Do you accept this a Biblical fact or fiction?:

[tigger 2]

E.

John 1:1c in NT Greek (cont.):

The above lessons show that word order (predicate noun before the verb as found in the NT Greek of John 1:1c) does not change the meaning to an understood article (“the”) as Colwell’s Rule suggests or some nebulous ‘qualitative’ or ‘essence’ meaning as some other trinitarian scholars insist. [However, many of the examples of predicate nouns modified by “prepositions” (which are not proper examples because of uncertain article usage) do have understood definite articles. This does not apply to proper examples truly parallel to John 1:1c.]

Pay particular attention to two of the verses found in our list in D. above: John 6:70 and John 10:1.

John 6:70 “Jesus answered them…. and one of you [Judas] is a devil.” - KJV. Greek word order: “out of you one devil is.”

“One who sins belongs to the devil, like Cain (1 Jn 3:8, 12); or he is a devil himself, like Judas, the betrayer (Jn 6:70). .... Jesus’ enemies are called children [and sons] of the devil, i.e. those who share his nature and behavior (Jn 8:44) [Acts 13:10; 1 Jn 3:10].” - p. 472, vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan.

So a man who is from [literally “out of,” ek] the Devil (1 Jn 3:8), and is a ‘son of the Devil’ (Acts 13:10), and who is “with the Devil (whether physically or figuratively) may also be called “a devil” (Jn 6:70)! So Judas, for example, could be described in NT terms: “Judas was with ho diabolos [the Devil], and diabolos was Judas.” And no matter how anyone wants to interpret it, it would be incredibly wrong to insist (as many trinitarians do about Jn 1:1c) that this meant Judas was literally, equally the Devil himself! Whether you translate it literally (“Judas was with the Devil, and Judas was a devil”) or ‘qualitatively’ (“Judas was with the Devil, and Judas had the ‘nature’ of the Devil”), it would mean essentially the same thing: Judas simply shared to some degree some (or one) of the qualities of the Devil, but he is not equally the Devil with Satan himself! No reasonable person would accept this as evidence for some mysterious ‘Satanity’! Compare this with John 1:1c.

John 10:1 John 10:1 has this word order, “that (one) thief is and robber” [the first predicate noun is before the verb and the second is after the verb!]. This is always translated as, “that one [or ‘he’] is a thief and a robber” (both indefinite!). It is never rendered, “that one is the Thief and a robber” [Colwell]. And it is never “qualitatively” rendered as “that one has the full essence of thiefness and is a robber.”

The word order does not change the meaning. The predicate noun is still indefinite.

The John 1:1c predicate noun (and its parallels), according to John's (and the other Gospel writers) grammar and usage turns out to be as indefinite as his other anarthrous predicate nouns (found after the verb).

When John wishes to show a count noun predicate noun which comes before its verb is the most superior person in that category, he adds the definite article. For example, John 1:21 is speaking of the prophet above all other prophets. At John 1:21 we see John the Baptist being asked "the prophet are you." We see that the predicate noun not only comes before the verb and the subject is after the verb as in John 1:1c. And how did John show this was intended to be The Prophet? Well, even though it comes before the verb, John added the definite article before it! "Ho prophetes ei su." Otherwise we would have understood it to mean "a prophet" just as it is in John 4:19 where "prophetes ei su" is rendered in English Bibles as "you are a prophet."

IF John had intended John 1:1c to mean "The Word was God," he would do the same thing to avoid any ambiguity: "Ho theos en ho Logos." The fact that he didn't is very significant.

Unfortunately, in spite of all the other parallels to John 1:1c which we have seen above in Lesson D, none of them in the writings of John include the predicate noun for "God/god." To see a parallel which uses theos we must go to the ancient Greek OT Septuagint.

3 Kings 18:27 in the ancient Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament (1 Kings 18:27 in English Bibles) has a parallel construction to John 1:1c. It has theos as a predicate noun without a definite article (anarthrous) and coming before the verb: “for God [or ‘a god’] he is.” But the Septuagint translation by Sir Lancelot Brenton (Zondervan Publishing) says “for he is a god.”!! Compare other translations of 1 Kings 18:27: “a god” is obviously intended here just as it is in John 1:1c.

I realize this is not from the writings of John, but it is the only way we'll find a similar use of the pre-verbal anarthrous predicate noun theos. But the many parallel uses of other predicate nouns by John prove the point anyway.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

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

Thank you for bringing me back to my early koine Greek language classes.

You forget that Word and god are both Nominative singular masculine. They have the same xconstruct. Theos is the subject so logos becomes the secondary7 noun and in this case is used like an adjectival noun. IOW it describes who this god is! an indefinite article is not required for all anarthrous nouns. Google and find out this is very true. Especially in this passage in light of the rest of Scripture. If jesus is merely a god then as Scripture declares there is only one true god, then Jesus biblically must be a fgalse God.

and you also failed to not ethat when a nopun like god hasd the definite article, it refers to a person and when theos appears without the definite article, it eithers describes the nature of the person or incase of the false deities, their declaration of godhood.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

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

1. How much of this do you actually know and have studied and are not just cutting and pasting without learning.
2. Yes these are formal rules, but you ignore other rules. The anarthrous argument is old and tired and unworthy of you.
3. there are differing rules governing a co0mpound phrase when both nouns are in the same construct. You use general rules but fail to check out more speicific rules for specific constructs of grammar. Normal mistake for those who cut and paste without learning .

 

[Ronald Nolette]

They "add to and take away from" from His Word to fit their religion.

Well He did copy a lengthy grammar lesson in general rules of koine grammar, but it fails for those general rules do not cover the compound -phrase of John 1:1c.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

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

Well I have to disagree with you.

Jesus bride is the church, the church is gone before this selection, and God goes into detail to define the 144,000 12,000 from the twelve tribes! There is simply no warrant to symbolize this number. Also there is a cause and effect found in the passage. The 144,000 are sealed, and then great numbers of gentiles come to Christ.

 

[David in NJ]

The First Resurrection does not occur until after the 5th Seal is completed - please read Revelation again.

The First Resurrection is in Chapter 20.

 

[tigger 2]

1. How much of this do you actually know and have studied and are not just cutting and pasting without learning.
2. Yes these are formal rules, but you ignore other rules. The anarthrous argument is old and tired and unworthy of you.
3. there are differing rules governing a co0mpound phrase when both nouns are in the same construct. You use general rules but fail to check out more speicific rules for specific constructs of grammar. Normal mistake for those who cut and paste without learning .

.................................

This is one of my own studies as I said. The first one concerning John 1:1c alone is my 50+ page DEF study. I have personally read the source of every quote in it. (It took so long to finish because of the intense work required pre-computer and for me to purchase - on a teacher's salary - or look up in various public libraries all the publications cited).

The "anarthrous argument" is "old and tired" because trinitarians have kept trying to find new ways to justify it. But it is the main point of the argument.

Perhaps your "compound phrase" is actually some form of Sharp's Rule which is dubious at the very best. My study of Sharp's Rule shows many flaws in it. At any rate John 1:1c is not a "compound phrase." It's not a phrase at all! It's a clause, in fact it's a predicate noun clause!

The only cut and paste I have done is from my own files of my own studies.

Try actually reading them carefully.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

The "anarthrous argument" is "old and tired" because trinitarians have kept trying to find new ways to justify it.

So now I have to be a grammatical Expert to understand Many Plain and Clear Scriptures? How about IF I compare Scripture With Itself and allow The Teacher
TO DO HIS Job (1 Corinthians 2:13), one of Several Bible "study" Rules! {and
NOT ONE of them says to be any "linguistics/grammatical" Expert}:

Not "trying to find NEW WAYS to justify" anything, simply reading, studying
Prayerfully And Carefully, and BELIEVING What God Says! Amen?:

The Case FOR The Triune GodHead

 

[tigger 2]

Grace wrote above:
"So now I have to be a grammatical Expert to understand Many Plain and Clear Scriptures?"
.......................................
I have written it in simple, easy-to-learn fashion. Any beginning NT Greek student should be able to follow it. In fact anyone who understands English should be able, with a little effort, to understand it. I am always ready to help those unfamiliar with the terms or concepts involved, but no one has ever honestly attempted it. I wonder why (since it is the only way definitely to understand John's intent for this very important scripture)?

 

[Wrangler]

You have still failed to give a reason why God isn't God here.

God is God here but Jesus ain’t.

 

[Wrangler]

But form is referenced in the bible, so we address form.

A non-responsive reply. Language usage: If someone says Liberace’s pool is in the form of a piano, it doesn’t make it a piano. It is a non-piano in the form of a piano.

This is how language is used.

 

[Wrangler]

The Lord Jesus Christ was NOT Created

John 3:16 says Jesus was created. Trinitarians deny A is A. Begotten means created, specifically pro-created.

 

[David in NJ]

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.

No christian i know is opposed to God Jehovah

God is God here but Jesus ain’t.

Every knee shall bow and confess Jesus Christ as Lord, as Creator and as the Savior for there is no other Name by which we MUST be saved.

Repent and believe and worship the SON, for without worship of the SON you will never be received by the Father.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

We should have enough examples to satisfy the most critical (but honest) scholar now.

Thank you for bringing me back to my early koine Greek language classes...You forget that Word and god are both Nominative singular masculine. They have the same xconstruct. Theos is the subject so logos becomes the secondary7 noun and in this case is used like an adjectival noun. IOW it describes who this god is! an indefinite article is not required for all anarthrous nouns. Google and find out this is very true....here are differing rules governing a co0mpound phrase when both nouns are in the same construct. You use general rules but fail to check out more speicific rules for specific constructs of grammar.

Precious friends, we unlearned and ignorant simpletons will have to pass on this rabbit hole of linguistic/grammatical scholarship, or we will Never Get Above water, so to speak NOWHERE in God's Scripture Does It Say what you suggest here, is for our learning And understanding Of God's Word. Going back to the simple suggestion I have already posted in #148

Hope to see you In God's Great GloryLand! I'll probably "be a LOT smarter," THERE, eh?

 

[tigger 2]

Precious friends, we unlearned and ignorant simpletons will have to pass on this rabbit hole of linguistic/grammatical scholarship, or we will Never Get Above water, so to speak NOWHERE in God's Scripture Does It Say what you suggest here, is for our learning And understanding Of God's Word. Going back to the simple suggestion I have already posted in #148

Hope to see you In God's Great GloryLand! I'll probably "be a LOT smarter," THERE, eh?

...........................................
↑
Nolette's erroneous post on John's Grammar:

1. How much of this do you actually know and have studied and are not just cutting and pasting without learning.
2. Yes these are formal rules, but you ignore other rules. The anarthrous argument is old and tired and unworthy of you.
3. there are differing rules governing a co0mpound phrase when both nouns are in the same construct. You use general rules but fail to check out more speicific rules for specific constructs of grammar. Normal mistake for those who cut and paste without learning .

.................................
My answer:
This is one of my own studies as I said. The first one concerning John 1:1c alone is my 50+ page DEF study. I have personally read the source of every quote in it. (It took so long to finish because of the intense work required pre-computer and for me to purchase - on a teacher's salary - or look up in various public libraries all the publications cited).

The "anarthrous argument" is "old and tired" because trinitarians have kept trying to find new ways to justify it. But it is the main point of the argument.

Perhaps your "compound phrase" is actually some form of Sharp's Rule which is dubious at the very best. My study of Sharp's Rule shows many flaws in it. At any rate John 1:1c is not a "compound phrase." It's not a phrase at all! It's a clause, in fact it's a predicate noun clause!

The only cut and paste I have done is from my own files of my own studies.

Try actually reading them carefully.
............................................
Grace wrote:
"So now I have to be a grammatical Expert to understand Many Plain and Clear Scriptures?"
.......................................
I have written it in simple, easy-to-learn fashion. Any beginning NT Greek student should be able to follow it. In fact anyone who understands English should be able, with a little effort, to understand it. I am always ready to help those unfamiliar with the terms or concepts involved, but no one has ever honestly attempted it. I wonder why (since it is the only way definitely to understand John's intent for this very important scripture)?
......................................
My further answer to Grace:
Of course it is your choice to ignore facts. Your "Many Plain and Clear Scriptures" are far from that. The real inspired scriptures were written in OT Hebrew and NT Greek! So it takes those with the best understanding of NT Greek (including its grammar) to even begin to come close to translating it into English. So, do they have to be "a grammatical Expert"? Definitely! But notice how they disagree in many things.

Most translators today (and for hundreds of years) are trinitarian for many reasons. So, of course, if there is any way they can honestly translate a verse with a trinitarian understanding, they will do so and ignore any honest alternates. Even some trinitarian scholars sometimes admit that a scripture has good alternate non-trinitarian renderings.

There is absolutely no way to know what was honestly intended by the NT Greek writing of certain scriptures by the inspired writers without a modicum of effort on our part. Stay on the broad, easy way that most follow if you wish. I wish you well.

 

[marks]

I think you do follow. The language of the Bible is one being does things through another being. We all understand that.

Trinitarians want to pretend in the case of Jesus, he is the being who sent him. Do you follow?

Angels didn't destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, God did. The LORD sent fire and brimstone from heaven to destroy the cities of the plain.

So you connection kinda came out of no where to me.

Your objection is that God doesn't send Himself, however, that only applies if God were not in fact Triune, so that's not part of the proof, it's part of the assertion.

Much love!

 

[marks]

A couple of vague plural verses does not overcome that.

Interesting that you can glibly overlook "a couple of vague" verses. It doesn't really seem that you give the same credit as you do the singular. Even so, the use of singular pronouns doesn't refute a Triune God, it really is restating the assertion that God is not triune, given the use of singular pronouns. However, as YHWH speaks, He speaks as One of Three, and uses as singular.

It's that plural pronoun, "In Our image", which challenges the idea of Who God is. Let Us make man . . . let who make man? The "royal we"? But that's not how God generally speaks in the OT, is it? So it does leave that question.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Only if the name is under false pretenses, is this forum not entitled Bible Study Forum?

So you pretend to not know what I'm saying? Very mature!

Much love!

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Angels didn't destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, God did. The LORD sent fire and brimstone from heaven to destroy the cities of the plain.

At Genesis 19:12 it does say that the angels said that God had sent them to destroy the city. Is that a lie?

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Interesting that you can glibly overlook "a couple of vague" verses. It doesn't really seem that you give the same credit as you do the singular. Even so, the use of singular pronouns doesn't refute a Triune God, it really is restating the assertion that God is not triune, given the use of singular pronouns. However, as YHWH speaks, He speaks as One of Three, and uses as singular.

It's that plural pronoun, "In Our image", which challenges the idea of Who God is. Let Us make man . . . let who make man? The "royal we"? But that's not how God generally speaks in the OT, is it? So it does leave that question.

Much love!

The word we doesn't necessarily mean that there had to be two other persons that YHWH was talking to when he said, let us make man in our image. It's very reasonable that YHWH was talking to his Only Begotten Son, when he said that.