@Justified misunderstandings.

[MonoBiblical]

@Justified said

Please, keep learning the syntax. There is no Greek "indefinite article," just a definite one. The lack of the definite article is what may determine whether the word is being used in an indefinite sense or some other sense; context determines the meaning.

Assuming that you're referring to John 1:1c, it simply cannot be "a god" because the context does not allow it. Therefore, theos is not being used in an indefinite sense, but a qualitative one, that is, it's stating something about the nature of the Word.

It can ever be "a god." You just assumed that I wouldn't translate it "the God." The theos is not being used in any English sense as you might think.

Furthermore, the Greek of John 1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν
means, in the beginning, it was a word and a word it was with a God, and the God it was.

The would rest of the sentence is ὁ λόγος. But it is merely another logos, but John made it ambiguous by placing outos after it rather than before it. An Early Church Father mistake was to think it was the same one.

Only laughed because you got me extremely wrong. Is thy skill lacking or something?

 

[Justified]

@Justified said

It can ever be "a god." You just assumed that I wouldn't translate it "the God." The theos is not being used in any English sense as you might think.

I wasn't sure how you would translate it, but based on what you stated, I assumed you translate it as "a god" because everyone who argues to the indefinite use of theos translates it that way. What I was really address was your claims here:

"Scholarly are wrong about the Greek article. It is an indefinite article. I can argue it is them which don't accept the reality. Granted, it is an honest mistake based on middle age English syntax."

I pointed out that: 'There is no Greek "indefinite article," just a definite one. The lack of the definite article is what may determine whether the word is being used in an indefinite sense or some other sense; context determines the meaning.'

So, if you don't believe it shouldn't be translated as "a god," you must realize that it cannot be translated as "the God." Hence my assumption.

Furthermore, the Greek of John 1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν
means, in the beginning, it was a word and a word it was with a God, and the God it was.

No. Your interpretation is a complete butchering of the Greek. You don't seem to know how definite articles, and the lack thereof, actually work. Definite articles are the same as "the" in English. So the Greek there literally reads, "In beginning was the Word."

Notice in 1a, there is "ὁ λόγος,"--the "ὁ" is the definite article. That is, it reads, "In beginning was the Word."

Then, in 1b, you ignore two definite articles, "ὁ" and "τὸν." That clause literally reads, "and the Word was with the God."

In the third clause, you do the same, except now you add a definite article where there is none. That literally reads, "and God was the Word."

Putting that all together, John 1:1 literally reads: "In beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God and God was the Word.

John 1 Interlinear Bible

The would rest of the sentence is ὁ λόγος. But it is merely another logos, but John made it ambiguous by placing outos after it rather than before it. An Early Church Father mistake was to think it was the same one.

What do you mean by "another logos"--a different logos or just another use of the word? John uses logos again to refer to the same logos he had just mentioned. There is no use of autos in verse 1; that doesn't make anything ambiguous.

The word which starts verse 2 (yes, I know, the NT writers didn't add verses and chapters), is houtos, which means "this," "the same," or "these." All John is saying with that is that he is referring to the one he was just talking about, that is, the logos.

Only laughed because you got me extremely wrong. Is thy skill lacking or something?

You laugh because you think you are correct, when you're not. Slow down, study koine Greek from the experts (which I am not), and you might learn something. Also, learn from English, or whatever other language you may understand, and know what definite and indefinite articles are.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Definite articles are the same as "the" in English. So the Greek there literally reads, "In beginning was the Word."

It is not a definitive article.

I pointed out that: 'There is no Greek "indefinite article," just a definite one.

Rather, you repeated scholarly error which has persisted for at least 4 centuries.

So, if you don't believe it shouldn't be translated as "a god," you must realize that it cannot be translated as "the God."

Whatever...

Notice in 1a, there is "ὁ λόγος,"--the "ὁ" is the definite article. That is, it reads, "In beginning was the Word."

But saying in a beginning is wrong under old scholarship also. This is inconsistent. In fact, it ignores that many old languages don't need a definite article, but have a main indefinite article otherwise instead.

What do you mean by "another logos"--a different logos or just another use of the word

There are several worlds in the trinity "doctrine". But since John doesn't say the LOGOI are different, Hellenic readers assumed a modalism in verses 1 through 2.

The word which starts verse 2 (yes, I know, the NT writers didn't add verses and chapters), is houtos,

It doesn't start the next sentence, but ὁ λόγος, does. If houtos was next to the verb, the next word would not have been confused with the previous by Hellenic readers.

 

[Justified]

It is not a definitive article.

The Greek "ὁ," ho, is a definite article, and includes the meaning "the."

Strong's Greek: 3588. ὁ, (ho, hé, to) -- the

Rather, you repeated scholarly error which has persisted for at least 4 centuries.

Then post evidence from legitimate sources that prove what I said is a "scholarly error."

But saying in a beginning is wrong under old scholarship also. This is inconsistent.

I didn't say "in a beginning;" I clearly said "In beginning," because there is no definite article.

John 1 Interlinear Bible

In fact, it ignores that many old languages don't need a definite article, but have a main indefinite article otherwise instead.

Prove it. Post evidence from legitimate sources. And then show how this would prove wrong what I've said about koine Greek.

There are several worlds in the trinity "doctrine".

What do you mean by "several worlds"? Do you mean "words"? If so, what words?

But since John doesn't say the LOGOI are different, Hellenic readers assumed a modalism in verses 1 through 2.

Again, evidence from legitimate sources is needed.

It doesn't start the next sentence, but ὁ λόγος, does.

Based on what? What is your evidence? If John 1:1c simply reads, "and God was," what would be the point? JWs would read that as "and a god was," which would be more nonsensical then how the NWT already has it.

The entire point of John 1:1 is to tell us who the Word is--that the Word is God in nature--not who God is, just as the entire point of vv. 1-18 are to tell us who the Son of God is.

If houtos was next to the verb, the next word would not have been confused with the previous by Hellenic readers.

Houtos is next to the same verb, which follows it--"He was." And, again, where is there evidence of confusion by Hellenistic readers?

 

[MonoBiblical]

The Greek "ὁ," ho, is a definite article, and includes the meaning "the."

It is indefinite and make more sense that way as an introducing article.

I didn't say "in a beginning;" I clearly said "In beginning," because there is no definite article.

It isn't consistent to say in the beginning unless the article is indefinite.

What do you mean by "several worlds"? Do you mean "words"? If so, what words?

I made a typo. Everything which can be stated according to Greek letters individually can be a word or rather LOGOS. But the word that is the God is YHWH, not Jesus.

Again, evidence from legitimate sources is needed.

Houtos means other which does in Greek.

Based on what? What is your evidence? If John 1:1c simply reads, "and God was," what would be the point? JWs would read that as "and a god was," which would be more nonsensical then how the NWT already has it.

The God it was or God it was would mean the word was God's name. And it still is.

The entire point of John 1:1 is to tell us who the Word is--that the Word is God in nature--not who God is, just as the entire point of vv. 1-18 are to tell us who the Son of God is.

Doubtful. It seems to review to the God fearers that the God has a powerful name, and that God made the word of name.

Houtos is next to the same verb, which follows it--"He was." And, again, where is there evidence of confusion by Hellenistic readers?

It is the third word of the sentence. ὁ λόγος, mistaken as part of καὶ θεὸς ἦν-- and the God it was. At this point houtos is supposed to declare a word another, but the logos word doesn't double in the hellenic reader's mind. Instead, the logos is thought to be have another i.e. a houtos mode.

 

[Justified]

It is indefinite

No, it’s definite. Again, koine Greek does not have an indefinite article; a noun either has a definite article or it does not.

and make more sense that way as an introducing article.

It depends on what is being introduced. English uses both.

It isn't consistent to say in the beginning unless the article is indefinite.

It is consistent because there is only one beginning being referred to—the beginning, of creation.

I made a typo. Everything which can be stated according to Greek letters individually can be a word or rather LOGOS.

What do you mean by this?

But the word that is the God is YHWH, not Jesus.

John does not say “the Word is the God,” but that “the Word is God.” John is being very careful to not equate the two; he is keeping them distinct, and so showing that the Word is God in nature. Jesus is YHWH incarnate.

Houtos means other which does in Greek.

It has many meanings.

The God it was or God it was would mean the word was God's name. And it still is.

No, that makes no sense. John 1:1b—“the Word was with God”—means that the Word existed in an interpersonal relationship with God. That can only mean the two are distinct. So, since the Word was in an interpersonal relationship with God, it cannot be that God’s (the Father’s) name is Word.

Doubtful.

Not at all doubtful. It is the only explanation.

It seems to review to the God fearers that the God has a powerful name, and that God made the word of name.

This doesn’t make sense. If you’re saying that God was making his name—“Word”—known, we already know that it cannot be God’s name. But we do know that it is another name for the Son:

Rev 19:13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.

Jesus is the Word incarnate.

It is the third word of the sentence. ὁ λόγος, mistaken as part of καὶ θεὸς ἦν-- and the God it was. At this point houtos is supposed to declare a word another, but the logos word doesn't double in the hellenic reader's mind. Instead, the logos is thought to be have another i.e. a houtos mode.

No, you’re confusing too many things. There is one logos, who is God in nature. Then end of verse 1 is “and God was the Word.”

 

[MonoBiblical]

No, it’s definite. Again, koine Greek does not have an indefinite article; a noun either has a definite article or it does not.

No, it's indefinite. A noun, or onoma either has an indefinite article or not. Personal names are not indefinite in Greek, but do not carry the article, same as in Hebrew.

It is consistent because there is only one beginning being referred to—the beginning, of creation.

Which means it does not need an introductory definite article. You have it all backward. The beginning is already introduced, thus an indefinite article is not needed.

It has many meanings.

No, it doesn't.

This doesn’t make sense. If you’re saying that God was making his name—“Word”—known, we already know that it cannot be God’s name. But we do know that it is another name for the Son:

YHWH is not the son. Ho logos hotus, a word an other, is the name of the son, Yeshua. There is only one name that is the word the Son, Yeshua or Jesus for modern purposes.

Rev 19:13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.

The Lamb's blood was what the sword was dipped in.

No, you’re confusing too many things. There is one logos, who is God in nature. Then end of verse 1 is “and God was the Word.”

There are many LOGOI in a Greek lexicon. While LOGOS may be a more abstract version of the English cognate word, it still means a unit that informs.

 

[Justified]

No, it's indefinite.

No, it is not; it's definite.

ho, hé, to: the

Original Word: ὁ, ἡ, τό
Part of Speech: Definite Article
Transliteration: ho, hé, to
Pronunciation: ho, hay, to
Phonetic Spelling: (ho)
KJV: the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc
NASB: those, who, what, this, those who, which, whoever
Word Origin: [the definite article]

Strong's Greek: 3588. ὁ, (ho, hé, to) -- the

A noun, or onoma either has an indefinite article or not.

No, it either has a definite article or it does not.

Personal names are not indefinite in Greek, but do not carry the article, same as in Hebrew.

That is incorrect as well:

ὁ Ἰωάννης
"the John" (John 1:26, 28)

τὸν Ἰησοῦν
"the Jesus" (John 1:29)

John 1 Interlinear Bible

They may not have the definite article all the time, but they certainly do some of the time.

Which means it does not need an introductory definite article. You have it all backward. The beginning is already introduced, thus an indefinite article is not needed.

What do you mean "the beginning is already introduced"? I don't think you understood my point here. You first stated: "It isn't consistent to say in the beginning unless the article is indefinite." But there is no article, hence "beginning" is indefinite . "The" is simply added in English (and perhaps other languages) because it is grammatically correct to do so and doesn't change the meaning of the Greek text.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. You stated: "Houtos means other which does in Greek." Here are the meanings of houtos:

houtos, hauté, touto: This, these, he, she, it

Original Word: οὗτος, αὕτη, τοῦτο
Part of Speech: Demonstrative Pronoun
Transliteration: houtos, hauté, touto
Pronunciation: HOO-tos, HOW-tay, TOO-to
Phonetic Spelling: (hoo'-tos)
KJV: he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who
NASB: this, these things, these, this man, these men, this one, this woman
Word Origin: [from the article G3588 (ὁ - those) and G846 (αὐτός - himself)]

1. the he (she or it), i.e. this or that (often with article repeated)

Strong's Greek: 3778. οὗτος, (houtos, hauté, touto) -- This, these, he, she, it

So, it generally means "this" or "the same," to indicate that the same person or thing is being talked about that was just mentioned.

YHWH is not the son. Ho logos hotus, a word an other, is the name of the son, Yeshua. There is only one name that is the word the Son, Yeshua or Jesus for modern purposes.

You're erroneously assuming that YHWH doesn't refer to the Son and also that the Son is only in reference to Jesus. And, you're still erroneously putting houtos with ho logos as part of the same clause. Ho logos ends verse 1, with the three clauses. Houtos then refers back to the logos that was just mentioned.

Additionally, it's "the Word," not "a word" and not "an other." If you look at the word origin for houtos it is a compound that includes the definite article.

The Lamb's blood was what the sword was dipped in.

How did you come to that conclusion? Here is what the text states:

Rev 19:13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.

There are many LOGOI in a Greek lexicon. While LOGOS may be a more abstract version of the English cognate word, it still means a unit that informs.

There are several meanings of logos:

logos: Word, speech, message, account, reason, doctrine

Original Word: λόγος
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: logos
Pronunciation: LO-gos
Phonetic Spelling: (log'-os)
KJV: account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say(-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work
NASB: word, words, statement, message, speech, account, matter
Word Origin: [from G3004 (λέγω - said)]

1. something said (including the thought)
2. (by implication) a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive
3. (by extension) a computation
4. (specially, with the article in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ)

Strong's Greek: 3056. λόγος (logos) -- Word, speech, message, account, reason, doctrine

Once again, where are your sources? You simply cannot go about making things up about Greek grammar. It is leading you astray because you are unwilling to listen to reason and to those who know what they're talking about (the Greek experts, not me). That sort of pride will be your undoing. Please go study properly and learn from legitimate Greek scholars.

 

[MonoBiblical]

That is incorrect as well:

ὁ Ἰωάννης
"the John" (John 1:26, 28)

τὸν Ἰησοῦν
"the Jesus" (John 1:29)

Name are not introduced in English with a definite article. An idefinite article or determiner serves this purpose.

Rev 19:13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.

YHWH has the blood of the yearling lamb/goat on his sword.

There are several meanings of logos:

logos: Word, speech, message, account, reason, doctrine

Many of which you give are not so. Aristotle says its a function of grammar including prepositions.

ou're erroneously assuming that YHWH doesn't refer to the Son

Whatever.

Part of Speech: Definite Article

What can I say? It makes not any sense this way, and it is wrong with authority.

 

[Justified]

Name are not introduced in English with a definite article.

Yes, I know, but we're talking about koine Greek which sometimes does have a definite article, as I've shown,

YHWH has the blood of the yearling lamb/goat on his sword.

What does that have to do with the obvious reason for which I posted Rev. 19:13, which was that the Son of God has the name "The Word of God"?

Many of which you give are not so. Aristotle says its a function of grammar including prepositions.

You want to argue to Aristotle about the meaning of the biblical use of logos, ignoring what I posted?

Whatever.

Not "whatever." This is the heart of the matter.

What can I say? It makes not any sense this way,

Following the rules of grammar for a given language doesn't make sense? Ho is a definite article and is translated as "the."

and it is wrong with authority.

You have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary, never mind something with "authority," and have so far only given your opinion. You cannot simply make up your own grammatical rules about another language. That will lead you into error 100% of the time.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Following the rules of grammar for a given language doesn't make sense? Ho is a definite article and is translated as "the."

The authorities are wrong. The article is an indefinite article, and that is the true rule. Applications of arthrousness are also inconsistent so far.

 

[MonoBiblical]

That will lead you into error 100% of the time.

And what if the authorities are wrong and inconsistent more than 75% of the time. It is hard to be in error even 100% of the time. I admit lexicon having been based on Latin have been. Latin didn't have an article; this alone implies all languages before needed an indefinite article instead.

 

[Justified]

The authorities are wrong. The article is an indefinite article, and that is the true rule. Applications of arthrousness are also inconsistent so far.

Prove it. Where is your evidence that “The authorities are wrong”?

The are is definitely. Please stop making up your own rules of grammar for another language. You’re literally leading yourself astray.

And what if the authorities are wrong and inconsistent more than 75% of the time.

The authorities aren’t wrong in this case.

It is hard to be in error even 100% of the time.

It isn’t hard to be in error 100% of the time if your entire foundation is wrong.

I admit lexicon having been based on Latin have been. Latin didn't have an article;

Therein is your problem. Koine Greek is not Latin.

this alone implies all languages before needed an indefinite article instead.

No, it absolutely does not.

 

[MonoBiblical]

No, it absolutely does not.

Go ahead and be confused then.

 

[Justified]

Go ahead and be confused then.

I’m not at all confused. Your argument is a non-sequitur; it’s an error in reasoning. Koine Greek has a definite article—ho; “the”—and that has to understood or you will come to wrong conclusions, such as with your interpretation of John 1:1.

 

[Jack]

'The Word was God' clearly agrees with the rest of the Bible.

Jesus is God of the Bible!

 

[MonoBiblical]

I’m not at all confused. Your argument is a non-sequitur; it’s an error in reasoning. Koine Greek has a definite article—ho; “the”—and that has to understood or you will come to wrong conclusions, such as with your interpretation of John 1:1.

But it is you who has the wrong conclusions, not me. Today's bible scholarship can't even make a translation which makes sense.

 

[Justified]

But it is you who has the wrong conclusions, not me.

No, it is you. There is a reason why you haven’t and can’t provide support for your position. You’ve made up your own rules of grammar for koine Greek that directly contradict the actual rules, and so come to a wrong understanding of John 1:1. That means you’ll come to a wrong conclusion about any verse you try and interpret from the Greek.

Today's bible scholarship can't even make a translation which makes sense.

For John 1:1? They all make sense.

 

[MonoBiblical]

For John 1:1? They all make sense.

No, they don't. Words are not powers., and the Messiah is not the power of the father. This is the teaching of most translations of John 1:1. The English is Valentinian Gnosticism.

 

[Justified]

No, they don't. Words are not powers., and the Messiah is not the power of the father. This is the teaching of most translations of John 1:1. The English is Valentinian Gnosticism.

No, no English translation teaches this, unless it is some really obscure one that very few fringe sects adhere to. All the main English translations teach that the Word is a person who was in intimate relationship with God from all eternity, meaning that the Word is also God in nature.