Mike,I understand what you are saying but I think people look at the typical translation thinking that Jesus is divine and that the book of John shows the 'divinity' of Christ. It is my impression that people in general see the book of John proclaiming the divinity of Christ, not that He is the same person that He is with in verse 1:1b. I don't…[Read more]

Irene,I wasn't upset with you, I just wanted this topic to reflect the thoughts of the ante-Nicene church fathers. I wanted to keep it separate from the members opinions. See?Sorry if you felt bad about it,Kathi

Mike,Saying that 'John was man' speaks more to his nature than 'John was a man' although both could mean the same thing. That is what I perceive anyway.I do think that taking out the definite article in 1b is not as clear as putting it in. I don't know why it is left out of the translations…it is in the Greek.Kathi

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,18:54)Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2011,22:32)Mike, The verse includes 1:1b with 1:1c to make that distinction.If we changed the word 'God' to man it would read:In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the man, and the word was man.  You don't need an 'a' or a 'the' in the 'c' part of the verse.Okay,…[Read more]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 23 2011,01:39)Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,09:32)Mike, The verse includes 1:1b with 1:1c to make that distinction.If we changed the word 'God' to man it would read:In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the man, and the word was man.  You don't need an 'a' or a 'the' in the 'c' part of the…[Read more]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 23 2011,12:59)Kathi said:Quote Mike, Mike, Mike,Looking at your question more closely, you are asking what your quoted 'experts' say about the 'a' being grammatically possible and not my opinion.  Obviously, they say that it is…so yes, the 'experts' you quoted say that it is grammatically possible. Mike…[Read more]

Mike, The verse includes 1:1b with 1:1c to make that distinction.If we changed the word 'God' to man it would read:In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the man, and the word was man. You don't need an 'a' or a 'the' in the 'c' part of the verse.

Yes, Mike, I see that the words 'only begotten' and 'unbegotten' are not in John 1:1. The words 'only begotten' are written 17 verses later in the same chapter bu the same author when referring to two different persons called 'theos.' Do you believe that the Father is 'unbegotten?' I think that is obvious otherwise, He would come from…[Read more]

Mike,Do you see that if the word was an/the only begotten God, it doesn't matter 'a' or 'the' because of the word 'only?' I understand what you are saying about GOD and God and I have indicated the difference in that way in the past. I think 'unbegotten God' and 'only begotten God' makes it more clear to the reader who I am talking…

Mike,Deborah was begotten as a baby, a helpless baby, not a mighty one. She became a mighty one. The Son did not become a theos as if He were not a theos beforehand…Deborah became a theos. There is a big difference. The Son was begotten as theos from the get go.He is not just a god…He is the only begotten God. Any theos besides Him and His…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,21:26)Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2011,20:14)Mike,The word was an only begotten God who was with the unbegotten God in the beginning.  He was not just one of the many mighty ones.Actually, he was.  He is ONE of the many elohim and theos mentioned in scripture.  But he is designated as the only one who was di…[Read more]

Hi Pace,17 verses later, John clarifies that the God that is with the Father is the only begotten God.John 1:18 NASB No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.ooops…edited to remove the 'un' from begotten and add 'only.'

Mike,The word was an only begotten God who was with the unbegotten God in the beginning. He was not just one of the many mighty ones.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,20:56)Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2011,19:52)Mike,The 'God' of 1:1b is the unbegotten God  Right.  And that God was WITH the Word, right?  So the Word was obviously not that God, right?mikeThat's right Mike.

Mike,The 'God' of 1:1b is the unbegotten God

This is a lot of hoop la for not really making a difference. The word was an only begotten God…the word was the only begotten God…the word was God, the only begotten one. All three ways are my paraphrase written in light of v. 18 to give an understanding why the articles aren't what's important here, imo. John 1:18 is a complimentary verse to…[Read more]

Hello back to you Keith…nice to see you!Blessings, Kathi

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2011,18:38)Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 20 2011,22:56)My conclusion is that it may be grammatically ok to consider an 'a' and a small 'g,' but in light of the rest of the book and how John writes, contextually it would be incorrect.Hi Kathi,Thanks for your input.  I'm aching to discuss the CONTEXTUAL possibilities, and blow…[Read more]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 21 2011,02:09)Hi Kathi!!!I MIss you!!! i was thinking about you the other day and how we needed you back and guess what here you are!!!Miss you bunch lady!Welcome backHi Dennison,It's is nice to be missed…thank you for thinkin' me back here Bless ya, Kathi

Hi Mike,It is good to discuss scripture with you again…I missed you too!You asked my opinion on whether or not it was grammatically possible for John 1:1c to say 'a god.' Well, my UN-expert opinion is that whether you translate it with an 'a' or a 'the' or a small 'g' or capital 'G' can reflect a bias. I don't think that the NWT is consistent…[Read more]