"The word was a god"?

[RLT63]

And welcome to the forum @RLT63

Thanks

 

[tigger 2]

Jn 1:1c has an unmodified "theos" without the article. Therefore, even some trinitarian scholars [the first 6 listed below at least] are forced to admit that this passage may be literally translated as "the Word was a god"!

This includes W. E. Vine, p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words;

Dr. C. H. Dodd (director of the New English Bible project),
Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977;

Murray J. Harris, p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992;

Dr. Robert Young, p. 54, Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary;

Rev. J. W. Wenham, p. 35, The Elements of New Testament Greek;

And highly respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay wrote: “You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a God’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong.” - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.

J.D. BeDuhn, p.132, Truth in Translation.

Emphatic Diaglott, Interlinear portion (left side), not Emphatic portion (by capital use on right side).

 

[GRACE ambassador]

The New World Translation says a god. I believe that is the translation JWs use

Correct, and:

Precious friend, A Very Warm Welcome To the Board.

Please Be Very RICHLY Encouraged And Edified In
The LORD JESUS CHRIST, And His Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided.

GRACE And Peace...

 

[Johann]

They can't do that; they cannot point out the 'errors' one by one and explain why they are wrong. All they can do is sweep all the evidence away that goes against their doctrine and replace it with general statements, like 'all of Scripture' points to 3-is-1 from monotheist text. Their doctrine rests on the absurd premise that monotheist Jews did not know they were writing about something other than a unitarian, singular god.

Thing is there is explicit Scripture that only the Father is God and we are only to give glory to him (singular) and to have no other gods before him (singular).

Conversion to Judaism - Wikipedia

Is this what you have done? Since I have a suspicion many are on that route.

 

[RLT63]

Flooding the thread?
Just here with a message and nothing to prove.

It looks like he ignored some posts too

 

[Johann]

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"!

I'm pretty sure that when John, not recognized by Orthodox Judaism, penned John 1.1 he was not thinking of "a god"
Why Messiah must be God! - ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry %

What does it mean that God has a son? Isn't that a pagan concept? - ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry


The truth is, that the Jewish book of The Zohar goes in great depth into the subject it calls “Haraz de Shlosha” – “The Mystery of the Three”, about the nature of One God with three dimensions\persons. The Zohar refers to God as to three heads, three spirits, three ways of appearance, three names, and three shades of interpretations that describe the divine nature.
It would be interesting to know if Rabbi Daniel Ballas intends to blame the Jewish book of The Zohar as being a “Pagan Christian” book?
We cannot, and probably should not place God in a lab in an attempt to understand exactly who or what He is. He said in the past: “I am who I am.” And through Isaiah, He said: “My thoughts are not your thoughts.”
If, as human beings, we were able to fully understand God with our human minds, then we probably would not fear Him. We cannot worship a god that our mind is able to fully contain. While we can never fully understand God, it is still possible to find many clues throughout the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) that testify to His character.

One for Israel is also under attack.

 

[Johann]

It looks like he ignored some posts too

Eph 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Eph 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
Eph 3:16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
Eph 3:17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
Eph 3:18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
Eph 3:19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

Col 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
Col 2:7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Stay rooted in Christ brother, there are ditches everywhere.

 

[tigger 2]

You can lead a donkey to water, but still cannot get him to examine your personal study of the grammar of John as it pertains to John 1:1c.

 

[RLT63]

You can lead a donkey to water, but still cannot get him to examine your personal study of the grammar of John as it pertains to John 1:1c.

So the scholars that translated almost all of the versions of the NT got it wrong but you have it right?

 

[Johann]

You can lead a donkey to water, but still cannot get him to examine your personal study of the grammar of John as it pertains to John 1:1c.

In the beginning (en archēi). Archē is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Gen_1:1. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing.
Was (ēn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in Joh_1:14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in Joh_8:58 “before Abraham came (genesthai) I am” (eimi, timeless existence).
The Word (ho logos). Logos is from legō, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logos is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatikos logos for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Pro_8:23. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John’s standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logos, but not John’s conception of personal pre-existence. The term Logos is applied to Christ only in Joh_1:1, Joh_1:14; Rev_19:13; 1Jn_1:1 “concerning the Word of life” (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of “the Word of God” in Heb_4:12. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Co_8:9; Php_2:6.; Col_1:17) and in Heb_1:2. and in Joh_17:5. This term suits John’s purpose better than sophia (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the aeon Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos “became flesh” (sarx egeneto, Joh_1:14) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once.
With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1Jn_2:1 we have a like use of pros: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklēton echomen pros ton patera). See prosōpon pros prosōpon (face to face, 1Co_13:12), a triple use of pros. There is a papyrus example of pros in this sense to gnōston tēs pros allēlous sunētheias, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of pros here and in Mar_6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koiné, not old Attic. In Joh_17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.
And the Word was God (kai theos ēn ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos ēn ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in Joh_4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1Jn_4:16 ho theos agapē estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” [ or God is "a god"...just me giving my 2 cents, knowing what you are "driving" at...]as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in Joh_1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.
Robertson word pictures

I am not even putting my name under scholars since I am no scholar.

 

[tigger 2]

So the scholars that translated almost all of the versions of the NT got it wrong but you have it right?

......................................
There's a simple, foolproof way to find out. Why do you suppose no trinitarian dares do it?

 

[Johann]

......................................
There's a simple, foolproof way to find out. Why do you suppose no trinitarian dares do it?

Do you consider yourself a lamdan? Or a Yeshiva yode'a sefer?

 

[Johann]

......................................
There's a simple, foolproof way to find out. Why do you suppose no trinitarian dares do it?

You can say what you want, but you cannot chance the preposition "Pros" 3x

 

[tigger 2]

I respect Robertson as a NT grammarian. But he is a trinitarian and makes clear 'errors' when it comes to defending trinity 'proofs.'

Take the only part of your cut and paste which relates to my study of John's grammar: "in Joh_4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean 'God is spirit,' not 'spirit is God.'” [emphasis mine] This ignores the fact that there are at least two meanings for "spirit." It could be used in a non-count way as an amount or substance (gold, lumber, air, flesh, etc. These are some of the exceptions to the rule because they don't allow the use of "a/an".

However, "spirit" can also be used as a count noun: "a spirit", "two spirits", etc. so, the translations which do not use the indefinite article at John 4:24 are using the non-count meaning which is not an acceptable example for comparison to the use of "god" at John 1:1c. This is part of a real study of the grammar of John 1:1c as explained in my study.

Some Bibles which understand the use of "spirit" at John 4:24 to be that of a count noun:

John 4:24 - “a spirit/Spirit” KJV; ASV; BRG; Darby; DRA; GNV; GW; KJ21; JUB; RGT; WYC; YLT; The Interlinear Bible; Charles B. Williams NT; William F. Beck NT.

 

[The Learner]

I responded to your socalled study. Did you miss it? Go back and look for each response. I used well known Greek Scholars, not those of amatures like you.

where is spell check friend?

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)

 

[Johann]

where is spell check friend?

Well done brother, thanks for being at my side here, and the assistance.

 

[The Learner]

17:15, ἕως Ἀθηνῶν; and 17:16, ἐν ταῖς Ἀθήναις. For further details see WinerSchmiedel, p. 152 f.
Substantives in apposition with proper names may have the article, as in Ἡρῴδης
ὁ βασιλεύς, Mt. 2:1; and ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἡρῴδης, Mt. 2:3; or not, as Ἡρῴδου βασιλέως,
Lu. 1:5. In βασιλεῦ Ἀγρίππα, Ac. 25:26, it is like our ‘King George.’ So in Xenophon,
when the King of Persia is meant we find βασιλεύς. In Mt. 3:6, ὁ Ἰορδάνης ποταµός,
we have the usual order, but see the order reversed and the article repeated in Rev.
9:14; 16:12. Cf. τοῦ ὄρους Σινά (Ac. 7:30) and ὄρους Σινά (Gal. 4:24), τὸ ὄρος Σιών
(Rev. 14:1) and Σιὼν ὄρει (Heb. 12:22). For the article with appositive proper names
see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 231. Cf. Ἰούδας ὁ Ἰσκαριώτης, Mt. 10:4; Ἡρῴδης ὁ
τετραάρχης and Ἰωάνης ὁ Βαπτιστής, 14:1 f.; Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζαρηνός, Mk. 10:47; Ac.
1:13, Σίµων ὁ ζηλωτής, etc. Here the word in apposition has the article, but not the
proper name.3
Cf. 1 Cor. 1:1.
In the Gospels as a rule Ἰησοῦς has the article. Χριστός in the Gospels usually has
the article=the Anointed One, the Messiah. In the Epistles it usually is like a proper
name and commonly without the article,4
illustrating the development of Christology
in the N. T. Indeclinable proper names usually have the article if the case would not
otherwise be clear. Cf. the list in Mt. 1:2–16, where the nominative has no article, but
the accusative does have it. So Ἰσραήλ in Ro. 10:19, but τὸν Ἰσραήλ in 1 Cor. 10:18.
See also Mt. 22:42; Mk. 15:45; Lu. 2:16; Ac. 7:8; 15:1 f.; Ro. 9:13; Heb. 11:17. The
use of τὸν Βαραββᾶν in Lu. 23:18 is not abrupt. In Xenophon’s Anabasis the article is
not often used with proper names unless the person is previously [Page 761]
mentioned.1
In Homer the article appears only occasionally with a proper name when
a new person is introduced, and “marks the turning of attention to a person,”2
rather
than pointing to a particular person as in Attic. “In short the Homeric article contrasts,
the Attic article defines.” But, as a matter of fact, no satisfactory principle can be laid
down for the use or non-use of the article with proper names.3
For good discussion of
the matter see Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., XI, pp. 483 ff. In modern Greek the
article occurs with all kinds of proper names (Thumb, Handb., p. 41). Moulton (Prol.,

Winer-Schmiedel WINER-SCHMIEDEL, Winer’s Grammatik des neutest. Sprachidioms.
8. Aufl. (1894—).
3 See further W.-Sch., p. 153.
4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 152.
1 Zucker, Beobachtungen über den Gebr. des Artik. bei Personenn. in Xen. Anabasis,
p. 6.
2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 179.
3 Cf. Schmidt, De Articulo in nominibus propriis apud Att. scriptores (1890); K.-G., I,
pp. 602 ff.; Kallenberg, Stu. über den griech. Artikel (1891).
Thumb
THUMB, A., Die Forsch. über die hellen. Spr. in den Jahren 1902–1904 (Arch. f. Pap.
3, pp. 443–473).
———, Die griech. Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus (1901).
———, Die sprachgesch. Stell. des bibl. Griech. (Theol. Rund., 1902).
https://bibletranslation.ws/down/Robertson_Greek_Grammar.pdf

The above is from page 791

Choosing examples which are truly parallel to John's construction for John 1:1c

Trinitarians who have used examples from John’s writings which they claim as parallel examples to John 1:1c, often use examples which are improperly used for this purpose. These include personal names, abstract nouns, non-count nouns, etc. But, most important, are examples which are modified by prepositions or genitives.

 

[Johann]

The above is from page 791

Irrefutable.

 

[Johann]

I respect Robertson as a NT grammarian. But he is a trinitarian and makes clear 'errors' when it comes to defending trinity 'proofs.'

"The word was a god"?

You are no scholar friend.

 

[The Learner]

VIII. The Absence of the Article. I do not care to use the term “omission” in
connection with the article. That word implies that the article ought to be present. As
has been already shown, the article is not the only means of showing that a word is
definite. This luxury in language did not become indispensable. The servant never
became master. There remained in the classic period many parallel phrases which
were intelligible without the article. Indeed, new phrases came into use by analogy
without the article. I do not think it is necessary to devote so much space to this phase
of the subject as is done in most grammars. Most of the cases have already come up
for discussion in one way or another. It is sufficient here to give a résumé of the chief
idioms in the N. T. which are without the article and are still definite. Much of the
modern difficulty about the absence of the Greek article is due to the effort to
interpret it by the standard of the English or German article. So Winer (Winer-Thayer,
p. 119) speaks of “appellatives, which as expressing definite objects should have the
article”! Even Gildersleeve, in discussing the “Absence of the Article” (note the
phrase, Syntax, p. 259), says that “prepositional phrases and other formulæ may
dispense with the article as in the earlier language,” and he adds “but anaphora or
contrast may bring back the article at any time and there is no pedantical uniformity.”
Admirably said, except “dispense with” and “bring back,” dim ghosts of the old
grammar. Moulton2
cites Jo. 6:68, ῥήµατα ζωῆς αἰωνίου, which should be translated
‘words of eternal life’ (as marg. of R. V.). There are indeed “few of the finer points of
Greek which need more constant attention”3
than the absence of the article. The word
may be either definite or indefinite when the article is absent. The context and history
of the phrase in question must decide. The translation of the expression into English
or German is not determined by the mere [Page 791] absence of the Greek article. If
the word is indefinite, as in Jo. 4:27; 6:68, no article, of course, occurs. But the article
is absent in a good many definite phrases also. It is about these that a few words
further are needed. A brief summary of the various types of anarthrous definite
phrases is given.1
A sane treatment of the subject occurs in Winer-Schmiedel.2

https://bibletranslation.ws/down/Robertson_Greek_Grammar.pdf

ROFL that is not dealing with John 1:1 ROFL