Johann (and helpers): So, how did I know that you would continue to avoid actually responding to the grammar of John as used in John 1:1c
as shown in my study?
Because you ignored it so many times in this thread alone, and now you flood the thread with
other studies and "proofs" which also do not address the facts of my study.
..................................
Johann wrote #515:
"You are no scholar, so leave John 1:1 and lean not unto your own understanding.
I know the urge to sound to sound [sic] sophomoric and highly intellectual and to know all the answers in the scriptures is fleshly driven, mere intellectual, stoical knowledge, acquired gnosis, so please, down with th [sic] pride and just believe what you read, and Christ Jesus IS Theos, Theos pros ho Theos.."
............................................
Why would anyone
want to sound "sophomoric"?
Do you mean that I must follow the teachings of trinitarian scholars and overlook any errors they make?
I have quoted/cited a number of recognized trinitarian scholars in my study of
John 1:1c.
If you are as educated in NT Greek as you claim, you should be able to do a scholarly examination (not just personal attack) of every aspect of my study. I expect that, instead, you will refuse with the usual excuses.
Examining the Trinity OR Examining the Trinity: John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity.
Please point out the 'errors' one by one and explain why they are wrong.
Let me help you. Here is the first point in the Jn 1:1c Primer study:
"The NT Greek word for "God" and "god" is
theos (θεὸς). In the writings of the Gospel writers (including John) when an unmodified
theos (the form used for subjects and predicate nouns) is accompanied by the article, "the"
(ὁ [pronounced
ho] in Greek), and has no added phrases (e.g., "the god
of this world"), then it always refers to the only true God. - See DEF study."
Johann posted frequently on this thread (16 times since July 19 I believe), but it suddenly ended when I first posted the above on July 26.
I really want to discuss my study of the grammar of
John 1:1c and its parallel constructions in John’s writing. Perhaps if I post the next part of my study…
“But Jn 1:1c has an unmodified "theos" without the article. Therefore, even some trinitarian scholars are forced to admit that this passage may be literally translated as "the Word was a god"!
This includes W. E. Vine
(An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words);
Dr. C. H. Dodd (director of the
New English Bible project);
Murray J. Harris (
Jesus as God);
Dr. Robert Young
(Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary);
Rev. J. W. Wenham, (
The Elements of New Testament Greek).
Of course, being trinitarians, they often insist that the correct interpretation of such a literal translation must be, somehow, trinitarian.
The usual trinitarian interpretation for
John 1:1c ("the Word was God") is supposedly based on the fact that an unmodified
theos is used as a predicate noun (predicate nominative) without a definite article (anarthrous) and comes before the verb in the New Testament (NT) Greek text. When you find an anarthrous predicate noun in that position, some trinitarians will say, it is to be interpreted differently ("qualitative" or "definite": i.e., as though it actually had the definite article with it or is understood as an adjective) from a predicate noun which normally comes after the verb.
Although such a "reversed" word order is extremely rare in English, it is common in NT Greek. And even a number of respected trinitarian scholars translate such constructions as having an indefinite predicate noun (“The Apostle is a man”; “He is a murderer”; “The man is a prophet”; ““He was a prophet”; “And the place was a market,”; “John Smith is a teacher”; etc.
So I decided to examine
all the usages of an anarthrous predicate noun found before its verb in
all of John’s writings that are as close to the example of
John 1:1c as we can find.
Here is what I found. Notice how many have the definite article "understood" with the predicate noun (as trinitarians imagine at
John 1:1c.):
H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”)
H,W 2.
John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”)
H,W 3.
John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”)
H,W 4.
John 8:44 - indefinite (“a murderer”/“a manslayer”)
H,W 5.
John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”)
H,W 6.
John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”)
H,W 7.
John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer”)
H,W 8.
John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”)
H,W 9.
John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”)
H,W 10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”)
[
H,W 11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]
………………………………................................
H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - “a liar”
H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - “a beggar”
H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - “a prophet”
H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - “a sinner”
H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - “a hireling”
H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - “a thief”
18. 1 Jn 4:20 - “a liar “
And, possibly,
H,W 19.
1 John 2:4 - “a liar”
….………………………………………
H: Also found in Harner’s list of “Colwell Constructions”(end note #16,
JBL)
W: Also found in Wallace’s list of “Colwell Constructions”(
Greek Grammar & Syntax)
These uses by John show that
John 1:1c should also be translated into English with the English indefinite article: “And the word was a god.”
Trinitarian scholars who explain the scriptural use of "a god" for some of those who represent God: -
Examining the Trinity: God and gods (from BOWGOD study)
