Trinity &#8211; Is 1:18&#8217;s Proof Text #4

http://www.dianedew.com/john1.htm

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ June 22 2009,11:03)

Quote (Lightenup @ June 22 2009,14:47)

Thinker,
John 1:1 does not literally say “God is the word” according to proper Greek grammar anyway. In the case where two nominative case words are in the same sentence/clause, the one with the article “the” is the one that does the action. Literally the correct reading is “the word was God.”

Kathi

Kathi,
Please give your source and then explain what theological difference it makes. And will you accept the grammatical rule that governs Titus 2:13? Grammatically it is a direct assertion that Jesus Christ is God,

Quote

Looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ

Note this grammatical rule right from the textbook,

Quote

If two substantives are connected by kai and both have the article, they refer to two different persons or things; if the first has the article and the second does not, the second refers to the same person (Syntax of the New Testament Greek, University Press of America, p.76).

The textbook gives Titus 2:13 as an example of this rule,

προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

I put the article which comes before “great God” in bold for you. And I also put the Greek “kai” in bold. There is no article before “Savior”. This means that the substantatives “great God” and “Savior” (Jesus Christ) are ONE AND THE SAME.

This is right from the textbook!

1. Please provide your source

2. Will you accept the rule governing Titus 2:13?

3. What theological difference does it make if grammatically John 1:1 says, “And the Word was God?”

thinker

Hi Thinker,
You can go here to see it explained that the nominative without the article is the predicate nominative-the word that receives the action. Although it is just a guy studying for his doctoral degree in NT, he provides a name of a source. I don't remember my source for learning this, maybe the teacher in my Greek class.

Here is an excerpt of what he says:

Tim Elston, a doctoral candidate of the New Testament at Denver Seminary with a BA in Linguistics from the University of Oregon, explains it thus:

The absence of the article before “God” in John 1:1 is meant to indicate that “God” is the predicate nominative rather than the subject of the phrase. Because Greek does not use word order to indicate subject/object/predicate distinctions, one of its optional features is, where there is ambiguity in a subject-predicate nominative construction, to indicate the subject by preceding it with a definite article and to indicate the predicate nominative by the absence of a definite article. This is called “Colwell's Rule.”

This rule is evident at 1 John 4:8, “God is love.” The Greek reads: ho [the] Theos [God] agape [love] estin [is]. If agape had the definite article, instead of Theos, then the correct translation would be “Love is God.” But the definite article on Theos indicates “God” as the subject, and the absence of the article on agape indicates agape as the predicate nominative; thus, “God is love.” This amounts to a qualification of God rather than a deification of love.

In the case of John 1:1, the writer leaves the article off of Theos in order to mark it unambiguously as the predicate nominative. The absence of the article does not indicate that theos is an indefinite noun, as Jehovah's Witnesses have incorrectly led many to believe, but that it is not the subject of the phrase. The absence of the article on Theos assures the reader that “the Word” is the subject and that “God” is the predicate nominative.

In Greek, the article is much less a marking of definiteness than it is an article facilitating syntactic clarity. Indicating definiteness is only one of eleven functions of the article in Koine Greek. Moreover, definiteness does not require the article for its indication. Many, many definite nouns in Greek are not indicated as definite by the use of the article or by any other morphological tag. These anarthrous nouns (nouns which do not have the definite article) are definite simply by virtue of their semantic function. The absence of the article with these nouns in no way indicates them as indefinite. The second occurrence of Theos in John 1:1 is one of these anarthrous nouns which are nonetheless definite.

For further reading see Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 103-114.

Regarding John 1:1:
You ask what difference would it make if it said “the word was God” or “God was the word”, well, I'll think about that, maybe none, I am not sure. If it said “God was the word” then “the word” would be in the accusative case-the direct object which it is not, it is in the nominative case with the article making it the subject. The word here in Greek is logos and not logov.

Regarding Titus 2:13, I have no problem seeing Jesus as our great God and Savior. I see scriptures saying that He is our great God but I do not see scriptures saying that He is our great Most High God. There is a difference.

Kathi

June 22, 2009 at 11:57 pm#134240

Participant

Lightenup wrote:

Quote

Tim Elston, a doctoral candidate of the New Testament at Denver Seminary with a BA in Linguistics from the University of Oregon, explains it thus:

The absence of the article before “God” in John 1:1 is meant to indicate that “God” is the predicate nominative rather than the subject of the phrase. Because Greek does not use word order to indicate subject/object/predicate distinctions, one of its optional features is, where there is ambiguity in a subject-predicate nominative construction, to indicate the subject by preceding it with a definite article and to indicate the predicate nominative by the absence of a definite article. This is called “Colwell's Rule.”

Hi Kathi,
You have made this very interesting. But please note that Elston first says that the grammar he proposes is an “optional feature” and then calls it “Colwell's rule.” Well, which is it? Is it “optional” or is it a “rule?”

Then Elston says,

Quote

Elston's example from 1 John 4:8 is not convincing because the verse is written in the Greek exactly as it is translated in our English Bibles. In other words, 1 John 4:8 is not an example at all.

Then you said:

Quote

If it said “God was the word” then “the word” would be in the accusative case-the direct object which it is not, it is in the nominative case with the article making it the subject. The word here in Greek is logos and not logov.

You assume to be a rule what Elston himself says is an “optional feature.” The definite article is used in the first reference to God which is all that is needed. Therefore, the article is understood in the second reference to God.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Please note that I highlighted in bold the definite article with the first reference to “God.” This means that in the second reference to “God” the article is understood. Therefore, the translation “And God was the Word” is both literal and grammatically acceptable. Elston admits that his approach is an “optional feature.”

Lightenup said:

Quote

Titus 2:13, I have no problem seeing Jesus as our great God and Savior. I see scriptures saying that He is our great God but I do not see scriptures saying that He is our great Most High God. There is a difference.

There is no difference between Most High God” and “Great God.” You are parsing language in such a way as to fit your presuppositions. Your treatment of language appears suspicious. The word “great” is “megas” and is superlative,

Examples:

Quote

But there was a certain man called Simon, who previously practised sorcery in the city and astonished the people of Samaria, claiming that he was someone great, to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest (Acts 8:9-10)

and,

Quote

None shalll teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,” for they all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them (Heb. 8:11)

The words “great” and “greatest” are the same word “megas” (see Strong's # 3173, 3176, 3187). Paul knew nothing of which you are talking about. Jesus Christ is the “greatest” God. I must give you credit for making it interesting though.

thinker

June 23, 2009 at 12:11 am#134242

942767

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ June 19 2009,03:06)

Quote (942767 @ June 16 2009,10:22)

Hi thethinker:

For unto us a child is born, and unto us a son is given. And the government shall be upon His shoulder. And HIS NAME shall be called Wonderful. Counselor, MIGHTY GOD, EVERLASTING FATHER, PRINCE OF PEACE…. (Isaiah 9:6)

Please explain Isaiah 9:6.

The scripture states that his “name” shall be called… Not “he” he shall be called…

This is what Strong's has for “name”:

Quote

Outline of Biblical Usage 1) name

a) name

b) reputation, fame, glory

c) the Name (as designation of God)

d) memorial, monument

Hebrews 1:3 states that Jesus is the express image of God's person.

Love in Christ,
Marty

Marty,

What kind of logic is this? God told Moses that He is the “I AM.” Then He said, “This is My name forever” (Exodus 3:15). Are you saying that Christ is not Savior because the name “Jesus” is only a name? By your own weird logic you must deny that God is “I AM” because it is merely a name.

thinker

Hi thethinker:

Is his name Jesus, or is it “wonderful”, “counselor”, “mighty God” …?

Love in Christ,
Marty

June 23, 2009 at 12:41 am#134248

Participant

Marty said:

Quote

Hi thethinker:

Is his name Jesus, or is it “wonderful”, “counselor”, “mighty God” …?

Marty,
Is God's name Jehovah, Adonai or Elohim?

thinker

June 23, 2009 at 1:42 am#134262

942767

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ June 23 2009,12:41)

Marty said:

Quote

Hi thethinker:

Is his name Jesus, or is it “wonderful”, “counselor”, “mighty God” …?

Marty,
Is God's name Jehovah, Adonai or Elohim?

thinker

He said His Name is YHWH.

June 23, 2009 at 2:45 am#134277

Participant

Quote (942767 @ June 23 2009,13:42)

Quote (thethinker @ June 23 2009,12:41)

Marty said:

Quote

Hi thethinker:

Is his name Jesus, or is it “wonderful”, “counselor”, “mighty God” …?

Marty,
Is God's name Jehovah, Adonai or Elohim?

thinker

He said His Name is YHWH.

God has many names. Who is Elohim and Adonai then?

thinker

June 23, 2009 at 3:02 am#134281

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ June 22 2009,19:57)

Lightenup wrote:

Quote

Tim Elston, a doctoral candidate of the New Testament at Denver Seminary with a BA in Linguistics from the University of Oregon, explains it thus:

The absence of the article before “God” in John 1:1 is meant to indicate that “God” is the predicate nominative rather than the subject of the phrase. Because Greek does not use word order to indicate subject/object/predicate distinctions, one of its optional features is, where there is ambiguity in a subject-predicate nominative construction, to indicate the subject by preceding it with a definite article and to indicate the predicate nominative by the absence of a definite article. This is called “Colwell's Rule.”

Then Elston says,

Quote

Elston's example from 1 John 4:8 is not convincing because the verse is written in the Greek exactly as it is translated in our English Bibles. In other words, 1 John 4:8 is not an example at all.

Then you said:

Quote

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Lightenup said:

Quote

Examples:

Quote

and,

Quote

None shalll teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,” for they all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them (Heb. 8:11)

thinker

Thinker,
The Greek does not go by word order, you know that don't you? Maybe you ought look up the Colwell's rule and learn about predicate nominatives. You might brush up on the accusative case while you are at it.

Regarding Titus 2:13 none of the Bible translations translate that word as “greatest” even though it can be translated that if context requires it. So, that should show you that it does not mean “greatest” but it means “great” and that context does not require the word to be translated “greatest.” The great God and the Most High GOD are not equivalent. For instance, I could say that a man was great in the xyz company and that tells you that man was someone valuable to the company. If I said “that man is the most high in the xyz company” that has a different meaning and would mean that he was the top guy.

Do you see the difference.

Kathi

June 23, 2009 at 3:45 am#134290

942767

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ June 23 2009,14:45)

Quote (942767 @ June 23 2009,13:42)

Quote (thethinker @ June 23 2009,12:41)

Marty said:

Quote

Hi thethinker:

Is his name Jesus, or is it “wonderful”, “counselor”, “mighty God” …?

Marty,
Is God's name Jehovah, Adonai or Elohim?

thinker

He said His Name is YHWH.

God has many names. Who is Elohim and Adonai then?

thinker

Hi thethinker:

Elohim and LORD are titles for God. His name is YHWH.

Love in Christ,
Marty

June 23, 2009 at 8:34 am#134315

Participant

Marty said:

Quote

Hi thethinker:

Elohim and LORD are titles for God. His name is YHWH.

Marty,
Come on! A title is a name.

Quote

title: A characteristic or descriptive name (Funk and Wagnall's Dictionary)

This is getting ridiculous. I am done with this particular point.

thinker

June 23, 2009 at 9:04 am#134316

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm

Participant

Lightenup said:

Quote

Kathi,
Elston failed to prove his grammar. He said that it was an “optional feature” and then gives 1 John 4:8 as an example. I showed that 1 John 4:8 cannot be an example because of the word order. It's that simple. Yes I am aware that translation does not always go by word order.

About Colwell's rule:

Quote

In the past, Trinitarians have argued that Colwell’s rule proves that the anarthrous theos in John 1:1c (the Word was God) must be taken as definite. They have done so to combat Arianism and modern day Jehovah’s Witnesses. The New World Translation, the official Bible of Jehovah’s Witnesses, translates John 1:1c as “the Word was a god.” So we can see why Trinitarian scholars would object to such a translation and instead argue for a definite theos, thus proving the deity of Christ in this passage. However, as Daniel Wallace has pointed out, simply appealing to Colwell’s rule alone does not prove that theos must be taken as definite.2 His rule would only say that if theos is definite then it would probably lack the article (and it does). But the reverse is not necessarily true. Simply lacking the article in this construction does not make the noun definite.

PLEASE NOTE THAT COLWELL'S RULE WAS DONE TO COMBAT ARIANISM. This is NOT how we are to approach grammar. John 1:1 combats Arainism without our help. It literally says, “And God was the Word.” This effectively condemns Arainism without the help of innovative, trinitarian grammars.

Lightenup said:

Quote

Regarding Titus 2:13 none of the Bible translations translate that word as “greatest” even though it can be translated that if context requires it….The great God and the Most High GOD are not equivalent.

Paul knew nothing of a hierarchy of gods anywhere in his writings. So I doubt that the translators meant to say that “great” means less.

Lightenup said;

Quote

The great God and the Most High GOD are not equivalent. For instance, I could say that a man was great in the xyz company and that tells you that man was someone valuable to the company. If I said “that man is the most high in the xyz company” that has a different meaning and would mean that he was the top guy.

Do you see the difference.

I see the Lamb receiving the exact same honor, glory and praise as Him which you call the “Most High” God,

Quote

Worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom, and strength and honor and glory and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven and on earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that is in them, I heard saying: “Blessing and honor and glory and power be to Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, forever and ever” (Rev. 5:12-14)

If there is a hierarchy of gods in the new testament then why does the whole creation (accept you) give the Lamb the same honor, glory and power as it does to Him that sits upon the throne?

thinker

June 23, 2009 at 9:09 am#134317

Participant

Hi TT,
Jesus the Lamb received honour?
The one who receives is less that the one giving any honour. [Heb7]

And make your mind up whether God is one or two or three…or….

June 23, 2009 at 2:59 pm#134327

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 23 2009,21:09)

Hi TT,
Jesus the Lamb received honour?
The one who receives is less that the one giving any honour. [Heb7]

And make your mind up whether God is one or two or three…or….

Nick,
I don't understand your question about me making up my mind. God is a trinity. I speak only of the Father and the Son because it is the Son's identity and His relation to the Father that is disputed by many here.

thinker

June 23, 2009 at 6:26 pm#134361

Participant

Hi TT,
So let's start from the beginning.
Where does scripture say God is a trinity ?

June 23, 2009 at 6:45 pm#134375

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ June 23 2009,05:04)

Lightenup said:

Quote

About Colwell's rule:

Quote

Lightenup said:

Quote

Paul knew nothing of a hierarchy of gods anywhere in his writings. So I doubt that the translators meant to say that “great” means less.

Lightenup said;

Quote

Do you see the difference.

I see the Lamb receiving the exact same honor, glory and praise as Him which you call the “Most High” God,

Quote

If there is a hierarchy of gods in the new testament then why does the whole creation (accept you) give the Lamb the same honor, glory and power as it does to Him that sits upon the throne?

thinker

Thinker,
Who is speaking in this passage:

Rev 3:12
12 'He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name.
NASU

After you answer that, tell me if we should acknowledge that the speaker recognizes another as “His God”.

If He recognizes another as “His God,” then I honor another as “His God.” I give both, the Father and the Son the same honor that they give each other.

I honor them the same by believing in both, trusting both, and following both. I believe in the SON, I believe in the Father, I trust the Son, I trust the Father, I follow the Son, I follow the Father. I honor them the same.

John 5:22-23
22 “For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son,
23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
NASU

Kathi

June 23, 2009 at 7:16 pm#134390

Participant

Lightenup said:

Quote

Thinker,
Who is speaking in this passage:

After you answer that, tell me if we should acknowledge that the speaker recognizes another as “His God”.

If He recognizes another as “His God,” then I honor another as “His God.” I give both, the Father and the Son the same honor that they give each other.

John 5:22-23
22 “For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son,
23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
NASU

Kathi

Kathi,
You've lost me. I can't tell if you are an Arain or a Trinitarian or a mixture of both. I don't know how to reply to a person who says that Christ is less than the Most High God but yet claims to honor the Father and the Son the same. It does not compute for me. Sorry I find it easier to discourse with those who deny that Christ is a god of any kind and in any degree.

thinker

June 23, 2009 at 7:35 pm#134398

Participant

Hi LU,
Are you now a binity believer?
That was the origin of trinity folly.

June 24, 2009 at 2:44 am#134447

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 23 2009,15:35)

Hi LU,
Are you now a binity believer?
That was the origin of trinity folly.

Nick,
Please tell me what the definition of a binity believer is.
Kathi

June 24, 2009 at 2:46 am#134448

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ June 23 2009,15:16)

Lightenup said:

Quote

Thinker,
Who is speaking in this passage:

After you answer that, tell me if we should acknowledge that the speaker recognizes another as “His God”.

If He recognizes another as “His God,” then I honor another as “His God.” I give both, the Father and the Son the same honor that they give each other.

Kathi

thinker

Thinker,
Would you please answer my question…who is the speaker in that passage in Revelations?

I have been telling you that I am neither trinitarian nor am I arian. Are you finally getting it?

Kathi

June 24, 2009 at 2:53 am#134450

Participant

Hi LU,
The first deception Satan led the early church into was that both the Father and the Son were God and that they were a single binity God.
Having bravely gone thus far into folly some decided that perhaps the Spirit of God was another god in God and thence the trinity idea became orthodoxy.

June 24, 2009 at 5:16 pm#134474