Do you accept this a Biblical fact or fiction?:
- Thread starter Robert Gwin
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Only if the name is under false pretenses, is this forum not entitled Bible Study Forum?
No contradiction sir, a misunderstanding of what was written and the way it was translated. The version you used chose to use by, whereas the version I use went with by means of, through is no doubt the best understanding of the verse since Jesus is the master craftsman of Jehovah's creations Pro 8:30
Original word and usage of the KJV:
ejn En (en);
Word Origin: Greek, Preposition, Strong #: 1722
- in, by, with etc.
in 1874
by 141
with 134
among 117
at 112
on 46
through 37
miscellaneous 321
Thanks sir for pointing that out. This is the best Bible forum I have ever had the privilege of posting on. They have been great for actually allowing one to post what the Bible really teaches. Most other religious sites are opposed to the God Jehovah.
Very good advice David. Of course I do not disagree with the Bible when it points out that every man is a liar, in fact if one says he has never lied, then he is in fact a liar.
In all honesty though, I do my utmost to teach the truths of the Bible, but it is always good to realize that what I state is my beliefs of what the Bible really teaches, and is certainly not gospel. It may or may not be truth. Each one of us should accept what others say eagerly, but we have to be like the Beroeans who listened to Paul, but examined the Scriptures to see if what he was saying was in fact, fact. Acts 17:11
I agree satan is a snot god, vermin to us Christians, but he is a very powerful god sir, he has a third of the angels siding with him, and the vast majority of humans.
Christians do not choose being born again sir, that is a special privilege that is granted to some selected for ruling in the Kingdom of God, heirs with Christ.
All Christians have chosen to serve God, it is not automatic. Salvation for most of us comes at the end of the millennial reign of Christ Rev 20:5
Yes maam, in fact those two are the same word, Messiah was used in the Hebrew section of the Bible, and Christ in the Greek. If they are translated into English, they actually mean anointed. Thanks for your reply Lady.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
i know you - pray for the anointing you need from the Father = follow in the Plan for man set forth from the Beginning.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
If you not Saved now, before death, you will not experience Salvation later on in the millennial reign
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
Very good advice David. Of course I do not disagree with the Bible when it points out that every man is a liar, in fact if one says he has never lied, then he is in fact a liar.
In all honesty though, I do my utmost to teach the truths of the Bible, but it is always good to realize that what I state is my beliefs of what the Bible really teaches, and is certainly not gospel. It may or may not be truth. Each one of us should accept what others say eagerly, but we have to be like the Beroeans who listened to Paul, but examined the Scriptures to see if what he was saying was in fact, fact. Acts 17:11
Now what you said is Good - Now follow the Plan set forth for man, that you may enter His Promised Land =
Deuteronomy 4:1-2
Proverbs 30 : 5-6
Revelation 22: 18-19
God has always had a Way for people to approach Him. For some at times it could be through this forum.
Give God the glory!
1stCenturyLady
Well-Known Member
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
But form is referenced in the bible, so we address form. but even you Ais A holds for the bible.
John 1
King James Version
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
You have still failed to give a reason why God isn't God here.
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
..........................................
The best way to determine John's meaning for theos in John 1:1c is to carefully examine his use of NT Greek Grammar in every case that is honestly parallel to that of John 1:1c. The only trouble is, nobody will actually do that; "it's just too much work," or "it begins to look like something I don't want to know."
So I will present my easiest study of John's Grammar and John 1:1c. in 5 lessons. (It will undoubtedly still require too much effort for most to examine them carefully.)
A.
John 1:1 in NT Greek:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
En arche ēn ho logos and ho logos ēn pros ton theon and theos ēn ho logos
1. There are three clauses separated by καὶ (or “and” in English). The first (John 1:1a) is literally translated: “In beginning was the word.” The second (John 1:1b) is translated “the word was with the god.” And the final one (John 1:1c) is literally translated “god was the word.” [Remember that there were no uses of initial capital letters ( ‘God,’ ‘Lord,’ ‘Jesus,’ etc.) in the NT manuscripts which translators use for today‘s Bibles.]
2. I intend to examine John 1:1c to show that the very grammar used by John himself shows the actual meaning (whether ‘the Word was God,” or the “Word was a god”). Please notice that whether the Logos is a person or a thing in this verse makes no difference as to the proper rendering of theos. This first lesson deals only with all John's uses of theos. Later lessons deal with meaning of 'a god,' word order, etc.
3. Since different NT writers varied somewhat in their grammar and usage of the Greek, we need to stick to John’s usage if we wish to analyze John 1:1c properly.
4. First, the word in question is θεος (theos in English letters), a noun known to NT Greek scholars as a noun in the nominative case. Nominative case nouns are used for subjects and predicate nouns. [The other words translated “God” in Jn 1:1b are τὸν θεόν (ton theon or ‘the god’ in English) which are in the accusative case (used mostly for direct objects and objects of some prepositions)] Notice that this form (θεος) of the word ends in ‘s.’ Theos can be used to mean ‘God’ or ‘god.’ Also notice that, as used in John 1:1c, theos stands alone. That is, it has no “prepositional” modifiers (usually genitive or dative case nouns) such as “theos of Israel, or “theos to me,” etc.
5. Not only do such modifiers cause the use of the definite article (‘the’ in English) to be used irregularly, but the verse in question (John 1:1c) does not use them anyway. Therefore, the very few “preposition-modified” nouns in John’s writings are not proper examples in this study which relies on the use of the definite article.*
6. The next point is that when John (and Matthew, Mark, and Luke also) clearly meant “God” when writing theos (the form of the Greek word which ends in ς), he always used the definite article (‘the’ in English - ho in Greek): ho theos. (You can tell that o in NT Greek is ‘ho’ if it has a tiny c-shaped mark above it - ὁ.)
7. You can test this ho theos use means ‘God’ in John’s writings yourself with a good interlinear NT and concordance.
8. For detailed examination of all uses of theos in John’s (and the other Gospel writers) writings, see end note #5 in my original study:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/def-part-4-end-notes.html
.......................................................
*
We also need to be aware that a definite plural noun when translated into English uses the definite article (“the men”), but the indefinite plural noun does not take an indefinite English article (“men”).
And more confusing yet are nouns which are not “countable” (that is, they are things that are found in indeterminate amounts: “soup,” “flesh,” “blood,” “wine,” “honey,” etc. rather than things we can count: “three cows,” “two peas,” “ten prophets,” etc.) but may also be treated as plurals. Since the use of plural examples can be so confusing concerning the definite and indefinite articles in English translations (and since plurals were not used at Jn 1:1c anyway), I try to avoid using them as proper examples. And I avoid even more strongly the ambiguous, confusing “amount” nouns as proper examples. [[More recently, I have discovered that others have included these “amount” nouns (and abstract nouns) among “non-count” nouns. Examples of non-count nouns include "flesh," "wheat," "soup," “fat,” -- "insanity," "beauty," "loyalty," etc. Most confusing are words which have more than one meaning: one as a count noun and one as a non-count noun. For example, "stone" may be considerd as a mass: "the house was made of stone." In that example "stone" would be a non-count noun. But when used in a different sense ("a stone was in his hand"), it is a count noun! We find these examples in English: "spirit," "hair," "marble," "light," etc.]] https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/grammar/count_and_noncount_nouns/count_noncount_nouns_with_articles_adjectives.html
We must also remember the problem with “possessive” (or prepositional) constructions. They, like personal names, should not be included in our listing of all the proper examples of John’s use of predicate nouns coming before the verb. Colwell used such improper “prepositional” examples almost exclusively to “prove” his rule.
We should also know that some scholars, like trinitarian P. B. Harner, exclude predicate nouns that are with numerals (“three angels”) as also having irregular article usage - see p. 76 f.n., JBL, vol. 92, 1973 [or HARNJBL]. Included among numerals we find that words translated as negative adjectives ('no' - John 7:46, NKJV; HCSB; ISV; NLV; RSV; WEB; Luke 4:24, most bibles; Luke 16:13; etc.) are, like numerals, considered indefinite or irregular. (Some writers apparently even found irregular article usage with nouns modified by other adjectives - A. T. Robertson, 795; D. B. Wallace, 253; 734 [pronominal].) I have also noticed that trinitarian scholars Wallace (1981), Harner, and even Colwell himself (and perhaps all Bible language scholars) do not include the 5 “TIME/SEASON” predicate nouns (John 5:10; 10:22 [10:23 in some Bibles]; 19:31; and 1 John 2:18 [2 occurrences]). Appositives, too, exhibit article irregularity. Therefore, I have excluded these from my lists of article-dependent constructions.
You will find that when John uses an unmodified predicate noun (without a definite article) before the verb (as in Jn 1:1c), most Bible translators (trinitarian and non-trinitarian alike) translate it as an indefinite noun (often even in spite of ambiguous contexts) just as the New World Translation has done at John 1:1c. For example: John 4:19 “...you are a prophet” (compare all Bible translations). Also see John 6:70; John 8:44 (a); John 9:24; John 10:1; etc.
To Be Continued
Last edited:
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
B.
John 1:1c in NT Greek (cont.):
John 1:1c in NT Greek (cont.):
The next step in finding John’s intended meaning of John 1:1c is to look up the meanings of theos in a good NT lexicon. Numerous Trinitarian scholars [see footnote] admit that this word was also used in scripture for angels, certain human kings, and God-appointed men such as judges in Israel. In such cases it is usually rendered into English as ‘gods’ or ‘a god.’ And it was used that way in the Greek in the writings of Christians up to the time of Augustine at least.
So, why wouldn’t John 1:1c be rendered ‘the Word was god’ rather than ‘the Word was a god’?
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, even 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 - ὁ in Greek) 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 (ὁ) 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," the following trinitarian-translated Bibles certainly would not have rendered it "you, being a man," (indefinite) as they so often do:
See The Wycliffe Bible (1395); The Tyndale Bible (1534); The Coverdale Bible (1535); The Great Bible (1540); The Bishop’s Bible (1568); The Geneva Bible (1587); Douay-Rheims (1610); KJV (1611); 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.’
………………………………..........
Footnote for Lesson B.:
Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Scriptures actually describe men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God's holy angels as gods include:
1. Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, "Hints and Helps...," Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;
2. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;
3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;
4. Today's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;
5. Hastings' A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;
6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;
7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;
8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;
9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;
10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7, 1970 ed.;
11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;
12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;
13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;
14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press,1975;
15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 & Ps. 82:6);
16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);
17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (John 10:34-36);
18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);
19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).
20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.
21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.
23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.
24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.
25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.
26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.
27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.
28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.
29. Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, John 10:36.
(Also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV)
And, of course the highly respected and highly popular Hellenic Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for theos about the same time the NT was written. - See my LOGOS study.
And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of "The Epistle to Diognetus"; and even super-Trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding that a man (or an angel) can be called "a god" in a righteous sense. And, as we saw above, many respected NT scholars of this century agree. For example, “The reason why judges are called ‘gods’ in Ps 82 [quoted by Jesus in John 10:34] is that they have the office of administering God’s judgment as ‘sons of the Most High’. …. On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.
To Be Continued
………………………..
John 1:1c in NT Greek (cont.):
John 1:1c in NT Greek (cont.):
The next step in finding John’s intended meaning of John 1:1c is to look up the meanings of theos in a good NT lexicon. Numerous Trinitarian scholars [see footnote] admit that this word was also used in scripture for angels, certain human kings, and God-appointed men such as judges in Israel. In such cases it is usually rendered into English as ‘gods’ or ‘a god.’ And it was used that way in the Greek in the writings of Christians up to the time of Augustine at least.
So, why wouldn’t John 1:1c be rendered ‘the Word was god’ rather than ‘the Word was a god’?
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, even 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 - ὁ in Greek) 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 (ὁ) 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," the following trinitarian-translated Bibles certainly would not have rendered it "you, being a man," (indefinite) as they so often do:
See The Wycliffe Bible (1395); The Tyndale Bible (1534); The Coverdale Bible (1535); The Great Bible (1540); The Bishop’s Bible (1568); The Geneva Bible (1587); Douay-Rheims (1610); KJV (1611); 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.’
………………………………..........
Footnote for Lesson B.:
Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Scriptures actually describe men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God's holy angels as gods include:
1. Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, "Hints and Helps...," Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;
2. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;
3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;
4. Today's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;
5. Hastings' A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;
6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;
7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;
8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;
9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;
10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7, 1970 ed.;
11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;
12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;
13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;
14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press,1975;
15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 & Ps. 82:6);
16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);
17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (John 10:34-36);
18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);
19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).
20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.
21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.
23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.
24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.
25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.
26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.
27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.
28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.
29. Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, John 10:36.
(Also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV)
And, of course the highly respected and highly popular Hellenic Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for theos about the same time the NT was written. - See my LOGOS study.
And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of "The Epistle to Diognetus"; and even super-Trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding that a man (or an angel) can be called "a god" in a righteous sense. And, as we saw above, many respected NT scholars of this century agree. For example, “The reason why judges are called ‘gods’ in Ps 82 [quoted by Jesus in John 10:34] is that they have the office of administering God’s judgment as ‘sons of the Most High’. …. On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.
To Be Continued
………………………..
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
C.
John 1:1c in NT Greek (cont.):
But, you may ask, isn’t there a significance to the reversed word order in the Greek of Jn 1:1c (‘god was the word’) which is, in English, ‘the word was god.’?
If you will examine a good NT interlinear, you will find that word order is generally meaningless.
NT Greek authorities, Dr. Alfred Marshall and Prof. J. Gresham Machen tell us in their NT Greek primers that, unlike English, NT Greek does not use word order to convey meanings but instead uses the individual endings on each word (inflections).
“The English translation must be determined by observing the [Greek word] endings, not by observing the [word] order.” - New Testament Greek for Beginners, Machen, p. 27. (cf. New Testament Greek Primer, Marshall, pp. 7, 22 and A. T. Robertson, Grammar, p. 417.) [Emphasis added]
And in a later example illustrating predicate nouns Prof. Machen gave this example: “ho apostolos anthropos estin [word for word translation: ‘the apostle man is’],” and he translated that sentence [which has an anarthrous predicate count noun (anthropos - ‘man’) preceding the verb (estin - “is”) as in John 1:1c] as “the apostle is a man.” - p. 50, New Testament Greek For Beginners, The Macmillan Company, 1951. Notice the proper addition of the English indefinite article (‘a’).
We also find that respected trinitarian scholar, Rev. Alfred Marshall, translates phoneus esti (literally, ‘murderer he is’) as “He is a murderer.” - pp. 44 and 153, New Testament Greek Primer, Zondervan Publ., 1962. And John H. Dobson in his Learn New Testament Greek, p. 64, translates prophetes estin (literally, ‘prophet he is’) as “He is a prophet.” - Baker Book House, 1988.
But, since the actual grammar used by John (and all the other Gospel writers) shows John 1:1c to be properly translated as “and the Word was a god,” some trinitarians attempted to make this perfectly ordinary NT Greek word order into something else. In 1933, Colwell proposed that the word order could cause the definite article to be understood! This way the ‘understood’ ho (‘the’) could make Jn 1:1c say “and the word was [the] god.” And, as we have already found, ho theos (‘the god’) always indicates ‘God’ in English translations of John’s writing.
This continuing need by some trinitarians for a new ‘rule’ is a further admission that theos by itself doesn’t mean “God” in the Gospel of John.
Another new ‘rule’ concerning the word order of John 1:1c has been proposed to make the Word of the same essence as God. These ‘Qualitative’ rules are like Colwell’s rule above except they don’t allow for an understood article (ho) before theos. Instead, they say that the word order makes theos ‘qualitative.’
Examining the Trinity: QUAL ("Qualitative" John 1:1c)
The same method of examining all proper examples that are parallel to John 1:1c in John’s writings proves both modern inventions to be wrong.
To Be Continued
…………………………
John 1:1c in NT Greek (cont.):
But, you may ask, isn’t there a significance to the reversed word order in the Greek of Jn 1:1c (‘god was the word’) which is, in English, ‘the word was god.’?
If you will examine a good NT interlinear, you will find that word order is generally meaningless.
NT Greek authorities, Dr. Alfred Marshall and Prof. J. Gresham Machen tell us in their NT Greek primers that, unlike English, NT Greek does not use word order to convey meanings but instead uses the individual endings on each word (inflections).
“The English translation must be determined by observing the [Greek word] endings, not by observing the [word] order.” - New Testament Greek for Beginners, Machen, p. 27. (cf. New Testament Greek Primer, Marshall, pp. 7, 22 and A. T. Robertson, Grammar, p. 417.) [Emphasis added]
And in a later example illustrating predicate nouns Prof. Machen gave this example: “ho apostolos anthropos estin [word for word translation: ‘the apostle man is’],” and he translated that sentence [which has an anarthrous predicate count noun (anthropos - ‘man’) preceding the verb (estin - “is”) as in John 1:1c] as “the apostle is a man.” - p. 50, New Testament Greek For Beginners, The Macmillan Company, 1951. Notice the proper addition of the English indefinite article (‘a’).
We also find that respected trinitarian scholar, Rev. Alfred Marshall, translates phoneus esti (literally, ‘murderer he is’) as “He is a murderer.” - pp. 44 and 153, New Testament Greek Primer, Zondervan Publ., 1962. And John H. Dobson in his Learn New Testament Greek, p. 64, translates prophetes estin (literally, ‘prophet he is’) as “He is a prophet.” - Baker Book House, 1988.
But, since the actual grammar used by John (and all the other Gospel writers) shows John 1:1c to be properly translated as “and the Word was a god,” some trinitarians attempted to make this perfectly ordinary NT Greek word order into something else. In 1933, Colwell proposed that the word order could cause the definite article to be understood! This way the ‘understood’ ho (‘the’) could make Jn 1:1c say “and the word was [the] god.” And, as we have already found, ho theos (‘the god’) always indicates ‘God’ in English translations of John’s writing.
This continuing need by some trinitarians for a new ‘rule’ is a further admission that theos by itself doesn’t mean “God” in the Gospel of John.
Another new ‘rule’ concerning the word order of John 1:1c has been proposed to make the Word of the same essence as God. These ‘Qualitative’ rules are like Colwell’s rule above except they don’t allow for an understood article (ho) before theos. Instead, they say that the word order makes theos ‘qualitative.’
Examining the Trinity: QUAL ("Qualitative" John 1:1c)
The same method of examining all proper examples that are parallel to John 1:1c in John’s writings proves both modern inventions to be wrong.
To Be Continued
…………………………
Last edited:
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
D.
John 1:1c in NT Greek (cont.):
It’s been many years since I looked up all the clauses in John’s writing which had predicate nouns (also called predicate nominatives). Then I made a list of all of them which are parallel to John 1:1c (predicate noun [count noun] coming before the verb). I didn’t have a computer then and had to use a concordance and an interlinear NT Bible. Then I typed it all up into a 50+ page study. Now it’s on my computer and even on some internet sites (you know, the ones to which I keep giving links which everyone ignores).
In addition to examining in detail the steps we’ve looked at already, there is a comprehensive listing of the parallel constructions. When the exceptions (non-count nouns, abstracts, personal names, prepositional modifiers, etc.) are sorted out, we find the following passages to be the only proper examples which are completely parallel to John 1:1c.
Here, then, are all the proper examples (truly comparable to Jn 1:1c) from the writings of John (W and H text) for an honest examination of “Colwell’s Rule” (or any related rules, including Harner’s “qualitative” rule, concerning the simple, unmodified anarthrous ((without the definite article)) predicate count noun coming before the verb):
H,W 1. John 4:19 - (“a prophet”) - all Bible translations
H,W 2. John 8:48 - (“a Samaritan”) - all translations
H,W 3. John 18:37 (a) - (“a king”) - all
[H,W 4. John 18:37 (b) - (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]
H: Also found in Harner’s list of “Colwell Constructions.”
W: Also found in Wallace’s list of “Colwell Constructions.”
These are all indefinite nouns. All modern trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite!
If we wish to supply more examples, we must include some which are slightly less perfect than these three (or four). The best we can do is to include all those constructions (I used the W and H text) which comply with the other qualifications above but which, unlike Jn 1:1c, have the subject before the verb also. Since trinitarian scholars themselves include such examples, they should not object if we also include all such examples.
When we add those constructions to our list, we have:
H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all translations
H,W 2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all
H,W 3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”) - all
H,W 4. John 8:44 (a) - indefinite (“a murderer”/“a manslayer”) - all
H,W 5. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”) - all
H,W 6. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all
H,W 7. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer”) - all
H,W 8. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”) - all
H,W 9. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all
H,W 10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”) - all
[H,W 11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]
These are all indefinite nouns (not definite, not “qualitative”). All trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite! We should have enough examples to satisfy the most critical (but honest) scholar now. (And I wouldn’t resist the use of the “no subject” examples which trinitaian scholars have also accepted which clearly intend the subject as being a pronoun understood to be included with the verb, e.g., “[he] is,” which would then bring our total of proper examples to about 20.)
These would include:
H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - indefinite (“a liar”) - all
H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - indefinite (“a beggar”) - all
H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all
H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all
H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - indefinite (“a hireling/hired hand”) - all
H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - indefinite (“a thief”) - all
18. 1 Jn 4:20 - indefinite (“a liar”) - all
To see more about finding these examples see the Appendix of my original study:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/def-part-3-appendix.html
To Be Continued
John 1:1c in NT Greek (cont.):
It’s been many years since I looked up all the clauses in John’s writing which had predicate nouns (also called predicate nominatives). Then I made a list of all of them which are parallel to John 1:1c (predicate noun [count noun] coming before the verb). I didn’t have a computer then and had to use a concordance and an interlinear NT Bible. Then I typed it all up into a 50+ page study. Now it’s on my computer and even on some internet sites (you know, the ones to which I keep giving links which everyone ignores).
In addition to examining in detail the steps we’ve looked at already, there is a comprehensive listing of the parallel constructions. When the exceptions (non-count nouns, abstracts, personal names, prepositional modifiers, etc.) are sorted out, we find the following passages to be the only proper examples which are completely parallel to John 1:1c.
Here, then, are all the proper examples (truly comparable to Jn 1:1c) from the writings of John (W and H text) for an honest examination of “Colwell’s Rule” (or any related rules, including Harner’s “qualitative” rule, concerning the simple, unmodified anarthrous ((without the definite article)) predicate count noun coming before the verb):
H,W 1. John 4:19 - (“a prophet”) - all Bible translations
H,W 2. John 8:48 - (“a Samaritan”) - all translations
H,W 3. John 18:37 (a) - (“a king”) - all
[H,W 4. John 18:37 (b) - (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]
H: Also found in Harner’s list of “Colwell Constructions.”
W: Also found in Wallace’s list of “Colwell Constructions.”
These are all indefinite nouns. All modern trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite!
If we wish to supply more examples, we must include some which are slightly less perfect than these three (or four). The best we can do is to include all those constructions (I used the W and H text) which comply with the other qualifications above but which, unlike Jn 1:1c, have the subject before the verb also. Since trinitarian scholars themselves include such examples, they should not object if we also include all such examples.
When we add those constructions to our list, we have:
H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all translations
H,W 2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all
H,W 3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”) - all
H,W 4. John 8:44 (a) - indefinite (“a murderer”/“a manslayer”) - all
H,W 5. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”) - all
H,W 6. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all
H,W 7. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer”) - all
H,W 8. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”) - all
H,W 9. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all
H,W 10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”) - all
[H,W 11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]
These are all indefinite nouns (not definite, not “qualitative”). All trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite! We should have enough examples to satisfy the most critical (but honest) scholar now. (And I wouldn’t resist the use of the “no subject” examples which trinitaian scholars have also accepted which clearly intend the subject as being a pronoun understood to be included with the verb, e.g., “[he] is,” which would then bring our total of proper examples to about 20.)
These would include:
H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - indefinite (“a liar”) - all
H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - indefinite (“a beggar”) - all
H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all
H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all
H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - indefinite (“a hireling/hired hand”) - all
H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - indefinite (“a thief”) - all
18. 1 Jn 4:20 - indefinite (“a liar”) - all
To see more about finding these examples see the Appendix of my original study:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/def-part-3-appendix.html
To Be Continued
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
Being born again is for all who wish to even see teh kingdom. the Watchtower mess of saying only 144,000 can be bvorn again is foolishness and a false doctrine.
Satan is the fourth most powerful being in the universe, after the Father, son and Holy spirit. We must repect his power and that He knows Scripture far better than us, but of course to twist and malign it.
Salvation happens in this life. If one dies unsaved, they are lost forever. YOu need to read a bible apart from watchtower material. Even though they subtly say different, Watchtower material is not the Word of God, the bible is.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
They "add to and take away from" from His Word to fit their religion.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
The 144,000 is not a literal number but a SYMBOLIC Number of HOLINESS in His Body - His Bride.
i will not tell you here - you can PM me - blessing to you
Similar threads
