphatic or stronger than an adjective, and a genitive also implies movement or action from it to the head noun.
For example, the noun “God” represents a real Person, a living Being who actively wills and performs actions. But the adjective “godly” (which can also serve as an adverb, by the way) is just a modifier which indicates characteristics related to God. So, to describe something with a genitive form of a noun, we might say: “God's kingdom,” “the kingdom of God,” or “the kingdom from God.” In doing so, we indicate the activity and presence of God, as a real Person with will and power being exerted over the kingdom. He acts upon His kingdom. Depending on the characteristics of any genitive person or thing, there are usually strong implications of some kind of definite interactive relationship between the genitive noun and the head noun.
But to describe the same thing with an adjective, we might say it is a “godly kingdom.” All this implies is a characteristic “relative to” other things in the class of the head noun. We might call it “godly” because there are other kingdoms which are extremely ungodly, and, thus, the kingdom is relatively “godly” by comparison. Or we might call it godly because it meets what we personally feel is a minimum standard by which it may be perceived as being godly. All adjectives bear similar implications of general characteristics or attributes relative to other persons or things in the class of the noun being modified. So an adjective provides a weaker description than a genitive noun, which has all the real and definite attributes of a person or thing.
Using a genitive noun is often far stronger and more emphatic than using an adjective because a noun is stronger and more emphatic than an adjective. This is mostly because a noun generally represents something real, whole or tangible. But an adjective merely represents a quality or quantity, which is only a part of the existence or essence of the noun it modifies.
Also, an adjective can only be modified by adverbs, or other “adverbial modifiers.” And an adverb only modifies the feel, perception or sense of the adjective, that is, of the quality or quantity the adjective expresses. But a noun represents a real person or thing, with many different qualities and a set quantity. So a noun consists of many “adjectives” put together. Thus, a genitive noun is generally a more powerful modifier than an adjective. A genitive never loses its property of being a noun, or its “nominal force,” as Wallace puts it. Therefore, it can be usually modified by adjectives or any other kind of “adnominal modifier,” such as participles. There is an exception. Wallace points out that an attributive genitive, which functions more like an adjective, is not normally modified by adjectives and other adnominal modifiers. Yet, even “its connotation is decidedly more pronounced than a mere adjective would be” (Wallace).
Source: geneitive adjective
Mike,
Quote The genitive primarily functions adjectivally to limit (restrict, see Louw Linguistic Theory) a substantive by describing, defining or qualifying / modifying it. The genitive also sometimes functions to express the idea of separation, point of departure, source, origin (ie. the ablative use). In the NT the adjectival use of the genitive is dominant since it is common to Hebrew construction.
1. Adjectival Genitive
A substantive genitive functioning as an emphatic adjective limiting a connecting substantive by describing, defining or qualifying it.
This is the primary, if not essential, function of the genitive in NT Greek
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
