- This topic has 38 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Proclaimer: 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.
Like I said, your copy and paste didn’t address my point – and still doesn’t. Let me give you a couple of examples.
Acts 28:5-6… But Paul shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no ill effects. The islanders were expecting him to swell up or suddenly drop dead. But after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.
Do you see the “a god” there? That is “god” without a definite article. We translate as “a god”.
Acts 12:21-22… On the appointed day, Herod donned his royal robes, sat on his throne, and addressed the people. And they began to shout, “This is the voice of a god, not a man!”
Do you see the “a god” there? Again, that is “god” without a definite article. We translate as “a god”. (Also note the “a man” at the end. That is “man” without a definite article, so we translate into English as “a man”.)
Do you understand my point, now? If we see “man” without a definite article, we translate into English as “a man”. When we see “god” without a definite article, we translate into English as “a god”.
Now, as you pointed out above, John 1:1c has “god” without a definite article. Using what you’ve just learned, how do we translate that into English?
LU: Do you believe that John 1:18 in the NASB 1995 refers to Jesus as the only begotten God?
Yes. Jesus is one of myriads of gods in the scriptures. His and our God, Yahweh, is the Most High God of all the other gods. Jesus, as God’s first creation, is the second most high god – and called the only-begotten god in the bosom of the Father because he was the firstborn, and occupies the most prestigious place at the right hand of his and our God, Yahweh.
The only-begotten god is not the Most High God who created him, but is instead the son, servant, priest, holy one, prophet, heir, anointed one, mediator, and sacrificial lamb OF the Most High God who created him. I learned all of this in the scriptures.
@Proclaimer @Gene @mikeboll64 and anyone else that cares to answer.
The question was:
Do you believe that John 1:18 in the NASB 1995 refers to Jesus as the only begotten God?
Everyone here that responded agree that John 1:18 in the NASB 1995 refers to Jesus as the only begotten God.
That’s great. We agree on something.
If the NASB 1995 is accurate for John 1:18, Jesus is the ONLY begotten God and thus there are no other “begotten” gods.
Can we agree on that?
I agree that Jesus is the “monogenes” god according to John 1:18. I don’t mind the “only-begotten” translation, but the Greek word has the sense of “one of a kind”…
And Jesus is definitely unique as the first one created by God. That sets him apart (and higher) than all the other gods who were created through him by the Most High God. But we can’t apply the human aspects of begetting an offspring (creating a new life via transferal of the mother’s and father’s genes) to God.
I agree that Jesus is “the only of his kind”, but I wouldn’t try to build any doctrines around the translation “only-begotten” – as if it means Jesus literally spawned from the very loins of the Father. And I’ll remind you that any child who was ever “begotten” is, by default, also a “creation” of their father. The word “begotten” in the case of Jesus doesn’t make him an exception to this rule.
One who was begotten by any means is also one who was created (ie: one who didn’t exist before, but now does). And that is true even if this newly created person consists of things that did exist before he as a person did (ie: genetic bits and pieces or whatever else).
Hey Kathi, you popped into the “Conspiracies” thread and offered some opinions. I questioned you on them, but you disappeared. We’re delving into whether we believe the Biblical account of creation or the Scientism account right now. I’d really like to see your input. Thanks.
The post at the top of this page, please. Thanks.
Please address the post at the top of this page.
Please come to the Conspiracies thread and offer your input.
Like I said, your copy and paste didn’t address my point – and still doesn’t. Let me give you a couple of examples.
Acts 28:5-6… But Paul shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no ill effects. The islanders were expecting him to swell up or suddenly drop dead. But after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.
Do you see the “a god” there? That is “god” without a definite article. We translate as “a god
What I said is still true.
Now to the point you bring up. The fact is that Paul is not a specific God. He is not addresses as the God to the Romans or the God of this Church etc. So yes, no definite article. And as I have said multiple times, in fact for decades now, if Paul was called an angel, that wouldn’t make him an angel in species or a cherubim. It would simply mean that he had the qualities of one, but was still not a definite angelic being. Ignoring that angel can mean messenger, I will give a clearer example so you won’t get all confused.
If I called you a rocket scientist because you said something brilliant, that wouldn’t mean you were even a scientist, or that you worked for Rocket Lab or NASA as a scientist. Get it now? And obviously I have never called you a rocket scientist. This is just an example.
If you were an actual God, then you would be ‘the God’ in Greek. The God of the cosmos. The God of this age. The God of fire etc. But if you had some qualities of a specific God, then you could be called theos without the definite article. Having the quality of something doesn’t define you as that thing. If I was as fast as a cheetah, strong as an ox, or as slippery as a fish, then these qualities do not make me any of those species. But in order to define these qualities I have, you can call me cheetah or in English ‘a cheetah, but not THE cheetah.
I hope this helps.
Proclaimer: I hope this helps.
It helps me know that you are a VERY prideful person who never gives up on his erroneous arguments no matter how many times you are shown to be wrong.
Listen again… How do we translate god without a definite article into English? How do we translate man without a definite article into English?
I gave you examples of both in my previous post, right? Am I wrong? Did I misspeak? Or are you able to see with your own eyes that man without the article is “a man” in English, and god without the article is “a god” in English?
Let me now educate you further with the 25 Trinitarian scholars who produced the NET Bible…
Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite.
Proclaimer, are you able to see that “a god” is a possible translation of John 1:1c? Can you see that with your own eyes?
Colwell’s Rule tries to wiggle out of the Word being called a god in 1:1c by suggesting that in certain situations, even though the Greek writer could have used the definite article but didn’t, we in English can still ADD the definite article to the writing. In other words, if the translator wants to, Colwell’s Rule allows him just enough wiggle room to FORCE the Greek of 1:1c into saying that the Word was THE God, ie: the very God the Word was WITH! 🤔🙄
But that was just an aside. The point I’m making to you is that the natural Greek-to-English translation of 1:1c is, “and the word was a god”. And that translation doesn’t mean the recipient has “Godlike qualities” like you’re trying your best to force down my throat. An “a god” translation means exactly what it says: The Word was A god – but not THE God.
Now just in case you think you might STILL argue the point, here are a couple more TRINITARIAN scholars telling you the same thing…
“Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,….” – Murray J. Harris
“If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” – C. H. Dodd
John 1:1 should be translated “the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.” – John L. McKenzie (Catholic Biblical scholar)
The bottom line is that the correct translation of 1:1c is “and the word was a god”. And “a god” means exactly what it says. It wasn’t said in jest or metaphorically like your examples “you are an angel” or “you are a rocket scientist”.
And even your own examples belie your very own point – because nobody has ever said, “you are angel” or “you are rocket scientist” – meaning that the recipient has qualities of those things. They say, “you are AN angel” – not “you are angel”. And by saying, “you are AN angel”, they are literally calling you AN angelic being, albeit in a metaphoric way.
So now that you realize there is no sayings such as “you are angel/you are rocket scientist/you are god”, meaning you have qualities of those things – but I could say that “you are AN angel/A rocket scientist/A god”, we only need determine from context if the speaker is serious, or saying you were an angel/a rocket scientist/a god metaphorically.
Is there any reason for you to think John was just messing around when he wrote, “the word was a god”… as if he was calling Jesus a “rock god” or something?
Since there isn’t, when John clearly said that the word was a god, he was being deadly serious. Jesus is indeed a god – just like Satan and Jehovah are. The difference is that only Jehovah is the Most High God OF all of the other gods.
Are you there yet? Are you finally ready to acknowledge that the scriptures are absolutely loaded with tons of real, live gods – and with one Most High God who is the God OF all the other ones?
Because that is exactly what the scriptures teach – whether you like it or not. Jesus, Satan, Molech, Dagon, Ashtaroth, Jehovah, and a whole mess of others in the scriptures are literal gods. Jehovah is the only Most High God of all those other gods.
There is no such thing as “you are angel” or “you are rocket scientist”. Give it up already.
There is no such thing as “you are angel” or “you are rocket scientist”. Give it up already.
Exactly. So if we ADD in an indefinite article to make the sentence work in English despite it not being there in Greek, then one can argue that you are an actual angel when that is not what was intended. See that? If I say that you are an angel, then I think you would get it to mean it was qualitative. But if I said the same about Jesus or say Melchizedek, now you might be tempted to think he was an actual angelic being because that construct allows for this interpretation,
So, if you translate John 1:1c as “a god”, then you are now teaching that Jesus is God too if you were specifically talking about him. So the next logical argument to build from there is the Trinity Doctrine where they are 3 but all God or each is a God, but together are THE God.
So I think The word was a god is not a good translation and divine is better because I think it preserves the real meaning of what the Greek text is saying. It also gets around the undesirable effects of adding in an indefinite article, that doesn’t exist in Greek, but can have serious consequences once you add it in.
I hope this helps.
Proclaimer,
You said “John 1:18 calls Jesus the begotten God. Therefore he must be God Almighty right?”
John 1:18 NASB 1995 doesn’t merely call Jesus the begotten God but the ONLY begotten God. Therefore being the only begotten God would make him the only Son (in the highest sense) of the God who begat him. As the Son of God, he does the will of the One who beget him. Everything that the only begotten God has ever done has been in accordance to the will of the One who beget him. The will of the One who beget him was to give the only begotten God all authority in heaven and on earth after his work on the cross.
Therefore, the only begotten God is the God of this age. In the future, it seems that he gives that authority back to the One who begat him. The only begotten God will forever be the King of kings and the Lord of lords in accordance to the will of the One who begat him.
Proclaimer, do you believe this?
Mike,
You said: “I agree that Jesus is “the only of his kind”, but I wouldn’t try to build any doctrines around the translation “only-begotten” – as if it means Jesus literally spawned from the very loins of the Father.”
In other words, you don’t believe that Jesus is the only Son of God in the highest sense of the word, as if he is a Son in the “biological” sense. You believe that Jesus is the first son of God among others who are created sons. Is that a correct understanding of your doctrine, Mike?
If so, you might as well omit the word “only” and completely change the phrase “the Only Begotten God” to the first begotten god. Which one of us thinks of Jesus as a “son” of God in the biological sense, me or you? By “biological” I mean he came by a process of asexual reproduction (whatever that may look like) and the only one whom came by that manner.
You seem to assume that the essence that became a son did not exist at one point but I believe that the essence that became the Son is identical to the essence that became the Father. The relationship of Father to Son is what was created, not the essence within them which has always existed.
Btw, so sorry for my late response. I went back to college and it requires a great deal of my time, let alone that I am having a house built and needing to be very involved in making decisions for that. Thanks for the response to my question. 🙂
LU: You believe that Jesus is the first son of God among others who are created sons. Is that a correct understanding of your doctrine, Mike?
Yes. God created Jesus first, and then created all the other gods through Jesus – whatever that means.
LU: If so, you might as well omit the word “only” and completely change the phrase “the Only Begotten God” to the first begotten god.
Hebrews 11:17 uses the same Greek term for Isaac, even though he wasn’t Abraham’s only son – or even his first.
LU: Btw, so sorry for my late response. I went back to college and it requires a great deal of my time, let alone that I am having a house built and needing to be very involved in making decisions for that. Thanks for the response to my question.
You’re building ANOTHER house? Didn’t you just do that 5 or 6 years ago?
Proclaimer: Exactly. So if we ADD in an indefinite article to make the sentence work in English despite it not being there in Greek, then one can argue that you are an actual angel when that is not what was intended. See that? If I say that you are an angel, then I think you would get it to mean it was qualitative. But if I said the same about Jesus or say Melchizedek, now you might be tempted to think he was an actual angelic being because that construct allows for this interpretation.
That is correct. Any written account requires discernment on the part of the reader… especially the Bible. Btw, there is no such thing as an “angel” in the Bible. There are only “messengers”. When an English translator DISCERNS that the messenger in question is a spirit entity, he will translate using the English word “angel”. Is he right? Is every single translator right about every single messenger every single time? Well, that calls for YOUR discernment. 😉
Proclaimer: So, if you translate John 1:1c as “a god”, then you are now teaching that Jesus is God too if you were specifically talking about him. So the next logical argument to build from there is the Trinity Doctrine where they are 3 but all God or each is a God, but together are THE God.
No, I’m teaching what John himself taught: Jesus was a god who was with the god in the beginning. And no, it is not even close to logical to go from “Jesus and Satan and Michael and Gabriel are gods” to “Jesus and Satan and Michael and Gabriel are all Yahweh – the Most High God”.
Listen dude, you can’t rightly build your doctrine around what the actual scriptures may or may not cause other people to believe. Just tell it like it is, and let the chips fall where they may. You can’t rightly say that, because you are afraid someone might become a Trinitarian, you’re going to REMOVE the word god that John wrote in 1:1c, and REPLACE it with the word “divine” that John didn’t write. That is not honest, man.
John used the word god with the definite article, and then without it. The clear meaning and correct translation is, “the Word was with God, and the Word was a god”. There are no two ways about it. John didn’t write “divine”. John didn’t write “godlike”. John didn’t write, “had qualities of God”.
He wrote god without the article, which means we translate into English as “a god”. End of story – no matter how many poor people we might be pushing into Trinitarianism, or Satanism, or Flat Earth, or whatever. Let your yes be yes, and your no be no.
Hi Mike,
You agreed that Jesus is called the only begotten God/god in the NASB 1995 version. You use the example of Isaac being called the only begotten son of Abraham to show that one son can be called the only begotten son even though there are other sons that were fathered by Abraham. Let me ask you this: How many sons of the promise were begotten of Abraham?
Read this version:
Heb 11:17 Young’s Literal Translation
By faith Abraham hath offered up Isaac, being tried, and the only begotten he did offer up who did receive the promises,Reading it that way nullifies your argument that Isaac was the only begotten son but really one among many, for Abraham offered up his only begotten son, the only begotten son that received the promises. None of the other sons received the promises given to Abraham which were realized through Isaac. So the qualifier there for Isaac being the ONLY begotten son was “who did receive the promises….”
Also, I was planning on building a house 5+ years ago but sold that lot and bought another one with a completely different layout. Therefore I started designing a different house and this one is actually being built. All that fun that I have had designing now, two houses, has turned into going to college for a certificate in Engineering Technology Systems in Architecture Drafting and Design. The amount of work to complete the classes is kicking my butt so I can only be on here a small amount of time.
Thanks for your response and your defense at times from you know who ;).
God bless, LU
Proclaimer,
You admit that John 1:18 refers to Jesus as the only begotten theos in the NASB 1995 version. Is it even possible to you that you can understand John 1:1 like this:
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God (the Father) and the Word was God (the only begotten God).
After all, John 1:18 is merely 17 verses later. Don’t you think that John who said the Word was theos meant the same One John refers to as the only begotten theos within the same chapter?
Please respond to the last post from me addressed to you on this thread. Thanks, LU
Kathi, that’s a great story about you liking design so much you are thinking about doing it professionally.
I hear what you’re saying about Isaac, and that tracks fine with me. I have no problem with the “only-begotten” translation of “monogenes”. I’m cool with Jesus being God’s “only-begotten” son.
But remember, EVERY only-begotten son who has ever existed was brought into existence by his father. In other words, there was a time when every single only-begotten son didn’t exist at all, and then a later time when he did exist.
You claim that Jesus is the exception to this rule, but there is nothing in scripture to suggest such a thing.
And before you even start, God’s “nature” is “spirit entity”. So yes, Jesus also has that same “spirit entity” nature – just like all of God’s other spirit sons.
Cheers.
Mike,
You said: that’s a great story about you liking design so much you are thinking about doing it professionally. Thanks, I have actually been doing design professionally to some degree for many years before I recently returned to college last fall. This time I am learning how to make use of computers for design. It’s a game changer ;).
I am glad that you saw my point on the bit about Abraham’s only begotten son and we can put away that argument.
You said: But remember, EVERY only-begotten son who has ever existed was brought into existence by his father. In other words, there was a time when every single only-begotten son didn’t exist at all, and then a later time when he did exist.
BUT every other only-begotten son who has ever existed was brought into existence actually by a father AND a MOTHER or more correctly two people who became a father and a mother. Jesus is an exception there, is he not? Jesus had no mother…big difference.
Comparing every only-begotten son to Jesus is like comparing apples to oranges. The only begotten son came by asexual reproduction, as I understand it…all others come by sexual reproduction.
Regarding asexual reproduction, I gave you an example within creation of how there can be one cell (the first of its kind) where everything inside it ends up as two identical cells, one cell is broken off from the other. The broken off one is the offspring. Before the one cell becomes two identical cells, it is technically not a father or a son, it is actually the precursor to BOTH the father and the son who became father and son at the same exact moment. Father and son are relationship words, they depend on the existence of the other to be what they are. Were you a father before you conceived your son, no. Was your son a son before you conceived him, no. You both became a father and a son at the same moment of conception.
You want to say that there was a time when the Son did not exist. If that is true, then it goes to say that there was also a time when the Father did not exist.
What I say is this: there wasn’t a time the Father and Son did not exist in some manner. They always existed in some manner sorta like the two identical cells existed beforehand in the one cell that became them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
