"The word was a god"?

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

......................................
theos in John 1:1c, like other unmodified, anarthrous nominative count nouns, is properly considered an indefinite noun and translators add an indefinite article ('a' or 'an') unless it is theos in John 1:1c. See links in my previous post.

The late Dr. Julius Mantey, noted NT Greek scholar and strong trinitarian, allegedly wrote a powerful attack against the accuracy and honesty of the NWT. We will look at all the points raised concerning the NWT in a July 11, 1974 letter to the Watchtower Society attributed to Mantey (when he was 84!) which anti-Watchtower writers are fond of reproducing and quoting.

John 1:1

His first concern was with John 1:1. His complaint that the WT Society dishonestly used his book to support their translation is incredible! It’s undoubtedly true that he didn’t intend anything in his book to support a non-trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1. (The Watchtower Society never claimed he did.) But the fact is that Mantey's own translation found in his Grammar does support it nevertheless! The quote by the Society refers to an example used by Mantey in his book which is grammatically identical to John 1:1 (articular subject after the copulative verb and anarthrous predicate noun before the copulative verb) and which Mantey has translated as, “and the place was a market (p. 148, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1957 ed.” - an exact parallel to the NWT’s “and the Word was a god.” - see NWT 25-28.

Mantey continues, “it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god’ [as in the NWT]. Word order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering.” If this were really true, then Mantey himself has been neither “scholarly nor reasonable” in his rendering of an identical word order in complete agreement with the NWT rendering of John 1:1.

I just love it when people who don't really understand Greek grammar post nonsense and pretend that it is fact

 

[PinSeeker]

I just love it when people who don't really understand Greek grammar post nonsense and pretend that it is fact

Well, to be fair, Tigger is unfortunately not pretending. :) There's another word for it, but that one is not quite so innocuous... :)

Grace and peace to you, ByGrace.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

......................................
theos in John 1:1c, like other unmodified, anarthrous nominative count nouns, is properly considered an indefinite noun and translators add an indefinite article ('a' or 'an') unless it is theos in John 1:1c. See links in my previous post.

The late Dr. Julius Mantey, noted NT Greek scholar and strong trinitarian, allegedly wrote a powerful attack against the accuracy and honesty of the NWT. We will look at all the points raised concerning the NWT in a July 11, 1974 letter to the Watchtower Society attributed to Mantey (when he was 84!) which anti-Watchtower writers are fond of reproducing and quoting.

John 1:1

His first concern was with John 1:1. His complaint that the WT Society dishonestly used his book to support their translation is incredible! It’s undoubtedly true that he didn’t intend anything in his book to support a non-trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1. (The Watchtower Society never claimed he did.) But the fact is that Mantey's own translation found in his Grammar does support it nevertheless! The quote by the Society refers to an example used by Mantey in his book which is grammatically identical to John 1:1 (articular subject after the copulative verb and anarthrous predicate noun before the copulative verb) and which Mantey has translated as, “and the place was a market (p. 148, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1957 ed.” - an exact parallel to the NWT’s “and the Word was a god.” - see NWT 25-28.

Mantey continues, “it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god’ [as in the NWT]. Word order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering.” If this were really true, then Mantey himself has been neither “scholarly nor reasonable” in his rendering of an identical word order in complete agreement with the NWT rendering of John 1:1.

Can you translate this from John 8:54

ἔστιν ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ δοξάζων με, ὃν ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐστιν

 

[tigger 2]

Can you translate this from John 8:54

ἔστιν ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ δοξάζων με, ὃν ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐστιν

.............................
If you don't carefully study the opposition, you won't understand the subject.

John 8:54 has theos modified by a genitive. If you would do your diligent study, you would see that nominatives modified by genitives are exceptions to the rule.

 

[PinSeeker]

Ah yes, so when the Watchtower manufactures exceptions, that's cool. LOL! No hypocrisy there... :)

Yeah ~ they have "answers" for everything, BGTF. :)

Grace and peace.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

.............................
If you don't carefully study the opposition, you won't understand the subject.

John 8:54 has theos modified by a genitive. If you would do your diligent study, you would see that nominatives modified by genitives are exceptions to the rule.

Here is a free lesson for you on Greek Grammar

In the sentence from John 8.54, we have "ho pater" as the subject. The noun "theos" is the predicate, which usually does not take the definite article. It is the same construction as in John 1.1c.

Yet no one would translate "theos" in 8.54 as"god", or "a god". So WHY any different in John 1.1?

 

[Keiw]

Please help me to understand what is meant here. If Jesus was "a god" then He could be THE God or a false god. What else could this mean? How can Jesus be "a god"?

A god( small g) means has godlike qualities, but is not God at all. Jesus had godlike qualities because his God and Father( John 20:17) did all the powerful works through him( Acts 2:22, 1Cor 8:5-6) same as was done through Moses. Moses didnt part the red sea, God did through Moses. The bible is clear( Psalm 45:7-Hebrews 1:3-4--Jesus has partners( angels) and without inheriting a name above theirs is equal to them. Trinity translations are filled with errors to fit false council teachings.

 

[Keiw]

Yes their translation is a joke- no one from the WTS knew any Hebrew of Greek. The translation is 100 % biased.

When one has holy spirit, they dont need to know those languages. The pharisees basically said it was impossible for Jesus and the apostles to be teachers, they didnt attend their schools of men. They were wrong and those condemning the NWT are wrong. They have to condemn it. Truth exposes their religions as false. Their own translations do as well. The teachings of Jesus prove their error.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

A god( small g) means has godlike qualities, but is not God at all. Jesus had godlike qualities because his God and Father( John 20:17) did all the powerful works through him( Acts 2:22, 1Cor 8:5-6) same as was done through Moses. Moses didnt part the red sea, God did through Moses. The bible is clear( Psalm 45:7-Hebrews 1:3-4--Jesus has partners( angels) and without inheriting a name above theirs is equal to them. Trinity translations are filled with errors to fit false council teachings.

God the Father says to WORSHIP Jesus Christ in Hebrews 1.6

God the Father addresses Jesus Christ as God in verse 8

In verses 10-12 the Father tells Jesus that He is the actual Creator of the universe

Jesus Christ IS Almighty God YHWH

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

A god( small g) means has godlike qualities, but is not God at all. Jesus had godlike qualities because his God and Father( John 20:17) did all the powerful works through him( Acts 2:22, 1Cor 8:5-6) same as was done through Moses. Moses didnt part the red sea, God did through Moses. The bible is clear( Psalm 45:7-Hebrews 1:3-4--Jesus has partners( angels) and without inheriting a name above theirs is equal to them. Trinity translations are filled with errors to fit false council teachings.

in John 1:6, it says, "There was a man sent from God", in the Greek it reads, "θεοῦ", where there is no article used, "τοῦ θεοῦ". Why not translate this as, "There was a man sent from god"? WHY only when it applies to Jesus Christ, does the meaning change?

in 1 Cor 10:9 Paul says, "We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents"

This is directly from Numbers chapter 21:6

"Then Yahweh sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died"

Clear that Jesus Christ IS YAHWEH!

You cannot fight aginst the Truth of the Bible!

 

[tigger 2]

Here is a free lesson for you on Greek Grammar

In the sentence from John 8.54, we have "ho pater" as the subject. The noun "theos" is the predicate, which usually does not take the definite article. It is the same construction as in John 1.1c.

Yet no one would translate "theos" in 8.54 as"god", or "a god". So WHY any different in John 1.1?

...............................
I already gave you a free lesson about this. If you would be honest enough to carefully read my studies concerning John's use of the grammar of John 1:1c, you would know that even recognized scholars (Robertson; Moule; Dana and Mantey; etc.) acknowledge the ambiguity of nominative nouns which are modified by genitives or prepositions or are personal names; etc. They are, therefore, unacceptable as examples where the article is used or not.

John 1:6 - Why does anthropos not have the definite article? In fact, it is rare to find a translator who does not properly 'add' a: 'a man.' Furthermore, theou is a genitive! Read and learn.

How about actually studying my works and criticizing them with integrity? Just try. It won't hurt. Take the first things first, one by one. What is a clear error and what is your evidence?

 

[Aunty Jane]

You cannot fight aginst the Truth of the Bible!

This is the one statement of truth that none of us can escape.....no one here can argue against the truth.....but Pilate asked.....“what is truth?”
Good question....

As we are deep into the time of the end....and Christ’s return as judge and executioner is imminent.....
He will tell us all, in no uncertain terms, who has “the truth” and who hasn’t, (Matthew 7:21-23).....but one thing is also certain....it will not be those who hold the majority view, since Jesus has already told us that “few” are actually on the road to life. (Matthew 7:13-14) God’s people have never been in the majority because their common enemy makes sure that he steals them away from the true God by deceit....and self interest, just as he did in Eden. He has no new tricks, but do we recognise them?

Who are the victims of the devil’s deceptions.......? We will all find out soon enough.
But how can we know if what we believe is the truth? The fact is we can’t....all we can do is *believe* that we have the truth....and God will not make our decisions for us....they are ours to make for ourselves, and for our own reasons.

This following scripture is sobering....speaking of the time of the end....Paul wrote...
“The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 -ESV)

Those who rely on themselves in a world where the master deceiver has masked every truth, and can perform convincing ‘tricks’.......how will any of us know whether we have found the truth...or are being fooled into believing that we have.....?

If God, in keeping with the desire of people’s hearts “sends” a “strong delusion” to those who want to believe what is not true....that means that it is God choosing or rejecting us, based on what we have chosen to believe.....he allows us to keep the lies, because we love them. Anything that disagrees with their “truth”, has to be *wrong*. But none of us will know until that final judgment....

Do we see then, that on these forums, all we can do is present what we believe and why we believe it, according to our *take* on the scriptures.....but as to the passing of judgment on other people’s beliefs, we can state what we believe and why we believe it....and allow others to weigh the evidence from scripture for themselves.

Can we rely on God then to show us the way? Since Jesus said.....
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. . . . “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:44,65 - ESV)
God allows us to choose what to believe and when we choose the truth, he will step in and guide us.....but he will not make the choice for us. This is where we are ‘caught in the act of being ourselves’.

Jesus commissioned his disciples to preach about the ‘coming of God’s Kingdom’. (Matthew 24:14, Matthew 28:19-20) It was said to be a “testimony” or “witness” to “all the nations”....but who is it that mentions the coming “Kingdom of God”? Most “Christians” I speak to have no idea what “God’s Kingdom” is. Jesus taught us to pray for it.....so what is it? What part does God’s Kingdom have in Christendom’s disunited belief system?

Our own hearts are at work and what appeals to us will become our “truth”...this is why so many people can read the same Bible and interpret it in so many ways......but there is only one truth...not many versions of it, according to what people want the truth to be.

So, for me personally, what I have chosen as my truth is shared by an international brotherhood who all believe the same things, because I believe the truth unites people...it should not divide them. If there are divisions, that is proof to me that there is no truth....there is only opinions. We all have those, but the reality might be far from what we ‘believe’ it to be.

Food for thought...

 

[Webers_Home]

.
• 1Thess 4:16-17 . .The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a
commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and
those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.

It would be a mistake to assume that 1Thss 4:16-17 is referring to a specific
arch angel where none is named because according to Dan 10:13, there's
more than one, viz: identifying the arch angel in 1Thess 4:16-17 as the
Michael spoken of in Jude 1:9 would be just as arbitrary saying it's the Gabriel
spoken of in Luke 1:19.
_

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

...............................
I already gave you a free lesson about this. If you would be honest enough to carefully read my studies concerning John's use of the grammar of John 1:1c, you would know that even recognized scholars (Robertson; Moule; Dana and Mantey; etc.) acknowledge the ambiguity of nominative nouns which are modified by genitives or prepositions or are personal names; etc. They are, therefore, unacceptable as examples where the article is used or not.

John 1:6 - Why does anthropos not have the definite article? In fact, it is rare to find a translator who does not properly 'add' a: 'a man.' Furthermore, theou is a genitive! Read and learn.

How about actually studying my works and criticizing them with integrity? Just try. It won't hurt. Take the first things first, one by one. What is a clear error and what is your evidence?

Greek grammar is very clear, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, can ONLY read in this context: AND THE WORD WAS GOD.

A T Robertson



Moule



Dana and Mantey



Middleton



Green

 

[Aunty Jane]

.
• 1Thess 4:16-17 . .The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a
commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and
those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.

It would be a mistake to assume that 1Thss 4:16-17 is referring to a specific
arch angel where none is named because according to Dan 10:13, there's
more than one, viz: identifying the arch angel in 1Thess 4:16-17 as the
Michael spoken of in Jude 1:9 would be just as arbitrary saying it's the Gabriel
spoken of in Luke 1:19.
_

Since the Bible speaks of only one Archangel (there is no plural) and calls him Michael (Jude 9).....I would have to disagree with you.
Michael is the only angel other than Gabriel named in the Bible, and the only one called “archangel.” (Jude 9)

The first occurrence of the name is in Daniel ch 10, where Michael is described as “one of the chief princes”; he came to the aid of a lesser angel who was opposed by “the prince of the royal realm of Persia.”

Michael was called “the prince of [Daniel’s] people,” “the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel’s] people.” (Daniel 10:13, 20-21, Daniel 12:1) This points to Michael as the angel who led the Israelites through the wilderness. (Exodus 23:20-21, 23; Exodus 32:34; Daniel 33:2) What lends support to this conclusion is the fact that “Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body.” (Jude 9)

Only two persons are spoken of in the Bible as commanding the angelic forces......Jesus and Michael.

Since we do not believe that Jesus is God, and scripture indicates that the Lord Jesus has many roles and many names, there is nothing to prevent him from being Michael in that role.....it's only the trinity that causes arguments about that.

Daniel 10:13 does not signify more than one Archangel.....it calls Michael "one of the chief princes"...so that might mean that there are many "princes" in leadership positions... (Strongs definition of "prince" is..."ruler, leader, chief, chieftain, official, captain")....but there is only one Micheal and he is THE Archangel.

 

[DavidB]

God the Father says to WORSHIP Jesus Christ in Hebrews 1.6

God the Father addresses Jesus Christ as God in verse 8

In verses 10-12 the Father tells Jesus that He is the actual Creator of the universe

Jesus Christ IS Almighty God YHWH

God the Father says to WORSHIP Jesus Christ in Hebrews 1.6

God the Father addresses Jesus Christ as God in verse 8

In verses 10-12 the Father tells Jesus that He is the actual Creator of the universe

Jesus Christ IS Almighty God YHWH

Why did you skip Hebrews 1:9?
“Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Why did you skip Hebrews 1:9?
“Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”

In verse 9, the words, “ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου”, is also in the vocative, and should read: “O God, your God”. This is how it was understood in the Greek Old Testament by Symmachus, published in the latter half of the 2nd century, on Psalm 45:7 (see, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges). In this verse also Aquila uses the vocative, θεέ. (Fredrick Field, Origen Hexapla, vol. II, pp. 162-163. We have TWO Who are equally called GOD.

In the Jewish Aramaic Targum on the Psalm, the words are used as a direct address to Jehovah, “The throne of Thy majesty, O Jehovah, abideth for ever and ever.” (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges).Which is also vocative

It is clear, that as early as the 2nd century, the Hebrew was understood as the vocative, and not the nominative.

This is clear that verse 8 cannot read, "God is your throne", as the use of the vocative is in direct address, which disallows this reading.

 

[DavidB]

In verse 9, the words, “ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου”, is also in the vocative, and should read: “O God, your God”. This is how it was understood in the Greek Old Testament by Symmachus, published in the latter half of the 2nd century, on Psalm 45:7 (see, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges). In this verse also Aquila uses the vocative, θεέ. (Fredrick Field, Origen Hexapla, vol. II, pp. 162-163. We have TWO Who are equally called GOD.

In the Jewish Aramaic Targum on the Psalm, the words are used as a direct address to Jehovah, “The throne of Thy majesty, O Jehovah, abideth for ever and ever.” (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges).Which is also vocative

It is clear, that as early as the 2nd century, the Hebrew was understood as the vocative, and not the nominative.

This is clear that verse 8 cannot read, "God is your throne", as the use of the vocative is in direct address, which disallows this reading.

I don’t know Koine Greek. All I can do is examine and compare translations. Hebrews 1:8 is rendered “God is your throne” by some trinitarian translators. That seems to be the case with many verses used to support the trinity. I can’t find any disagreement about Deuteronomy 6:4 (except most replace the Tetragrammaton with Adonai), John 1:18, John 17:3, John 20:17, John 20:31, 1 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28, Hebrews 1:9 and Revelation 3:12 to mention a few. My conclusion is that Jehovah actually is Jesus’ God and Father. Jesus is simply who Peter said he is, the Son of God.

Father and Son. It does not require a scholar to explain that. But I do enjoy reading your discussion with Tigger2.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

I don’t know Koine Greek. All I can do is examine and compare translations. Hebrews 1:8 is rendered “God is your throne” by some trinitarian translators. That seems to be the case with many verses used to support the trinity. I can’t find any disagreement about Deuteronomy 6:4 (except most replace the Tetragrammaton with Adonai), John 1:18, John 17:3, John 20:17, John 20:31, 1 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28, Hebrews 1:9 and Revelation 3:12 to mention a few. My conclusion is that Jehovah actually is Jesus’ God and Father. Jesus is simply who Peter said he is, the Son of God.

Father and Son. It does not require a scholar to explain that. But I do enjoy reading your discussion with Tigger2.

In all of these English translations, there is no one that reads "God is your throne", Hebrews 1:8 Parallel: But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

As I have said, for this to be the reading of the Greek, "Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεὸς", the words cannot be an address, and will be in the nominative proper. However, in Hebrews 1:8, it is the nominitave as vocative, as it is an address by the Father to Jesus Christ. This is also acknowledged by the Unitarian Greek grammirian, Dr George Winer. In fact, another Unitarian, Dr Noyes, in his NT reads, "thy throne O God"

Only those who try to wrest the Bible, and force its normal meaning, based on their theology, will reject the reading, "Your throne O God"

Jesus Christ is Himself Yahweh, the Eternal God, as is the Father and Holy Spirit. Jesus says so Himself, when He quotes Malachi 3:1, in Matthew 11:10, and changes the pronoun in the Greek, so that He becomes the Speaker, "Yahweh of Hosts", in Malachi. Jesus could not have done this if He was not Almighty God.

 

[Carl Emerson]

You mean God with a capital G, Jesus is the son of God, not God himself, only the one in the highest that created the Heavens and the Earth has that title.

John 1
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

This speaks of Jesus the Word.

Jesus, the Father and the Spirit act together.