- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 24 2014,13:45) 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.
Okay. It seems we are still on the same page that “the Word” was not actually “God Himself”, but something or someone OTHER THAN “God Himself”.And I agree that the grammatical genders that many languages use can sometimes still reflect a neuter thing. So I agree that the masculine pronouns describing “the Word” in John 1 could be understood as neuter in English – conveying a translation like the one you've rendered.
And the fact that the noun “logos” itself is a masculine word in Greek doesn't mean words are literally male things.
So I'm not arguing against anything you said so far…… but I want to get an answer to this question I asked before:
Since it is clear that “the Word” is either an “IT” or a “HE” that was with God, then it is equally clear that this “Word” was not actually God the Father Himself.
And since we both agree on that point, don't you find the translation, “and the Word was God“ to be flawed?
Because that translation makes a reader THINK that the Word that was with God actually WAS the very being of God it was with, right?
And you've hinted that you like Moffatt's translation, “and the Word was divine“. But does that mean you agree with me that, “and the Word was God“ is a flawed translation?
Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 24 2014,22:56) Adjectival Genitives This 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.
Where are you seeing a genitive “theos” in John 1:1c?Which genitive word are you talking about in that verse?
And finally, I take your translation using the neuter “IT” as an answer to my previous question, “Okay……….. which one? Something other than God? Or someone other than God?”
I assume you are saying that you believe “the Word” was someTHING other than God. Is that correct?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 25 2014,23:29) Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 24 2014,13:45) 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.
Okay. It seems we are still on the same page that “the Word” was not actually “God Himself”, but something or someone OTHER THAN “God Himself”.And I agree that the grammatical genders that many languages use can sometimes still reflect a neuter thing. So I agree that the masculine pronouns describing “the Word” in John 1 could be understood as neuter in English – conveying a translation like the one you've rendered.
And the fact that the noun “logos” itself is a masculine word in Greek doesn't mean words are literally male things.
So I'm not arguing against anything you said so far…… but I want to get an answer to this question I asked before:
Since it is clear that “the Word” is either an “IT” or a “HE” that was with God, then it is equally clear that this “Word” was not actually God the Father Himself.
And since we both agree on that point, don't you find the translation, “and the Word was God“ to be flawed?
Because that translation makes a reader THINK that the Word that was with God actually WAS the very being of God it was with, right?
And you've hinted that you like Moffatt's translation, “and the Word was divine“. But does that mean you agree with me that, “and the Word was God“ is a flawed translation?
Mike,The word is God is a Trinitarian translation and just like Moffatt possibly saw his particular version of the Trinity in John 1:1 so did the Trinitarians who translated it the Word is God.
I am more concerned about truth than the exact words chosen to translate the word so my goal is to let the spirit interpret the words in a way that is true even if the translators were guided by a spirit of untruth.
I am of the opinion that was the simplest way to understand John 1:1 though John's words and those he quotes of Jesus' seems to be full of metaphors.
Yes, I tend to believe “the word is God” is a flawed translation as all John had to do to make it more certain that was the translation is add “the”. He always did with the word word. I am not saying I am certain.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 25 2014,23:32) And finally, I take your translation using the neuter “IT” as an answer to my previous question, “Okay……….. which one? Something other than God? Or someone other than God?” I assume you are saying that you believe “the Word” was someTHING other than God. Is that correct?
Mike,Even if John actually wrote “the word is God” he was writing metaphorically.
Yes, the word is not literally God himself.
Mike,
I read John 1:1 wrong as as theos is the word was God is normative and not genitive as I thought it was. That means the reasoning is different than I thought.
There are two nominatives in the statement the word is God. It is actually structured as God is the word in Koine Greek but the translators feel justified in switching the order because there is no article on theos,
Quote The fact that “word” is articular while “God” is anarthrous makes it clear that John is telling us something about the word, namely, that the word was God. In English that could mean the logos=theos.
Mike,
Quote The Result of the Missing Article: Volumes of Books, Many Debates, Much Confusion The missing article at John 1:1c has been the source of all kinds of speculations and fodder for debate and opportunity for academics to write many articles books on the subject. One of the more significant problems associated with this issue is how Trinitarian apologists portray themselves as correct if indeed the Watchtower's translation, the NWT, is shown to be incorrect. This kind of portrayel suggests that only two possibilities exist when such is not the case. Indeed, Trinitarians themselves have two different interpretations.
Trinitarian Translation & Interpretation #1: “the Word was God” = Jesus was divine by nature (Jesus was “what”).
Trinitarian Translation & Interpretation #2: “the Word was God” = Jesus was the one God (Jesus was “who”).
Modalist Translation & Interpretation #1: “the Word was God” = Jesus was God the Father.
Watchtower Translation & Interpretation: “the Word was a god” = Jesus was a god (but not the God).
Other Translation & Interpretation #1: “the Word was a god” = the non-personal word was divine (what).
Other Translation & Interpretation #2: “the Word was a god” = the non-personal word was God (who).Christadelphians and/or Unitarians, and others, usually choose between the latter two options or some modification thereof. In this understanding, the Word which became flesh, is not yet an independent and/or distinct person “in the beginning.”
These six chosen translations reveal there is some debate among experts about the correct translation of the Koine Greek words in John 1:1c as John 1:1 does not have internal context that is required to resolve the debate.
Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 25 2014,16:14) Yes, I tend to believe “the word is God” is a flawed translation as all John had to do to make it more certain that was the translation is add “the”.
Wonderful! We are both blessed enough to overlook that flawed and very misleading translation that is so prominent in the Trinitarian-sponsored Bibles.You are correct that John could have written, “and the word was THE god” – if that is what he meant.
So we have that – and also the fact that it makes no sense, EVER, to say that one person was WITH himself.
These are both very logical and sensible reasons to reject that very flawed translation for what it is…….. nonsense.
Well done.
You and I disagree on many things, but the one thing we have in common is that neither of us is a “blind sheep”. We are not afraid to go against the “status quo” if it means getting to the TRUTH of the matter.
Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 26 2014,06:21) Mike, 1. Trinitarian Translation & Interpretation #1: “the Word was God” = Jesus was divine by nature (Jesus was “what”).
2. Trinitarian Translation & Interpretation #2: “the Word was God” = Jesus was the one God (Jesus was “who”).
3. Modalist Translation & Interpretation #1: “the Word was God” = Jesus was God the Father.
4. Watchtower Translation & Interpretation: “the Word was a god” = Jesus was a god (but not the God).
5. Other Translation & Interpretation #1: “the Word was a god” = the non-personal word was divine (what).
6. Other Translation & Interpretation #2: “the Word was a god” = the non-personal word was God (who).
These six chosen translations reveal there is some debate among experts about the correct translation of the Koine Greek words in John 1:1c as John 1:1 does not have internal context that is required to resolve the debate.
But there is context that does resolve the debate. There is also common sense.For example, #1 is a definite possibility.
#2 is nonsensical, for how can our ONE God be WITH our ONE God?
#3 is nonsensical because the Word OF the Father cannot be the Father Himself. Besides, how could “the Father” be “the only begotten OF the Father”?
#4 makes the best sense to me, since it is otherwise documented in scripture that Jesus is indeed “a god”, and the one through whom the Father created all things.
#5 is what I believe YOU believe, right? (I'm not sure, because you haven't yet told me whether you think the Word was someONE other than God, or someTHING other than God.) But #5 ends up being ruled out by the rest of John 1.
#6 seems to be relying on what your other source said about “interests” of God being “God”. I have yet to see a scripture where a possession OF God is actually “God”. I know of times in scripture where vice-regents of God are ADDRESSED AS “God” – but it is clear that they are not actually “God”, right?
So I would also rule out #6 because there is no “non-personal THING” that is actually “God”.
So, am I correct that #5 fits your idea the best?
Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 25 2014,22:59) I read John 1:1 wrong as as theos is the word was God is normative and not genitive as I thought it was.
That's what I assumed.And yes, the word order of the Greek is, “and theos was the logos”.
But that is like the phrase “casa blanca” in Spanish. It literally means “house white”. But in English, we would swap the order of the words, and translate as “white house”.
There is no hidden mystery or secret in order of the Greek words. Because in the Greek, it still could mean, “and A theos was the word”.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 26 2014,22:20) Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 26 2014,06:21) Mike, 1. Trinitarian Translation & Interpretation #1: “the Word was God” = Jesus was divine by nature (Jesus was “what”).
2. Trinitarian Translation & Interpretation #2: “the Word was God” = Jesus was the one God (Jesus was “who”).
3. Modalist Translation & Interpretation #1: “the Word was God” = Jesus was God the Father.
4. Watchtower Translation & Interpretation: “the Word was a god” = Jesus was a god (but not the God).
5. Other Translation & Interpretation #1: “the Word was a god” = the non-personal word was divine (what).
6. Other Translation & Interpretation #2: “the Word was a god” = the non-personal word was God (who).
These six chosen translations reveal there is some debate among experts about the correct translation of the Koine Greek words in John 1:1c as John 1:1 does not have internal context that is required to resolve the debate.
But there is context that does resolve the debate. There is also common sense.For example, #1 is a definite possibility.
#2 is nonsensical, for how can our ONE God be WITH our ONE God?
#3 is nonsensical because the Word OF the Father cannot be the Father Himself. Besides, how could “the Father” be “the only begotten OF the Father”?
#4 makes the best sense to me, since it is otherwise documented in scripture that Jesus is indeed “a god”, and the one through whom the Father created all things.
#5 is what I believe YOU believe, right? (I'm not sure, because you haven't yet told me whether you think the Word was someONE other than God, or someTHING other than God.) But #5 ends up being ruled out by the rest of John 1.
#6 seems to be relying on what your other source said about “interests” of God being “God”. I have yet to see a scripture where a possession OF God is actually “God”. I know of times in scripture where vice-regents of God are ADDRESSED AS “God” – but it is clear that they are not actually “God”, right?
So I would also rule out #6 because there is no “non-personal THING” that is actually “God”.
So, am I correct that #5 fits your idea the best?
Mike,I agree with you on #1.
#2 does not seem to be well thought out by its supporters but then the believe God is three persons in one individual. A rather absurd belief in itself.
#3 The Modalists believe in the three modes of God being the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and their chosen interpretation does not seem to be well thought out either. Then they believe God can be tempted by evil in one of his modes.
#4 is like #1 but you do seem to endorse it.
#5 is a variation of what I believe but then so is 1. The situation with 1 is the Trinitarians take in to an extreme and I choose not to.
#6 is workable but it is a more understand interpretation. I prefer an easier to understand one.
Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 28 2014,10:03) #5 is a variation of what I believe but then so is 1. The situation with 1 is the Trinitarians take in to an extreme and I choose not to.
It's not that the Trinitarians read, “and the Word was God”, and THEN made up their minds.The Trinitarians are the ones who translate 1:1c as, “and the Word was God” because they already made up their minds a long time ago, and want everyone else to be TRICKED into making that same asinine conclusion that the Son OF God was the very God he was the Son OF.
Besides, how can a regular Joe, reading, “and the Word was God“, NOT think that those words, in English, say the Word was the Most High God Almighty?
Your idea that we should translate as, “and the Word was God“, but then ask regular people to UNDERSTAND it different than what it clearly says, is a pipe dream.
Nobody in their right mind would read, “and the Word was God“, and think anything other than “the Word was actually the very being of God Almighty”.
And that is why it is a bad translation. I don't understand how you think it is an acceptable translation – IF understood correctly – because how else is someone supposed to understand those words?
In English, the word “God” (with a capital “G”) almost always (if not “always”) refers ONLY to the Most High God who created us, and who we are to worship. So what else are people supposed to think with that translation?
You agree with me that the Word wasn't actually “the being of God Almighty”. And if that is the case, then there is NO good reason to translate 1:1c in a way that would make 99.9% of all people THINK the Word WAS God Almighty Himself.
So #1 is completely out, and the WORST of them all, if you ask me. It is way too misleading.
So let's continue about #5. What do you mean by “a variation of what I believe”? I'm not yet sure what you believe, because you keep refusing to tell me whether the Word was someONE other than God, or someTHING other than God.
Which one is it?
Mike,
I mean a variation of 1 where the the definition of divine does not include actually having the attribute of being God and word is the literal word of God. It is thus a paraphrase of 5.
Okay, so you believe “the Word of God” is a LITERAL word that God spoke out of His mouth? Just one word? Or many words?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 01 2014,07:20) Okay, so you believe “the Word of God” is a LITERAL word that God spoke out of His mouth? Just one word? Or many words?
Mike,No to both of those. I am not even sure I can put it in words. God commands his angels by it and also converses with men by it. It contains eternal life. God created all things that are created by it. He judges by it.
This is what Merriam-Webster says:
Quote : the divine wisdom manifest in the creation, government, and redemption of the world and often identified with the second person of the Trinity Google says:
Quote the Word of God, or principle of divine reason and creative order, identified in the Gospel of John with the second person of the Trinity incarnate in Jesus Christ. Both are definitions of logos. Google' seems to be more Trinitarian biased than Merriam-Webster's. Neither sounds complete even if the bias is removed.
Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 01 2014,07:57) This is what Merriam-Webster says: Quote : the divine wisdom manifest in the creation, government, and redemption of the world and often identified with the second person of the Trinity Google says:
Quote the Word of God, or principle of divine reason and creative order, identified in the Gospel of John with the second person of the Trinity incarnate in Jesus Christ. Both are definitions of logos.
The authors of both definitions seem to believe the Word is Jesus.
Let's see if that common understanding holds true all the way through the criteria YOU have added to those definitions:Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 01 2014,07:57) God commands his angels by it……..
Like when God gave a prophecy to His Word, who in turn commanded one of God's angels to relate that prophecy to John? (Revelation 1:1)Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 01 2014,07:57) ……and also converses with men by it.
Like when the Word performed a three year ministry on earth, and explained a God that no one had ever seen to regular old human beings? (John 1:18)Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 01 2014,07:57) It contains eternal life.
You mean like Jesus contains eternal life? (John 5:26)Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 01 2014,07:57) God created all things that are created by it.
You mean like God created all things, in heaven and on earth, through Jesus? (Colossians 1:16, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Hebrews 1:2)Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 01 2014,07:57) He judges by it.
You mean like He judges by Jesus? (Acts 17:31)Hmmmm…….. I'm starting to see WHY your authors both believe the Word is Jesus Christ.
So that leads us back to the beginning, where one of the valid translations of John 1:1c is, “and the Word was a god“.
If that is the correct translation, and if Jesus actually IS the Word, like your criteria when joined with my scriptures seems to prove, then a scripture or two where Jesus is called a god would definitely support this working theory we have begun, right?
So……… are there a couple of places in scripture that support Jesus being a god? There are, right?
Mike,
You do know that Scripture states the word was made flesh. Any examples from Jesus' life would be after that point.
You have acknowledged that the statement “God is love” means that love is an attribute of God.
You do not see that “the word was made flesh” means that flesh was made an attribute of God's word.
Never the less that is what I believe so I expect Jesus to demonstrate the actions of God's utterance.There are times God spoke to an angels and commanded it to carry a message to mankind, or even an individual among mankind. There are times the word came to men through dreams or visions. Clouds have served to carry God's word.
The definitions I found make the point. to one degree or another, that some believe Jesus is God and the embodiment of God's utterance. I believe Jesus now embodies the word but I do not believe he is God.
Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 01 2014,14:24) Mike, You do know that Scripture states the word was made flesh. Any examples from Jesus' life would be after that point.
Why would you say that last part?For example, you assume that God created all things through “the Word” BEFORE the Word became flesh, right?
So when the same thing is said about “Jesus” in three different scriptures, why would you assume that God created all things in heaven and earth through him AFTER he became flesh?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 02 2014,21:54) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 01 2014,14:24) Mike, You do know that Scripture states the word was made flesh. Any examples from Jesus' life would be after that point.
Why would you say that last part?For example, you assume that God created all things through “the Word” BEFORE the Word became flesh, right?
So when the same thing is said about “Jesus” in three different scriptures, why would you assume that God created all things in heaven and earth through him AFTER he became flesh?
Mike,God freed creation from its bondage to decay by Jesus' one act of righteousness after he was made of the seed of David, as of the flesh.
Okay.
That doesn't erase the THREE different scriptures that say God created all things through Jesus Christ, does it?
So my question stands. Why do you assume God created all things through “the Word” BEFORE the Word was made flesh – but you DON'T assume God created all things through Jesus Christ BEFORE he was made flesh?
Why a double standard – when the scriptures say the same exact thing about “the Word” and “Jesus Christ” in this case?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
