Search Members

[tigger]

July 30 2015 by EdJ:

“Terrarica,

Find one place where it literally states Jesus was created first by God.”

Hi Kerwin,

It is JW doctrine based on misinterpretation of a Rev 3:14 and Col 1:17 [1:15].
Pierre will not let go of this false belief no matter who explains it to him.
Rev 3:14 and Col 1:17 [:15] are about Christ’s preeminence, not a creation order!

……………………………..

Not so! See my study @  http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2011/02/bwf.html

[tigger]

You are correct in your conclusion that Jesus is not God.  I like your use of the Trinitarian Sharp’s Rule to refute the Trinitarian misuse of John 20:28.  However, Sharp’s Rule is not accurate.  It is just another of those ‘rules’ made up by Trinitarians for Trinitarians.

[tigger]

 

Lesson B includes the following:

For this part of the analysis, we need to remember that there are exceptions where the article (‘the’) may be used at random as seen in part A. above.  So we are trying to find how John intends the lack of an article with a noun (like god, man, cave, etc.).  Such nouns must be “count nouns.”  That means, using the example of ‘man,’ it must be capable of being counted (a ‘count noun’): one man, two men, three men, etc.  It also must be capable of using the English indefinite article (‘a,’ ‘an’):  ‘a man.’

It is basic knowledge for NT Greek beginners that there is no indefinite article in the Greek.  So a count noun without the article (anarthrous) in the Greek is properly translated into English with an indefinite article (‘a,’ ‘an’).

So, again, with a good interlinear and concordance try finding uses of ‘man’ in John’s writing.  I know you will find some that do not have the article (ho) used with them.  So look up in all the translations you can find to see how those have been rendered into English.  I found ‘anthropos’ or ἄνθρωπος (‘man’) at John 1:6; 3:4; 3:27 (and many more) did not have the article (ho) used with them, so they were rendered as “a man” in all the Bibles I checked.

For example, look at John 10:33.  The predicate noun “man” (anthropos) comes before its verb ὢν (“being”) in the NT Greek text (ἄνθρωπος ὢν), and yet we do not find it consistently translated, even by trinitarian scholars and translators, as: “you, being human” (qualitative) or “you being the man” (Colwell’s Rule”).

If they truly believed the “qualitative” rule or “Colwell’s Rule,” they certainly would not have rendered it “you, being a man,” (indefinite) as they so often do:

See KJV; Douay-Rheims; ASV; ESV; ERV; NKJV; MKJV; NASB; RSV; NIV; NEB; REB; JB; NJB; AT; LB; GNT; NLT; ISV; KJIIV; NAB (’70); NAB (’91); CEV; BBE; LEB; NLV; WYC; ABC; ACV; Third Millennium Bible; 21st Century KJV; GOD’S WORD Translation; Updated Bible Version 1.9; World English Bible; C.B. Williams; Darby; Holman; Lamsa; Lattimore; Moffatt; Mounce; Phillips; Rotherham; Webster; Wesley’s; William Barclay; William Beck; Weymouth; Young’s.

So by now we should be able to see that in John 1:1c (‘theos was the Word’) the word theos does not have the article (ὁ or ‘ho’) and, according to John’s usage of such nouns, it would normally be translated as ‘a god.’

…………………………..

Is there anyone here who understands the above and is willing to discuss the “Seven Lessons” at the beginning of this discussion?

[tigger]

The words ego eimi formed a phrase that was in very common use by first century Christians and Jews and in New Testament scriptures. It was certainly not understood (by Jews or Christians) as declaring one’s Godhood! If it could have been understood that way, we can be sure the Jews would have never applied it to themselves (as they did so frequently)!

Notice, for example, how the former blind man (John 9:9) actually identifies himself by saying “ego eimi,” but none of the other Jews present, even for a moment, understood him to be claiming to be Jehovah!

From my study: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/i-am-part-1.html

[tigger]

Tigger wrote:

“’Form’ may be used to translate morphe, but it also must be understood that it is restricted to the outward appearance of something, not to its essence.”

Kerwin: “That is incorrect as neither a servant or God has an outward form.”

……………………

As even many trinitarian Bible scholars admit:

“Morphe is instanced from Homer onwards and means form in the sense of outward appearance.” – The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, p. 705, vol. 1.

Thayer agrees that morphe is

“the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance” – Thayer’s Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 418, Baker Book House. [Also see Young’s Analytical Concordance]

Liddell and Scott’s An Intermediate Greek–English Lexicon, p. 519, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing, tells us that morphe can mean “form, fashion, appearance” but does not include a meaning for “nature” or “essence.” It also shows that if one truly intends the meaning of “being, essence, nature of a thing” it is defined by the Greek word ousia (p. 579) or phusis (p. 876) not morphe.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (abridged in one volume), Eerdmans, 1985, says “In general morphe in all its nuances represents what may be seen by the senses and not what is mentally apprehended.” – p. 608. It also tells us that when “nature” is intended by Paul, he uses physis (phusis). E.g., Ro. 11:21, 24; Gal. 2:15;4:8. – p. 1286.

The highly-esteemed BAGD also defines morphe as “form, outward appearance, shape.” – p. 530.

When even many Trinitarian scholars admit the above, it seems unlikely that the Trinitarian ‘proof’ of others is true.

 

[tigger]

And exactly what does ‘being in the form of God’ in Phil. 2:6 mean?  (Maybe it was discussed earlier and I missed it.)

According to the title of this discussion, this should have received prominent attention.

Here are some important NT Greek words found in that phrase:

being (huparchon) in the form (morphe) of god (theou – anarthrous genitive noun).

huparchon may be translated as ‘being’ or ‘existing,’ all right, but it should be remembered that it literally means “under a beginning.”  It is never used for God (He had no beginning), but for things or events which have had a beginning and may or may not still be in existence.  For example, examine these uses of huparchon:

Ro. 4:19; 1 Cor. 11:18; 2 Cor. 8:17; James 2:15.

These four verses not only show a state that has begun recently but a state that is transient, temporary – e.g., Abraham hadn’t always been [huparchon] 100 years of age and certainly wouldn’t continue to be 100 years of age: he had begun to be [huparchon] about 100 years old at this point – Ro. 4:19.

‘Form’ may be used to translate morphe, but it also must be understood that it is restricted to the outward appearance of something, not to its essence.  Therefore, since God is a spirit person and the other heavenly persons are also spirit persons, it can be said that they all are in a form (appearance) of God.

Theou is without the article (anarthrous) and, being a genitive, may be rendered as either “God” or “a god.”

[tigger]

Matt. 6:12 – Jesus tells us in his example of a proper prayer to God to ask Him for forgiveness.

[tigger]

Tigger:  “Also I would like to know where the WT has ‘pushed off the Trinitarian doctrine to the 8th century’ as I believe I heard somewhere in the first 16 minutes of the video.”

EdJ: “Hi Tigger,

“Huh?

“Can you please re-work the structure of the words here so I can understand what you mean ???”

…………………………

I am merely repeating what I believe I heard in the 16 minutes of the opening post’s video which I listened to. I don’t believe the WT Society has ever made such a statement! If they did, they are wrong!

It is clearly known by any who investigate that the Roman Church (under the authority of the Roman Emperor) first officially established the doctrine that Jesus is equally God with the Father in 325 A.D. Furthermore, the doctrine that God is three equal persons was first officially established by the Roman Emperor (and the Roman Church) in The Council [of Constantinople] of 381. This is nowhere near the eighth century!

……………………..

 

[tigger]

Tigger: “But as I have already stated, the words found in the 2 links I have given above are mine! I wrote them and I posted them from my own studies.”

EdJ: “Hi Tigger,

“Then post them here in bite size pieces so that all here can take the time to respond to them, OK?”

………………………….

Hi, Ed. I am nearing 80 years old, not in the best health, energy and memory levels falling, and find such effort often to be difficult (hence the links to my work).

I have tried such an approach with my “Seven Lessons for John 1:1c.” Even when broken down into seven different posts and simplified from the original study, no one will truly investigate nor discuss what I have actually written in them.

https://heavennet.net/forums/topic/seven-lessons-for-john-11c/

http://forum.bible-discussion.com/showthread.php?26242-seven-lessons-for-understanding-the-translation-of-John-1-1c

If I were assured that someone would actually discuss what I have written (instead of off-subject ‘evidence’ and red herrings), I would be happy to attempt to dredge up the energy to spell out any of my studies in dribbles and bits.

But I fear my last years will be wasted without anyone actually discussing what I have written in any of my studies (especially my comprehensive study of John 1:1c).

[tigger]

“There was a member here named “jammin”, and he use to post words written by others.
And when we looked into those words and were questioning him about them
he would reply… …’why are you asking me I didn’t write it?’

“That is why I don’t bother to read ‘cut and paste’ jobs – copied from outside sources. (sorry UMB5 and Tigger)
However, I will waste my time watching their propaganda videos that members post from outside sources. ”

……………………………………….

But as I have already stated, the words found in the 2 links I have given above are mine!  I wrote them and I posted them from my own studies.

Also I would like to know where the WT has “pushed off the Trinitarian doctrine to the 8th century” as I believe I heard somewhere in the first 16 minutes of the video.

[tigger]

After 16 minutes of time-wasting book promotion and anti-JW blather in the video of the OP, I quit watching.  For those of you who have listened all the way through (or read all 140+ pages of Bowman’s book), here is my rebuttal to Bowman’s rebuttal as found in various of his anti-JW books.

If you had the time and energy to listen (or read) all of Bowman’s stuff, surely you can force yourself to examine the following relatively short study I wrote about Bowman’s rant and posted on my blog:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2010/01/bowqt.html

And for those who are able to read my longer (but much shorter than Bowman’s book) study concerning more of Bowman’s charges:

http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/2009/09/bownwt.html

[tigger]

DavidL: “It seems the ground work for deception has already been accomplished by the reliance of corrupted manuscripts in modern translations, that brings confusion and raises doubt in the overall authority of Scripture itself..”

…………………………………..

There is no doubt that the first Christians were Jews who attended and taught in Jewish Synagogues.  To teach that they believed that Jesus is God is absolutely incompatible with this fact.  From the time of the Bar Kochba revolution (about 135 A.D.), Christianity began its rejection of its roots and eschewed everything Jewish (including the Jewish God).  That is when the groundwork began being laid for a new understanding of the Most High God for ‘Christians.’

I know of corrupted manuscripts and incorrect translations which favor the trinity concept, but what are the “corrupted” passages in modern translations which support a non-trinitarian concept?

[tigger]

kerwin,

So you won’t comment on my correction of your mistaken post above?

Psychos (‘cold’) is not a count noun.  We cannot properly say in this verse, ‘it was a cold’ or ‘it was the cold.’  Nor can you make it plural (‘it was colds‘).  So it is not a proper example for John 1:1c.

[tigger]

Kerwin wrote:

“Tigger,

‘As explained before, a nominative noun modified by a genitive (an “of” noun) are included in “prepositional” constructions and are, therefore, improper examples.’

“So according to you a proposition or a genitive noun causes difficulties.

“The thing is that archiereus translated high priest is not a genitive noun. The genitive noun is eniautou translated year and the other genitive is the pronoun ekeinou translated same.”

……………………………

As has been pointed out before (even in your above quote by me) the exception (admitted even by Trinitarian scholars) is a NOMINATIVE count noun governing or modified by a genitive.  That is what makes your example a faulty example.

Yes, archiereus is a nominative count noun just as theos is in John 1:1c.  But unlike John 1:1c the nominative noun in question is modified by a genitive.  I would give you some quotes from Trinitarian scholars concerning this exception, but it seems that it would go unread by you.

[tigger]

Kerwin,

I have been waiting for you to (1) find your elementary error in your last post., and (2) reveal your error here.

Will you do that?

[tigger]

 

…………………..

What’s with all the venom concerning JWs and Michael?  Whether Jesus is Michael or not is not of greatest importance except to some Trinitarians.  But they certainly are not the only (nor the first) to make the claim.

Quotes From Scholars Concerning Jesus as Michael the Archangel

From early Christian writings until now there have been many who understood Michael to be the archangel who became Jesus on earth.

Early Christian scholar Origen writes:

“There are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, probably angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power.” – ANF 10:321-322.
———————————–

Back in the early 1800’s, Bible scholar Joseph Benson stated that the description of Michael as found in the Bible “manifestly points out the Messiah.”

———————————–
Nineteenth-century Lutheran E. W. Hengstenberg agreed that “Michael is no other than Christ.”
———————————–

Similarly, theologian J. P. Lange, when commenting on Revelation 12:7, wrote: “We take it that Michael . . . is, from the outset, Christ in warlike array against Satan.”
———————————–

Clarke’s Commentary (Adam Clarke)

Jude :9

“Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host. Nor is the word devil, as applied to the great enemy of mankind, ever found in the plural; there can be but one monarch of all fallen spirits. Michael is this archangel, and head of all the angelic orders; the devil, great dragon, or Satan, is head of all the diabolic orders. When these two hosts are opposed to each other they are said to act under these two chiefs, as leaders; hence in Revelation 12:7, it is said: MICHAEL and his angels fought against the DRAGON and his angels.  The word Michael  lakym, seems to be compounded of ym mi, who, k ke, like, and la El, God; he who is like God; hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus.”
———————————-

The 1599 Geneva Study Bible: Revelation

“12:7 And there was war in heaven: 14 Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

“(14) Christ is the Prince of angels and head of the Church, who bears that iron rod….”
———————————
John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, Book 7 Chapter 5:

“1b2. Another prophecy in Daniel 12:1-3 respects the second and personal coming of Christ; for he is meant by Michael, who is “as God”, as his name signifies, equal to him; the ‘great prince,’ the prince of the kings of the earth, and the head of all principalities and powers.”

John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Daniel 12:1

“Ver. 1.

And at that time shall Michael stand up,…. The Archangel, who has all the angels of heaven under him, and at his command, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ;”

And even trinitarian Bible scholar W. E. Vine (“recognized as one of the world’s foremost [Bible] Greek scholars”) tells us that this “voice of the archangel” (1 Thess. 4:16) is apparently “the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ”! – p. 64, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
————————————–
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia:

“The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the “child” and the archangel in Rev. 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel” – vol. 3, p. 2048, Eerdmans Publishing, 1984 printing.
————————————-
Protestant Reformer John Calvin said regarding “Michael” in its occurrence at Daniel 12:1:

“I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people.” – J. Calvin, Commentaries On The Book Of The Prophet Daniel, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.
————————————-

John Wesley:

Chapter XII

A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 – 4. A conference concerning the time of these events, ver. 5 – 7. An answer to Daniel’s enquiry, ver. 8 – 13. For the children – The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble – A the siege of Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.

Wesley on Daniel 10:21: “Michael – Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it.”
————————————

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758):

Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 2, Ch. 1, “Angels”:

“II. When Lucifer rebelled and set up himself as a head in opposition to God and Christ, and drew away a great number of the angels after him, Christ, the Son of God, manifested himself as an opposite head, and appeared graciously to dissuade and restrain by his grace the elect angels from hearkening to Lucifer’s temptation, so that they were upheld and preserved from eternal destruction at this time of great danger by the free and sovereign distinguishing grace of Christ. Herein Christ was the Saviour of the elect angels, for though he did not save them as he did elect men from the ruin they had already deserved, and were condemned to, and the miserable state they were already in, yet he saved them from eternal destruction they were in great danger of, and otherwise would have fallen into with the other angels. The elect angels joined with him, the glorious Michael, as their captain, while the other angels hearkened to Lucifer and joined with him, and then was that literally true that was fulfilled afterwards figuratively.

Rev. xii. ‘When there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was there place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.’ ”
————————————

William L. Alexander, Doctor of Divinity, stated:

There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah. Such was the opinion of the best among the ancient Jews…. With this all the Bible representations of Michael agree. He appears as the Great Prince who standeth for Israel (Dan. xii. I), and he is called “the Prince of Israel” (Dan. x. 21)–William L. Alexander, ed., A Cyclopedia Of Biblical Literature, originally edited by John Kitto, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: A and C Black, 1886). vol. 3, p. 158.
———————————–
“The two passages in the New Testament, in which Michael is mentioned, serve to confirm the result already arrived at. That the Michael referred to in Rev. xii. 7 is no other than the Logos, [the Word – the Son of God] has already been proved in my commentary upon that passage.” —Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, 1836-9, Vol. IV, pp. 304-5 (in the T. and T. Clark publication; p. 269 in the Kregel publication).
———————————-
Brown’s Dictionary of the Bible

on the words ‘Michael’ and ‘Angel’ says, that both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel.
———————————-
Wood’s Spiritual Dictionary

teaches nearly, if not exactly, the same on this subject that Brown’s does. The former was a Calvinist, the latter a Methodist.
———————————

Butterworth, Cruden, and Taylor in their concordances, assert that Michael and Angel are both names of Christ.
———————————

Guyse in his Paraphrase on the New Testament, on Rev. xii. 7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is signified by Michael; and also gives it as his opinion.
——————————–
Thomas Scott, in his notes on the Bible, says the Angel that appeared to Hagar when she fled from her mistress, one of the three Angels that appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, the Angel that appeared to Moses in the bush, and the Angel that spoke to the Jews at Bochim, was Jesus Christ: and also asserts that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. See Gen. xvi. 9, 10. Chap. xviii throughout. Exod. iii. 2-7. Judg. ii. 1-5, Dan x. 13, 21. Chap. xii. 1, Rev. xii. 7.

—————————————-

Dr. E. F. Scott, Emeritus Professor at the Union Theological Seminary, wrote:

“The author of Hebrews … thinks of [Jesus] as an angel, whom God had exalted above all others, investing him with his own majesty and calling him by the name of Son.” – p. 726, An Encyclopedia of Religion, 1945 ed.
————————————–

And, again, the very trinitarian The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible tells us that at this time the Jewish expectation was that the Christ was
“a pre-existent, heavenly angelic being who, at the end of time, will appear at the side of God as judge of the world [see Acts 7:55-56].” – p. 364, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, 1962.
————————————-

“Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] – occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah …. Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant.” – p. 39, Today’s Dictionary of the Bible (trinitarian), Bethany House Publ., 1982
————————————

“Angel of the Lord. … Christ’s visible form before the incarnation.” – p. 40, Smith’s Bible Dictionary (trinitarian), Hendrickson Publ.
————————————

“The Angel of the LORD…. Traditional [from 2nd century A. D. (at least)] Christian interpretation has held that this `angel’ was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God’s Messenger-Servant. It may be …, the angel could speak on behalf of (and so be identified with) the One [Jehovah] who sent him.” – footnote for Gen. 16:7 in the highly trinitarian The NIV Study Bible by Zondervan Publishing, 1985.

[tigger]

Kerwin wrote:

“Tigger,

“It sounds like you are discarding those variations that disagree with your conclusion. Some Trinitarians believe God is God’s proper name and that is one your discard.”

………………..

I discard examples that Trinitarian scholars also discard. For example:

Personal names such as “Jesus,” “Abraham,” “Mary,” etc. should not be included as they may take a definite article in NT Greek or not according to the whim of the writer and yet in English are always translated without the definite article.

Wallace, Harner, and Colwell all properly exclude them as examples for their rules. It is obvious that this is also a proper exception because personal names take the definite article with such irregularity that no rule (including Colwell’s and Sharp’s “Rules”) which is based on article usage (or non-usage) can properly use them.

Great irregularity of article usage with proper names has also been noted by most other recognized NT Greek scholars: “with proper names. Here the article is used or not at the will of the writer.” – A. T. Robertson, Grammar, p. 791.

Here are some examples from the NT Greek text in the first chapters of the Gospel of John showing how the article is used with proper names:

1:45 – _Philip found the Nathanael
1:46 – _Nathanael said to him
1:47 – Jesus saw the Nathanael
1:48 – _Nathanael said to him
1:48 – _Jesus answered
1:49 – _Nathanael answered
1:50 – _Jesus said
2:2 – The Jesus and the disciples
2:4 – The Jesus said
2:7 – The Jesus said
2:11 – The Jesus did this as the beginning
2:17 – The Jesus went up
2:19 _Jesus answered
2:24 – But _Jesus himself
3:3 – _Jesus answered
3:4 – The Nicodemus
3:5 – The Jesus answered
3:9 – _Nicodemus answered
3:10 – _Jesus answered
3:14 – _Moses lifted up
3:22 – The Jesus and the disciples
3:23 – The John
3:24 – _John had not yet been thrown
4:7 – The Jesus said to her
4:10 – _Jesus answered and said

[tigger]

Kerwin wrote:

“Tigger,

“There is no preposition in the sentence that applies to the high priest clause.

“Even English translations do not use a preposition.”

……………………………..

As explained before, a nominative noun modified by a genitive (an “of” noun) are included in “prepositional” constructions and are, therefore, improper examples.

18:13 … who was the High Priest of that year. – The Interlinear Bible.

John 18:13 – WH – … ος ην αρχιερευς του ενιαυτου εκεινου.

του ενιαυτου εκεινου is literally: “of the” (tou – genitive article) “of year” (ενιαυτου – genitive) “of that” (εκεινου – genitive).

[tigger]

 

Kerwin wrote:

“Tigger,

“In John 18:13 the words ēn archiereus correspond to ēn theos in John 1:1 which reveals that those Trinitarians that claim God describes the qualities of the word have a case.

“There is also an instance where the word ēn preceding a nominative is translated ‘was a’.”

………………………

John 18:13 does not correspond to John 1:1c.  First, John 1:1c has en ho logos  not en theos.  Second, I have explained numerous times that “prepositional”-modified nominative count nouns (‘prophet OF GOD‘; ‘son TO HIM‘; etc.) are inconsistent in article use and must be considered as exceptions.  John 18:13 says “… who was high priest OF THE YEAR….”  Since the use or non-use of the article in such constructions is uncertain, it seems that this particular one may be saying “[the] high priest of the year”.  There is no “qualitative” meaning in this.  It isn’t even a pre-copulative anarthrous nominative as “Qualitarians” require.

Of course there are places where en preceding an unmodified anarthrous count noun will require the indefinite article in English translation.  If you disregard the exceptions, which are also acknowledged by Trinitarian grammars, there will be few or none that are otherwise.

But remember we are interested in how an unmodified anarthrous theos is understood in John’s writings.

[tigger]

Kerwin wrote:

“Tigger,

“The Koine Greek definite is not the equivalent of our definite as in order to be a nominative there must be a definite preceding it. I looked at some other examples and saw no exceptions. Even with name the Greek language speakers would say rough equivalent of <i>the Tigger</i> when addressing you in the nominative. From the evidence I have seen so far the words <i>ho theos</i> merely indicate the noun is a nominative.”

…………..

If you will please look at the information I have already given you… IF you actually examine it, you will see that there are MANY nominative case nouns which do NOT have the definite article.

The exceptions to the proper examples include the most important one given to you in Lesson A: when the nominative is a part of a prepositional phrase (‘man of Israel’; ‘house of God’; ‘God to you,’ etc.). Half the time such phrases will use the definite article and half the time they will not. Therefore they are not proper examples for analyzing the use of articles with nominative case count nouns that do not include such phrases.

Other nominative case nouns which are not proper for examining John’s usage at John 1:1c include non-count nouns, abstract nouns, proper names, and numeral-modified nouns. These exceptions may or may not use the article whether they are meant to be definite or not!

But don’t worry, there are hundreds of PROPER examples in John’s writings. IF you will actually read what I have written in my last few posts (especially the link at the top of this page) AND, at least, Lessons A and B, you will see some of them.

As for theos, I have actually, carefully, gone through ALL of John’s writings and found that all uses of ho theos which do not include the above exceptions (e.g., “ho theos OF….”) are intended for “God.” Those that do not have the definite article do not refer to “God,” but, in accord with John’s grammar and usage (and all the writings of the other Gospel writers) they mean “a god” and are applied to Jesus or other God-appointed men.

John 2:10 uses the modifier pas which is rendered here as “every.”  So ‘every man’ is still indefinite.  In effect, it is a numeral modified noun.

 

[Author]

Posts