- This topic has 38 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Here is a topic to put Greek grammar reasons for interpreting passages correctly.
I hope this is useful and gets rid of ongoing opposing views when a simple grammar lesson can bring truth to all.
Blessings, LU
This first Greek lesson is to clear up how to translate the Greek word “dia.”
Translating “dia” (Strong’s #1223) is simplified by what type of word follows it. If the word after “dia” is in the genitive case it is translated as “through” et al. as opposed to the accusative case which would be translated as “for the sake of” et al. I have simplified it to those two ways to translate the word “dia” because those two ways have brought much debate. This lesson should help Gene and Jodi the most since they continually misuse the word.
Here is the video lesson to show this: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; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence the Word. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos [gods] and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that “the theos” on the one hand is Autotheos [God of himself] and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true theos [God]; “but that all beyond the theos [God] is made theos by participation in His deity, and is not to be called simply “theos” but rather “the theos “. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with the theos , and to attract to Himself deity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos [gods] beside Him, of which theos is the theos [God], as it is written, “The theos [God] of theos [gods], the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became theos [gods], for He drew from the theos [God] in generous measure that they should be made theos [gods], and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true theos [God], then, is “the theos ,” [“the God” as opposed to “god”] and those who are formed after Him are theos [such as the Son of God], images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the word of the theos [God], who was in the beginning, and who by being with the theos [God] is at all times deity, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos , if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.”
Proclaimer quoted Origen:
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.
I don’t believe that Origen’s explanation that you quoted above is consistent with the “theos” who hasn’t been “seen” in John 1:18 which does not have the article unless we are to believe that the “theos” whom no one has ever yet seen is not referring to the uncreated cause of all things. See here:
John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
That shows that we can’t say that the lack of the article with theos means the theos spoken about is not the uncreated cause of all things. Also, the whole supposed quote of Origen in your post above shows a problem when writing “theos” as a plural, since “t h e o s” is not how the word is pluralized yet that is how it is written in the quote as a plural. See this sentence in your quote: “The theos [God] of theos [gods]…” The second “theos” should be “thwn”.
Deut 10:17 LXX “… θεὸς τῶν θεῶν” (God of gods). The first (θεὸς) is written with these Greek letters: t-h-e-o-s, the second word translated as “gods” is t-h-w-n.
With both of those problems, (the inconsistency with the article in John 1:1b and John 1:18a, and the misspelled thwn as theos), I wouldn’t rely on what that quote even says.
A verse, although not written by John, to see how the article with “theos” does not absolutely refer the “theos” to be the uncreated cause of all things is Phil 3:19.
Do you see “ho theos” there? It is obviously not referring to the uncreated cause of all things as Origen would have us believe. It is showing how to some, the god is the belly. Context is much more important than the presence or absence of the article.
Much more to the point:
The ultimate difference between any use of “theos” when applied to someone should be about whether the “theos” in question is identified as YHVH by the Father or not. Jesus is identified as YHVH by the Father. Heb 1:10
Origen is correct. Ask anyone who knows Greek and scholars who know about ancient Greek. I even checked this out with a guy who speaks Greek. He confirmed to me that this is correct. It even works the same in English to a degree.
The river means a specific river.
The context will tell you what river is being spoken of.
So, the God is the actual God spoken of in the context of the surrounding verses.
A river (or just river in Greek) is qualitative. For example, ‘flows like a river’.
So, theos without the definite article is talking about the nature or qualities of God. Divinity or divine is what it is saying. For false gods, it is about authority and worship, etc. But they can also be the God if it is talking specifically about a particular false God. For example, “The god of this world”.
So, the Word was divine. It doesn’t say that the Word is the God. In fact, if it said that, it would be excluding the Father from being God. Because there is one God.
The Word is THE only begotten God. John 1:18 helps us understand John 1:1c.
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God and the Word was the only begotten God.
Proclaimer: The river means a specific river.
…just river… is qualitative. For example, ‘flows like a river’.
So, theos without the definite article is talking about the nature or qualities of God.
Again, no. Just as “river” without the definite article is talking about an ACTUAL river, god without the definite article is talking about an ACTUAL god.
If someone writes in Greek, “he got baptized in river”, it doesn’t mean that he got baptized in something that WASN’T a river, but merely had some qualities OF a river. It means he got baptized in an ACTUAL river that simply wasn’t specified by name.
Switch the word “god” in John 1:1 with the word “lord”, for example.
And the word was with THE Lord, and the word was A lord.
It’s just like Jesus’ example in Matthew 22:44. Jesus understands that King David was talking about two different lords – one of whom was with the other. David wasn’t talking about one lord – and then someone else who WASN’T an actual lord, but only shared some qualities with the first lord, right?
Likewise, John was talking about two different gods – one of whom was with the other. He wasn’t talking about one god – and then someone else who WASN’T an actual god, but only shared some qualities with the first god.
River without the definite article means “a river” – not “river-like”.
Lord without the definite article means “a lord” – not “lord-like”.
And god without the definite article means “a god” – not “god-like”.
John 1:1 teaches us that the Word was a god who was with THE God in the beginning. Not someone who was “god-like”. Not someone who shared some qualities with THE God. But an ACTUAL god who was with the Most High God in the beginning.
If someone writes in Greek, “he got baptized in river”, it doesn’t mean that he got baptized in something that WASN’T a river, but merely had some qualities OF a river. It means he got baptized in an ACTUAL river that simply wasn’t specified by name.
True in English. We are talking about Greek though.
In Greek, they are used more often than their English equivalent, “the.” So while in English we say “I like tennis”, in Greek we say μου αρέσει το τένις (mu arési to ténis), literally “I like the tennis”, because we are specifying which sport we like. We even use articles in front of days of the week, months, years, festivals, seasons, and proper names of places or people. For example, Ο Γιάννης είναι εδώ (O Yánis íne edó, “[Τhe] John is here”). However, when we address that person directly, we don’t use an article and we form the name in the vocative case. For example, Γιάννη, έλα δω. (Yáni, éla do, “John, come here”). Notice how Γιάννης (Yánis) in the nominative case changed to Γιάννη (Yáni) in the vocative case.
https://www.greekpod101.com/lesson/absolute-beginner-questions-answered-by-stefania-4-how-do-you-use-the-definite-articles/#:~:text=Greek%20has%20three%20different%20definite,%2C%20and%20neuter%20genders%2C%20respectively.&text=However%2C%20when%20we%20address%20that,example%2C%20%CE%93%CE%B9%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%BD%CE%B7%2C%20%CE%AD%CE%BB%CE%B1%20%CE%B4%CF%89I don’t disagree with anything you just copied and pasted. Unfortunately, neither does it at any time come close to addressing my post. 🙂
The Father is “the” God who is “the” God together with his Son, not separately from his Son. The Father and Son, together with their Spirit, are the God and Lord YHVH.
I don’t disagree with anything you just copied and pasted. Unfortunately, neither does it at any time come close to addressing my post.
Read my post again Mike.
- I provided a link to the copied text, so was not claiming it as my own.
- If Greek text was talking about a river that was not named or identified, it would still use the definite article. John 1:1c doesn’t use the definite article.
God is God and he has a Son.
You say God is a Son by saying that they both make up God.
Your doctrine takes away the uniqueness of the Son which is the foundation of the Church. A foundation that will never be destroyed. Of course people are free to preach another foundation.
Scripture is clear. When you read about God, you can transfer the Father as God and the verses make perfect sense. If you replace the word God in scripture for Trinity, Binity, Father and Son, or Father, Son, Spirit, then the verses break.
We are of course not including other gods that scripture may be referring to such as false gods for example.
PC
I wouldn’t say you are disagreeing with me by reading your response, I would say that you are not understanding me.
Do you believe that John 1:18 in the NASB 1995 refers to Jesus as the only begotten God?
NASB 1995
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.If not, who do you believe John is referring to as “the only begotten God?”
Do you believe that John 1:18 in the NASB 1995 refers to Jesus as the only begotten God?
NASB 1995
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.If not, who do you believe John is referring to as “the only begotten God?”
LU……Better Question, Do you believe any of the hundreds if not thousand of scriptures that say Jesus was the “Son of God” , or are you going to hang on to One scripture over hundreds if not thousand that say the opposite? You must then believe the whole Bible is a lie then, except for the “ONE” scripture you believing in.
Being hard headed and stubborn can prevent growth LU.
Peace and love to you and yours LU………gene
John 1:18 calls Jesus the begotten God. Therefore he must be God Almighty right?
“No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”
Seems pretty clear doesn’t it. Jesus is God, the only begotten God.
Case closed……………….Not so fast.
John 1:18 is actually rendered in two different ways. One uses the word ‘son’, the other ‘God’.
Translations render these differently because ancient manuscripts use either one.Before I begin to explain further, I need to point out that it is clear that these two different versions show that there is some textual corruption. Only one version can be true (or neither if we want to get technical). For now, let’s examine different translations of this verse and you will see it is divided between ‘begotten theos/god or begotten son.
(King James Version)
“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”(New International Version)
“No-one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.”(New American Version)
“No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”(Revised Standard Version)
“No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.”(New Living Bible)
“No one has ever seen God. But his only Son, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart; he has told us about him.”(New Jerusalem)
“No one has ever seen God; it is the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.”So which one is correct? Well I suppose a person who believes in the Trinity would say one and a person who doesn’t would say the other to suit their views. But I am going to show you that neither support the Trinity Doctrine.
Let’s imagine that it is, “begotten God”. Well that doesn’t prove a Trinity nor the idea that Jesus is God. Why? Because God is without beginning and begotten means that you came from another at some point. Thus if Jesus is the begotten theos, then he is not the eternal God by whom all came. So if this is true, then the way to read this verse would be as further clarification for John 1:1. Here we see that the Word was theos, and so verse 18 could be implying that this Word that was with God came to be with him by being begotten of God.
But is there proof or some evidence that supports ‘begotten theos’? Well Origen read it that way, thus if it is incorrect, then it is an old corruption. But it is indeed a strange corruption if it is because most corruptions that were changed or implanted in order to support the Trinity, show up in the AKJV and its text the Textus Receptus. Such as John 5:7 and 1Tim 3:16. Yet here we have the opposite. The AKJV says, ‘begotten son’, while the NIV and NASB both infer ‘begotten theos/god’. This alone leads me to believe that ‘begotten theos could be the right one. However, there is also good circumstantial evidence that ‘begotten son is correct and thus this translation in no way supports the Trinity either.
The evidence for this view is the context of John 1:1-18. Verse 8 itself is considered the concluding verse in his gospel’s prologue (John 1-18) and we read just 4 verses back in verse 14 where it says, “we beheld his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten from a father, full of grace and truth”. So in verse 18 could well be building on this and saying the same thing but being more specific by saying only begotten son. We also see the term ‘begotten son’ elsewhere in his book such as JOHN 3:16 and 18:
John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have everlasting life.”John 3:18
“He that believes on him is not judged: but he that believes not has been judged already, because he has not believed on the name of the only-begotten Son of God.”So if we had to choose between begotten son or begotten god, then John’s use of “begotten son” elsewhere gives some support that verse 18 is ‘begotten son’ if we think that he was being consistent with this phrase.
But let’s take a look at some other verses from John to see if he believes that Jesus is God.
In John 5:44, Jesus criticizes his opponents “who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God.” Jesus uses the adjective monos meaning “only.”
Second, in JOHN 17:3 Jesus prays to his Father and states, “this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent.” In this verse Jesus again uses the adjective “only.” The Greek word rendered “true” means “true, real, genuine.” Jesus’ statement in JOHN 17:3 is clear. He distinguishes between himself and the Father, and clearly describes the Father as “the only true God.” By his own logic, whatever Jesus may be, he cannot be “true God” since the Father is “the only true, real or genuine God.” If the Father is elsewhere described as “the only true God” how can the Son also be the true God, when only one is the true God and this one true God sent his son into the world.
So whatever view we take concerning this matter, neither teach or support the Trinity Doctrine. Both are opposed to it.
Proclaimer, I agree , there is “Only” one true God”, and the Trinity is a lie, fostered on mankind by Satan himself and his deceived ministers.
Good post.
peace and love to you and yours Proclaimer…………gene
To all……Here is a good example of how adding a definite article, can change the meaning of our text.
Paul said ……”By works of “the” law shall no flesh be Justified before God” , that on the surface seems like a contradiction of scripture, right because aren’t we told to keep the Law, didn’t Jesus tell the rich man to keep the commandments of God?. So what’s wrong here then?
our scriptures were corrupted by the translator when copping the words from the text, because in the original Greek the Definite article isn’t there. Look it up and you will see Paul was not say “the” law, but just “Law” , what the difference then, by using the “definite article ” There it is referencing specific laws like the Ten Commandments, but remove the Definite Article and you are not talking about the Ten Commandments but about the Law itself , another word s the works of law or how law work, it works through “forced compliance ” , another words Paul was saying a person is not justified by the way law (forced compliance” works”, he was not saying that we should not keep the commandments , but it’s “How” we keep them.Check it out you will find in the Greek original translations the Definite Article “THE” is not there.
peace and love to you all and yours……..gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
