Explaining the Trinity

[Kermos]

Either can be correct depending on which meaning one has of 'spirit' in this verse.

If you think Jesus is referring to a spirit person, then the rule for NT Greek count nouns would make the verse say "God is a spirit." (KJV)

If you think 'spirit' is an abstract word, or a word meaning substance (flesh, spirit, water, etc.), then the rule for noncount nouns would make the verse say "God is spirit." (NASB)

Hello @tigger 2,

Based on modern scholarship with respect to NT Greek translation rules into English, several noun classifications exist when considering specifically sentence predicate nouns that impact the subject:

- count nouns (alternate term: anathrous): would include the indefinite article ("a", "an") for absence of the Greek definite article (Greek "ho" = English "the"). A count noun can be counted, such as desks and pencils. Definition of count noun: a noun that con form a plural or occur with an indefinite article.

- mass nouns (alternate term: non-count nouns; uncountable noun; articular): would omit the indefinite article ("a", "an") for absence of the Greek definite article ("ho"). A mass noun are not countable without modifiers, such as work and oxygen. Definition of mass noun: do not have a plural form and generally fit into particular categories.

- qualitative nouns (alternate term: anathrous): a special case of mass noun which would omit the indefinite article ("a", "an") for absence of the Greek definite article ("ho"). A qualitative noun specifies the attribute or characteristic or quality (hence the term qualitative noun) to the noun in the subject, the category is relevant yet the quality is being carried as well; in other words, a qualitative noun carries both the denotation and connotation. Definition of qualitative noun: function in the sentence is not primarily or solely to designate by assignment to a category/class/classification but to ascribe by the attribution of quality that are marks of the category.

Under NT Greek count noun rules scholarship, the qualitative nouns take precedence over count nouns and non-count nouns.

Now to Lord Jesus' words:

God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.
(John 4:24 NASB)

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
(John 4:24 KJV)

The dilemma is whether Jesus, Who is God, conveyed with primacy the quality as well as category of Spirit to God. Consider the first, opening verse of the Bible:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
(Genesis 1:1)

Right at the beginning is God providing a view of God's importance, centrality, pre-eminence. The Word of God points at the Messiah again and again - Jesus Messiah is God. Considering that the Word of God points at Jesus it is writte of God saying "And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel" (Genesis 3:15), and thes all wrote of Messiah - Moses and David and Daniel and Isaiah and I could go on.

Now consider the Apostle John's view of Jesus the Word of God:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(John 1:1)

Make no mistake, herein John declares that Jesus is God with the phrase "the Word was God" (another example of the subject being "the Word" and the predicate qualitative noun "God"), for John knows that Jesus is paramount.

Now with "God is Spirit" in John 4:24 there is characteristic intensity within the message that Lord jesus is conveying to worship God in Spirit and Truth, yes "Spirit" is a classification yet much more than categorical thus primarily being the attribute applied to God for God is utterly and seriously paramount!

Exceptions to the anathrous rule for the count noun exist in which a count noun using the definite article the/ho or the predicate noun is a qualitative noun. For example, Joshua 2:11 in the Septuagint contains "theos" (God) rather than "ho theos" (the God) for reference YHWH thus the scripture would not read "He is a god" thus the scripture must need be either "He is God" or "He is the God".

We find that the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Berean Literal Bible ALL CONTAIN "God is Spirit" for John 4:24, and these are all modern translations. On the other hand, the KJV and it's derivative works (such as the ASV published in 1901 rooted in work to revise the 1611 KJV AV back in 1870) contain "God is a Spirit". The NWT - a dangerously unreliable book of the Watchtower Society which they claim to be the bible - includes "God is a Spirit". Here are a couple of works about articular and anathrous nouns (please notice the dates in this paragraph compared to the two scholarly works mentioned next):

"Qualitative Nouns in the Pauline Epistles and Their Translation in the Revised Version" by Arthur W. Slatten, 1918

JBL article, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1." by Phillip B. Harner, 1973

Respecting John 4:24:

A) Spirit as a qualitative noun is a sound translation because Spirit describes an attribute of God.

B) Some might argue that Spirit limited as a count noun could qualify as a potential translation because God is One.

C) Some might argue that Spirit limited as a non-count noun could qualify as a potential translation because the immensity of God.

Bearing in mind all of the above while returning to the fact that the person of the Father and the person of the Son and the person of the Holy Spirit is One God, it is evident that all three noun count forms of translation support the three pesons being One God. The phrase "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24) does not negate the phrase "God is true" (John 3:33) nor the phrase "God is Light" (John 1:4-5, 1 John 1:5) nor the phrase "also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God" (John 5:18) nor the phrase "he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove [and] lighting on Him" (Matthew 3:16) nor the phrase "my God" (John 20:28 - Apostle Thomas testifying to Whom Jesus is) nor the phrase "before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58 - referring back to Exodus 3:14 and even before that thus indicating Jesus is God); in truth, "God is Spirit" fits snugly with the three personifications in One God - this is using the qualitative noun which takes precedent!

Now, all of these posts remain true and valid scripturally:

"One God Three Persons Post (in this thread)"

"The 'I' in John 14:18 Refers to Lord Jesus Post (in this thread)"

"Mary, Pregnant with Lord Jesus, greets Elizabeth, Pregnant with Holy Spirit filled John the Baptist who leaped, Post (in this thread)"

"Refutation that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one person (or maybe it's one spirit or maybe it's both that justbyfaith and 101G attempt to eisegete from scripture) Post (in this thread)"

"The Immeasurable Value of Lord Jesus' Words according to the Son of God Post (in this thread)"

"Refuting License to Abuse Grace Post (in this thread)"

"YHWH, LORD, Elohim, Isaiah 44:24, John 1:3, and Principles of Bible Translation Post (in this thread)"

"God is the Great I AM Post (in this thread)"

"Lord Jesus said 'the One creating' in Matthew 19:4 Post (in this thread)"

"Lord Jesus said 'God [MADE]' in Mark 10:6 Thus Matching Matthew 19:4 Post (in this thread)"

"Elohim, Theos, and God As Used in The Old Testament Post (in this thread)"

"Heretical Teachers about God's Revealed Nature Exposed Post (in this thread)"

Immersed in the One True God that is three distinct personifications of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit,
Kermos

 

[justbyfaith]

Certain problems arise when you have a plethora of Bibles to choose from.

How much better is it to hold the original, authorized version, that has sustained the church for five centuries, to be inerrant and inspired.

Impaho, those who reject the kjv for other translations are heaping to themselves teachers to tell them what their itching ears want to hear.

 

[tigger 2]

Kermos posted: 'Exceptions to the anathrous rule for the count noun exist in which a count noun using the definite article the/ho or the predicate noun is a qualitative noun. For example, Joshua 2:11 in the Septuagint contains "theos" (God) rather than "ho theos" (the God) for reference YHWH thus the scripture would not read "He is a god" thus the scripture must need be either "He is God" or "He is the God".'
.....................................................
I have analyzed Harner's and Wallace's 'Qualitative' studies in studies of my own and find them to be in error. Abstract nouns and adjectives do just fine as 'qualitative' words.

Joshua 2:11 uses theos modified by a preposition and is therefore an ambiguous (improper for an example for this case) example. Being ambiguous it can be used to mean 'the god' or 'God.'

A proper example in Septuagint can be found at Judges 6:31 - a pre-copulative anarthrous predicate noun theos = a god.

There are a few other exceptions but the most-used exceptions to the 'anarthrous rule' (by trinitarian apologists, including Colwell and 'Qualitativists' like Harner) are nominative nouns modified by genitive nouns or prepositions.

As Dana and Mantey tell us, “The use of prepositions, possessive ... pronouns, and the genitive case also tend to make a word definite. At such times, even if the article is not used, the object is already distinctly indicated.” -p. 137, D&M Grammar.

In section VIII, ‘The Absence of the Article,’ Professor Robertson quotes Gildersleeve and tells us, “prepositional phrases and other formulae may dispense with the article” - p. 790. And “(b) with genitives. We have seen that the substantive may still be definite if anarthrous, though not necessarily so.” - p. 791. - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson.

“(d) Absence of Article Before a Noun Which Governs a genitive. In Heb. a noun may be in the construct state or have a suffix attached to it, and in either case it would be anarthrous. This influenced the LXX [Septuagint] and, in turn, the NT writers in varying degrees. - pp. 179-180, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. III, J. H. Moulton, 1963.

“The article … is sometimes missing, especially after prepositions … and with a genitive which depends on an anarthrous noun (especially a predicate noun).” - Blass & Debrunner, p. 133, 135, University of Chicago Press, 1961.

“#1146. A substantive followed by an attributive genitive and forming with it a compound idea, usually omits the article.” - Smyth’s A Greek Grammar for Colleges.

Since John 1:1c does not have its predicate noun with a “prepositional” construction anyway, it is necessarily a part of proper research to select parallel examples (i.e., without “prepositional” constructions) in any attempt to show a similar effect as claimed for John 1:1c.

Would you like to discuss John 1:1c?

 

[Kermos]

Kermos posted: 'Exceptions to the anathrous rule for the count noun exist in which a count noun using the definite article the/ho or the predicate noun is a qualitative noun. For example, Joshua 2:11 in the Septuagint contains "theos" (God) rather than "ho theos" (the God) for reference YHWH thus the scripture would not read "He is a god" thus the scripture must need be either "He is God" or "He is the God".'
.....................................................
I have analyzed Harner's and Wallace's 'Qualitative' studies in studies of my own and find them to be in error. Abstract nouns and adjectives do just fine as 'qualitative' words.

Joshua 2:11 uses theos modified by a preposition and is therefore an ambiguous (improper for an example for this case) example. Being ambiguous it can be used to mean 'the god' or 'God.'

A proper example in Septuagint can be found at Judges 6:31 - a pre-copulative anarthrous predicate noun theos = a god.

There are a few other exceptions but the most-used exceptions to the 'anarthrous rule' (by trinitarian apologists, including Colwell and 'Qualitativists' like Harner) are nominative nouns modified by genitive nouns or prepositions.

As Dana and Mantey tell us, “The use of prepositions, possessive ... pronouns, and the genitive case also tend to make a word definite. At such times, even if the article is not used, the object is already distinctly indicated.” -p. 137, D&M Grammar.

In section VIII, ‘The Absence of the Article,’ Professor Robertson quotes Gildersleeve and tells us, “prepositional phrases and other formulae may dispense with the article” - p. 790. And “(b) with genitives. We have seen that the substantive may still be definite if anarthrous, though not necessarily so.” - p. 791. - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson.

“(d) Absence of Article Before a Noun Which Governs a genitive. In Heb. a noun may be in the construct state or have a suffix attached to it, and in either case it would be anarthrous. This influenced the LXX [Septuagint] and, in turn, the NT writers in varying degrees. - pp. 179-180, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. III, J. H. Moulton, 1963.

“The article … is sometimes missing, especially after prepositions … and with a genitive which depends on an anarthrous noun (especially a predicate noun).” - Blass & Debrunner, p. 133, 135, University of Chicago Press, 1961.

“#1146. A substantive followed by an attributive genitive and forming with it a compound idea, usually omits the article.” - Smyth’s A Greek Grammar for Colleges.

Since John 1:1c does not have its predicate noun with a “prepositional” construction anyway, it is necessarily a part of proper research to select parallel examples (i.e., without “prepositional” constructions) in any attempt to show a similar effect as claimed for John 1:1c.

Would you like to discuss John 1:1c?

Hello tigger 2,

It appears that your first order of business was to try to sweep away the work of Harner and the work of Wallace without grammatical evidence for Greek translation. Abstract nouns do not negate the existence of qualitative nouns. Adjectives do not negate the purpose of qualitative nouns. Your conclusion of error respecting Harner and/or Wallace can now be disregarded, and your assertion against Harner and/or Wallace can be considered false.

People from the Watchtower Society (WS) misquote "A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament" co-authored by Dr. Julius R. Mantey and Dr. H.E. Dana according to a letter and quotes of Mantey available for review at:

Julius R. Mantey: Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament: The Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar (links to http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Mantey.htm)

Mantey excelled in Greek scholarship covering 65 years.

Mantey provides proof of the Watchtower Society deception respecting John 1:1-2 trying to use Mantey's Manual Grammar as well as profoundly significant Greek to English translation errors which Mantey applied the term "diabolical deceivers" to the WS.

Mantey requested the Watchtower Society cease from quoting his Manual Grammar. Mantey provided evidence that the Watchtower Society quoted his Manual Grammar out of context.

It seems prudent to me to include these qoutes from the letter of Mantey to the Watchtower Society:

FROM MANTEY'S LETTER TO THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY, POINT 1 (PARTIAL)
Your quotation from P. 148(3) was in a paragraph under the heading: "With the Subject in a Copulative Sentence." Two examples occur here to illustrate that "the article points out the subject in these examples." But we made no statement in this paragraph about the predicate except that, "as it stands the other persons of the trinity may be implied in theos." And isn't that the opposite of what your translation "a god" infers? You quoted me out of context.

FROM MANTEY'S LETTER TO THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY, POINT 2
Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering.

FROM MANTEY'S LETTER TO THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY, POINT 3
Your quotation of Colwell's rule is inadequate because it quotes only a part of his findings. You did not quote this strong assertion: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article."

Further, Mantey decisively exposes the Watchtower Society's NWT and KIT grammatical translation error of John 1:1 to "the Word was a god" by the WS. Mantey conclusively asserted that "the Word was God" is the accurate translation of John 1:1 from Greek to English based on the Greek grammar.

John (1:1) states "the Word was God".

And you need to learn this valuable truth!

Lord Jesus says:

God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.
(John 4:24 NASB)

The emphasis of "worship in spirit and truth" clearly refers to quality thus the indefinite article does not apply because the word "spirit" in "God is spirit" is a qualitative noun.

The person of Jesus is God (John 1:1, John 20:28).

The person of the Father is God (John 20:17).

The person of the Holy Spirit is God (Matthew 12:28)

May the Lord Jesus open your eyes to His glorious Truth!

Now, all of these posts remain true and valid scripturally:

"One God Three Persons Post (in this thread)"

"The 'I' in John 14:18 Refers to Lord Jesus Post (in this thread)"

"Mary, Pregnant with Lord Jesus, greets Elizabeth, Pregnant with Holy Spirit filled John the Baptist who leaped, Post (in this thread)"

"Refutation that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one person (or maybe it's one spirit or maybe it's both that justbyfaith and 101G attempt to eisegete from scripture) Post (in this thread)"

"The Immeasurable Value of Lord Jesus' Words according to the Son of God Post (in this thread)"

"Refuting License to Abuse Grace Post (in this thread)"

"YHWH, LORD, Elohim, Isaiah 44:24, John 1:3, and Principles of Bible Translation Post (in this thread)"

"God is the Great I AM Post (in this thread)"

"Lord Jesus said 'the One creating' in Matthew 19:4 Post (in this thread)"

"Lord Jesus said 'God [MADE]' in Mark 10:6 Thus Matching Matthew 19:4 Post (in this thread)"

"Elohim, Theos, and God As Used in The Old Testament Post (in this thread)"

"'God is Spirit' Is A Qualitative Noun - With Comparison to Count Noun and Mass Noun Post (in this thread)"

"Heretical Teachers about God's Revealed Nature Exposed Post (in this thread)"

Immersed in the One True God that is three distinct personifications of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit,
Kermos

 

[Jon Mathews]

Here is a "Trinity" in nature... "Father", "Son", and "Holy Spirit" are all One God. God is 3 that proceed forth from One. He is One Spirit in 3 manifestations. God in Heaven is "Father". God in human flesh is "Son". God in us is "Holy Spirit".

 

[justbyfaith]

Here is a "Trinity" in nature... "Father", "Son", and "Holy Spirit" are all One God. God is 3 that proceed forth from One. He is One Spirit in 3 manifestations. God in Heaven is "Father". God in human flesh is "Son". God in us is "Holy Spirit".

I liked your post but would say that the shamrock is an imperfect illustration.

 

[tigger 2]

T2 @ Kermos #225: "Would you like to discuss John 1:1c?"

Kermos' response: #226. Quick inaccurate dismissal followed by lengthy diatribe about NWT and JWs.

I guess that means 'no.'

 

[Kermos]

T2 @ Kermos #225: "Would you like to discuss John 1:1c?"

Kermos' response: #226. Quick inaccurate dismissal followed by lengthy diatribe about NWT and JWs.

I guess that means 'no.'

Hi tigger 2,

You misrepresent my response by applying "diatribe" with a negative connotation (context matters), yet the exposition I wrote is true! I wonder if you took the time to honestly read it...

Mantey, who you brought up in our post #225, Mantey, who specifically states proofs that the NWT and KIT mistranslate John 1:1, Mantey, who decisively states the NWT and KIT contain many misleading English translation points, Mantey, who cared deep enough to warn people about the mistranslations of by the Watchtower Society, MANTEY, WHO SPENT 65 YEARS IN DETAILED STUDY OF KOINE GREEK WHICH IS THE LANGUAGE OF BIBLE MANUSCRIPTS --- you made a foolish statement in your post #229 because "Mantey identifies Watchtower Society translators as 'diabolically deceptive' with Proofs (post in this thread)" is rife with proof that John 1:1 properly translates "the Word was God". Again, here is the link to Mantey's assertions:
Julius R. Mantey: Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament: The Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar (links to http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Mantey.htm)

The Watchtower Society (people that falsely call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses [JW]) have distorters that the WS claim translate the NWT (New World Translation - is a shocking mistranslation according to Mantey) and the KIT (Kingdom Interlinear Translation - contains horribly distorted translation points according to Mantey).

By the way, in respect to the phrase "God is Spirit" in John 4:24 as further response to your post #225:

- John 4:24 does not explicitly contain the verb within "God is Spirit" refers to the One True God conveying attribute and uses a qualitative noun.

- Joshua 2:11 explicitly contains the verb "estin/is" within "He is God" refers to the One True God conveying attribute and uses a qualitative noun.

- Judges 6:31 explicitly contains the verb "estin/is" within "he is god" refers to a false god among the category of false gods thus is a mass noun.

This further illustrates the error of your analytic distortion within your post #225. You attempt to apply your own fabricated rules for Greek grammar which contain holes of error for your supposed proximity of grammar, and you mix up a mass noun for a qualitative noun thus attempting to mislead.

Your foundation is sinking sand. "unless you believe that" Jesus is, then "you will die in your sins" (John 8:24) because Lord Jesus said "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am" (John 8:58 referring back to Exodus 3:14 - a declaration of His to being God) and the Apostle Thomas testified "my God" to Lord Jesus (John 20:28). Thus the solid rock true foundation is "One God Three Persons (post in this thread)"

The WS people have more than one god because of their errant John 1:1 translation of "a god". The Word, being Jesus, is God. John 1:1, when translated correctly, read "the Word was God". The Word said "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30). The Word completed His sentence with "One", so that is One - can't be one person becuase Jesus prayed to the Father (John 17:1) - the One has to be One God. The Apostle John wrote that the Word exposes Himself equal with God (John 5:18).

Immersed in the One True God that is three distinct personifications of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit,
Kermos

P.S. please read all these posts which remain true and valid scripturally:

"One God Three Persons Post (in this thread)"

"The 'I' in John 14:18 Refers to Lord Jesus Post (in this thread)"

"Mary, Pregnant with Lord Jesus, greets Elizabeth, Pregnant with Holy Spirit filled John the Baptist who leaped, Post (in this thread)"

"Refutation that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one person (or maybe it's one spirit or maybe it's both that justbyfaith and 101G attempt to eisegete from scripture) Post (in this thread)"

"The Immeasurable Value of Lord Jesus' Words according to the Son of God Post (in this thread)"

"Refuting License to Abuse Grace Post (in this thread)"

"YHWH, LORD, Elohim, Isaiah 44:24, John 1:3, and Principles of Bible Translation Post (in this thread)"

"God is the Great I AM Post (in this thread)"

"Lord Jesus said 'the One creating' in Matthew 19:4 Post (in this thread)"

"Lord Jesus said 'God [MADE]' in Mark 10:6 Thus Matching Matthew 19:4 Post (in this thread)"

"Elohim, Theos, and God As Used in The Old Testament Post (in this thread)"

"'God is Spirit' Is A Qualitative Noun - With Comparison to Count Noun and Mass Noun Post (in this thread)"

"Mantey, an excellent Greek scholar and quoted by tigger 2, identifies Watchtower Society New Word Translation translators as 'diabolical deceivers' for They Deny Christ's Diety Post (in this thread)"

"Heretical Teachers about God's Revealed Nature Exposed Post (in this thread)"

 

[tigger 2]

@Kermos #230:

Part 1 -

Colwell and Harner both used improper examples (usually non-count nouns or, more often, 'prepositional' examples) which are explained by the noted trinitarian Greek Grammarians which I have already cited for you in post #225. The fact that the so-called 'Qualitative' noun is an unnecessary invention since there are other ways to show qualitativeness, is not my reason for discarding Colwell, Harner, etc. It's because they have rigged their results with improper examples to 'prove' their desired result! If you want to discuss their JBL articles with me in new discussions, I would agree until you go off-trail again.

Throwing out extraneous attacks, insults, and various trinity 'proofs' is not discussing John 1:1c.!

The late trinitarian, Dr. Julius Mantey, allegedly wrote a powerful attack against the accuracy and honesty of the NWT. Let's look at his objection to the NWT's quote of his Grammar in his alleged July 11, 1974 letter to the Watchtower Society (when he was 84!) which anti-Watchtower writers are fond of reproducing and quoting. (I say 'alleged' because I suspect that someone else may have written it. Or else senility caused him to make so many erroneous statements.)

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 that book to support a non-trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1. (The Watchtower Society never claimed he did.) But the fact is that it 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” (pp. 148-149)- an exact parallel to the NWT’s “and the Word was a god.” He, even admits that it's "a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1" - p. 148.

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 1:1c above.

Furthermore, a proper study of John's (and the writings of the other Gospels) writings shows that he always intends an indefinite meaning in cases that are truly parallel to John 1:1c.

"The English translation must be determined by observing the [Greek word] endings, not by observing the [word] order." - p. 27, New Testament Greek For Beginners, Machen, The Macmillan Co. (Cf., pp. 7, 22, New Testament Greek Primer, Marshall, Zondervan)

And in an example illustrating predicate nouns Prof. Machen gave this example: “ho apostolos anthropos estin [word-for-word translation: ‘the apostle man is’],” and he translated that sentence (which has an anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb as in John 1:1c) as “the apostle is a man.” - p. 50, New Testament Greek For Beginners, The Macmillan Company, 1951.

And In Exercise 8 (p.44) of the Rev. Dr. Alfred Marshall’s New Testament Greek Primer, the noted trinitarian scholar asks us to translate phoneus esti into English. (Notice that the predicate noun [phoneus, ‘murderer’] precedes the verb [esti, ‘he is’].) The answer is given on p. 153 where Dr. Marshall translates it as “He is a murderer.” - Zondervan Publishing House, 1962.


And Prof. N. Clayton Croy on p. 35 of his A Primer of Biblical Greek translates prophetes estin ho anthropos (literally, “prophet is the man”) as “The man is a prophet.” - Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1999. (Emphasis, as usual, is mine.)

In Learn New Testament Greek by John H. Dobson we find on p. 64 two interesting Greek clauses and their translations by Dobson: the clauses are: (1) prophetes estin and (2) prophetes en. In both of these the predicate noun (prophetes) comes before the verb (‘he is’ and ‘he was’).

Here is how Dobson has translated these two clauses: “He is a prophet.” And “He was a prophet.” - Baker Book House, 1989.

We also find trinitarian NT scholars B. M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida using a similar example to describe the usage at John 1:1c - “John Smith is a teacher.” - p. 9, A Translator’s Handbook on The Gospel of John, United Bible Societies, 1980. (They want it to be understood in a trinitarian “Qualitative” manner, however.)

And noted trinitarian NT scholar, A.T. Robertson, when analyzing John 18:37b where the predicate noun “king” comes before the verb [“you say that king am I”], prefers this translation: “Yes, because I am a king.” - p. 294, Vol. 5, Word Pictures in the New Testament.

Wait for Part 2.

 

[tigger 2]

Others who also translate John 18:37b as 'a king': AKJV; ASV; AMP; AMPC; AT; BECK; BRG; CSB; CEB; CEV; CJB; DARBY; DRA; EHV; ERV; ESV; EXB; GNT; GNV; GW; HCSB; ICB; ISV; JB; JUB; KJV; KJ21; LEB; MEV; MLB; MOUNCE; NAB; NABRE; NASB; NCV; NET; NIRV; NIV; NJB; NKJV; NLT; NLV; NMB; NOG; NRSV; PHILLIPS; RSV; TLV; TPT; VOICE; WEB; WE; WYC; YLT.

PART 2

Jn 8:58 - “I AM”

Mantey also complains of the NWT “mistranslation” of ego eimi [usually rendered “I am”] at John 8:58. Other (trinitarian) NT Greek authorities, however, also justify the rendering of a perfect tense rendering for ego eimi under identical conditions as found at John 8:58 (see my study on John 8:58 - I AM). In fact, renowned trinitarian scholar Dr. James Moffatt rendered John 8:58 in his famous Bible translation in the perfect tense also: “I have existed.” And even Dr. Mantey’s own well-known reference book justifies the use of a perfect tense rendering for a present tense (“present of duration”) in cases similar to John 8:58! - p. 183 (c.), Dana and Mantey’s Manual Grammar.


wait for Part 3

 

[tigger 2]

Part 3 - Mantey next attacks “the addition of ‘for all time’ in Heb. 9:27 when nothing in the Greek New Testament supports it.”

But the equally rabid trinitarian scholar, W. E. Vine, says (of the NT Greek word hapax that was translated “once for all time” by the NWT) in his An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 809: “1. Hapax denotes a. once, one time.... b. once for all, of what is of perpetual validity, not requiring repetition.”

(Also see hapax in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament; Liddell and Scott's An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon; the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (‘Little Kittel’), Eerdman’s Publ., 1985; the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 1, Eerdman’s, 1990; and A.T. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 5, p. 404.)

Wait for Part 5
Like so many words (in NT Greek and OT Hebrew as well as in English) hapax has more than one meaning. Either the a. or the b. definition is an honest translation of the Greek word hapax!

Look at these trinitarian translations of hapax:

Heb. 9:26 - “He has appeared once and for all” [hapax] - Jerusalem Bible, NJB, GNB,

TEV, NEB, Phillips.

- “once for all” [hapax] - NAB (1970), NAB (1991), RSV, NRSV, REB.

Heb. 9:27 - “reserved for men to die once for all” [hapax] - MLB.

- “Destined that men die only once” [hapax] - JB, NJB, Living Bible.

Heb. 9:28 - “Christ sacrificed once for all” [hapax] - MLB.

- “Christ died only once” [hapax] - JB, NJB, LB.

Jude 3 - “once and for all” [hapax] - NEB, JB, NJB, GNB, TEV, Phillips.

- “once for all” [hapax] - RSV, NRSV, REB, NASB, NAB, NAB (1991), Mo, MLB,

LB, AT (Goodspeed).

Also note John 10:38 which does not even have the word hapax, but TEV adds “once and for all” anyway!

Yes, even the trinitarian standard, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, Vol. 2, pp. 717, 718, tells us hapax means

“once in the sense of an event that cannot be repeated. It is so used of the sacrificial death of Christ (Heb. 9:26 ff; 1 Pet. 3:18).... The author of Heb. sees the death of Christ as the once-and-for-all [hapax] sacrifice” - p. 717.

And

“Jude 3 urges its readers ‘to contend for the faith which was once for all [hapax] delivered to the saints.’” - p. 718.

A final note on hapax comes from the highly trinitarian (and highly anti-Watchtower Society) “cult” expert Dr. Walter Martin. This “born-again” spokesman likes to quote Dr. Mantey in an attempt to show the “mistranslations” and “perversions” of God’s Word by the Watchtower Society. Interestingly, Martin himself interprets hapax in Jude 3 as “once for all time”:

“ ‘...contend earnestly for the faith once [hapax] delivered to the saints,’ that’s King James, but the [NT] Greek is a little better,” says Martin. “The Greek says, ‘... put up a stiff fight for the faith once for all time [hapax] delivered to the saints.’” - Introduction to the Cults, cassette tape recording by Dr. Walter Martin, 1980. - Compare Jude :3 NWT.

Wait for Part 4

 

[tigger 2]

Part 4

Mantey next berates the NWT’s “mistranslating arche tes ktisoos” as “beginning of the creation” at Rev. 3:14 even though this is the literal rendering of the NT Greek. But how do most trinitarian Bible translations themselves translate Rev. 3:14 ? - The KJV has “beginning of the creation.” So do the NKJV; ASV; NASB; RSV; MLB (1969 ed.); Douay; Byington; Darby; Lamsa; Lattimore (1979); New Century Version; Phillips; Rotherham; Third Millenium Bible; Webster; Revised Webster (1995); Wesley’s New Testament; Weymouth; and ISV NT.

How is it, then, that the NWT is “mistranslating ... as ‘beginning of the creation’”?

While we are discussing Rev. 3:14, we might as well note that certain anti-Watchtower writers (evidently not Mantey, however) have condemned the NWT rendering of the genitive noun theou at Rev. 3:14 (“the creation by God”). This genitive noun, like most genitives, can be (and usually is) translated with the word “of” preceding it. Therefore, theou is usually translated “of God.”

So, at Rev. 3:14, most translations read: “the beginning of the creation of God.” Certainly this is a grammatically correct translation, but it does allow a potential ambiguity. Grammatically it could mean “the creation belonging to God,” or “everything created by God,” or even, “God himself being created” !

For example, notice how the genitive noun at Acts 1:22 causes difficulties with its usual rendering of “baptism of John.” This rendering leads many readers to believe that John’s own baptism (by some other baptizer) is being spoken of here. Instead, many (if not all) Bible scholars believe the intended meaning here is a baptism performed by John!

Therefore, some respected trinitarian translations have used the equally honest (and much clearer, in this case) rendering of “baptism by John” (or its clear equivalent): LB, NEB, REB, JB, NJB, AT, CBW, and translations by Phillips, and Rotherham.

Also notice that the genitive form of “Jesus Christ” at Rev. 1:1 can be properly rendered as “by Jesus Christ” (rather than “of Jesus Christ” as in KJV, ASV, etc.): Mo, AT, and Beck’s The New Testament in the Language of Today, 1964 ed. - see p. 236, So Many Versions?, Zondervan, 1983.

We can also find the genitive theou (as at Rev. 3:14 itself) at 1 Tim. 4:4 (“creation of God”) is rendered “everything created by God” in the RSV, NASB, NRSV, NAB [1991] (or its equivalent: NEB, REB, JB, NJB, CBW, AT, NIV, NAB [1970], etc.)

And “taught of God” (theou as found at Rev. 3:14 itself) at John 6:45 is properly rendered “taught by God” in RSV, NRSV, NIV, JB, NJB, NEB, REB, AT, MLB, NAB (1970), NAB (1991), GNB, TEV, Mo, CBW.

Surely no honest Bible scholar can condemn the same rendering by the NWT at Rev. 3:14!

Wait for Part 5.

 

[tigger 2]

Part 5
Punctuation of Luke 23:43

Mantey says, "Why the attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after "today" in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and all English translations except yours, even in the Greek in your KIT, the comma occurs after lego (I say) -- 'Today you will be with me in Paradise.'"

We find Dr. Mantey complaining of the NWT “attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after ‘today’ in Luke 23:43,” when he knows better than anyone that none of the earliest manuscripts (up to the 9th century A.D.) originally had capitalization or punctuation! Later copyists have added punctuation wherever they felt it should be!

Just because a modern text writer decides where he wants the punctuation and capitalization to be in his interpretation of the original text (as Westcott and Hort did for the text that is used by the NWT and Nestle did in the text used by the NASB, etc.) does not mean that is how the original Bible writer intended the meaning - as explained in the Kingdom Interlinear footnote for this verse! (Do you really think Mantey didn't know this elementary fact about NT Greek or didn't see the footnote in the KIT??)

Clearly, for Dr. Mantey to even hint that punctuation can be precisely determined at Luke 23:43 is totally dishonest. We see The Emphasized Bible by Joseph B. Rotherham also punctuating this scripture to produce the meaning found in the NWT:

“Verily I say unto thee this day: With me shalt thou be in Paradise.”

And the footnote for Luke 23:43 in Lamsa’s translation admits:

“Ancient texts were not punctuated. The comma could come before or after today.”

The Concordant Literal New Testament renders it: "43 And Jesus said to him, 'Verily, to you am I saying today, with Me shall you be in paradise.'"

2001 Translation – An American English Bible: 43 And [Jesus] replied, ‘I tell you this today; you will be with me in Paradise.’

A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament by E.W.Bullinger, DD., page 811 says:

"'And Jesus said to him, Verily, to thee I say this day, with Me shalt thou be in the Paradise.' The words today being made solemn and emphatic. Thus, instead of a remembrance, when He shall come in...His kingdom, He promises a presence in association (meta, 'with') Himself. And this promise he makes on that very day when he was dying.... Thus we are saved (1) the trouble of explaining why Jesus did not answer the question on its own terms; and (2) the inconvenience of endorsing the punctuation of the [KJV] as inspired; and we also place this passage in harmony with numberless passages in the O.T., such as 'Verily I say unto you this day,' etc.; 'I testify unto you this day.' etc. Deut.vi.6; vii.1; x.13; xi.8;,13,23; xii.13; xix.9; xxvii.4; xxxi.2, etc., where the Septuagint corresponds to Luke xxiii.43."

So exactly who is attempting to "deliberately deceive"??

There is no reason to deny the rendering of Luke 23:43 as, “I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.”
.................................

If you truly care to discuss John 1:1c, cease the anti-JW copied insults and stick to the grammar and usage by John which are actually parallel to John 1:1c.

 

[Kermos]

@Kermos #230:

Part 1 -

Colwell and Harner both used improper examples (usually non-count nouns or, more often, 'prepositional' examples)

...snip...

Wait for Part 2.

Watchtower Society DECEPTION AND DISTORTION ALERT

Part 1 of tigger 2's post appears to be a major content copy and paste of Defending The New World Translation: NWT - John 1:1 (link goes off site to http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/2009/09/nwt.html)

Your Part 1 - 5 JW distortions contain refuted material easily found on the Internet, but I'm not going to copy and paste those in response to you, no, I plan to quote scripture which uses proper grammar for translation from Greek to English!

The Apostle Thomas declared "my God" to Lord Jesus as recorded by the Apostle John (John 20:28)!

 

[Kermos]

Others who also translate John 18:37b as 'a king':
...snip...

PART 2

Jn 8:58 - “I AM”

...snip...

wait for Part 3

Watchtower Society DECEPTION AND DISTORTION ALERT

Part 2 of tigger 2's post appears to be a major content copy and paste of Defending The New World Translation: NWT -Jn 8:58 - "I AM" (link goes off site to http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/2009/09/nwt_16.html)

REGARDING THE GREEK PHRASE "ego eimi":

DEFINITIONS:
ego: I (only expressed when emphatic)
eimi: I exist, I am

PREMISE 1: The Greek phrase "ego eimi" is accurately translated to "I am" in John 8:24 in the NASB, and a VERY NOTABLE POINT IS the NWT also translated the Greek "ego eimi" to English "I am" in the same verse - John 8:24!

PREMISE 2: Now, jumping forward 34 verses to John 8:58 the phrase "ego eimi" is accurately translated to "I am" in John 8:58 in the NASB, yet a SECOND VERY NOTABLE POINT IS the NWT wrongly translated the Greek "ego eimi" to English "I have been".

CONCLUSION: The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society demonstrates desparation to distort the very Word of God as well as in the JW deception intent on deceiving because "ego eimi" clearly translates to "I am"!

Lord Jesus said "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." (John 8:58, referring back to Exodus 3:14 and prior, Jesus declaring Diety, and the Apostle John who recorded it knew this to be true for John recorded "because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God" in John 5:18 even Jesus enemies knew that Jesus claimed Deity because they picked up stones to stone Him when Jesus claimed Diety).

 

[Kermos]

Part 3 - Mantey next attacks “the addition of ‘for all time’ in Heb. 9:27 when nothing in the Greek New Testament supports it.”

But the equally rabid trinitarian scholar, W. E. Vine, says

...snip...

Wait for Part 5

...snip...

“ ‘...contend earnestly for the faith once [hapax] delivered to the saints,’ that’s King James, but the [NT] Greek is a little better,” says Martin. “The Greek says, ‘... put up a stiff fight for the faith once for all time [hapax] delivered to the saints.’” - Introduction to the Cults, cassette tape recording by Dr. Walter Martin, 1980. - Compare Jude :3 NWT.

Wait for Part 4

Watchtower Society DECEPTION AND DISTORTION ALERT

Part 3 of tigger 2's post appears to be a major content copy and paste of Defending The New World Translation: NWT - Heb. 9:27 - "Once For All Time" (link goes off site to http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/2009/09/heb.html)

You have "Wait for Part 5" and "Wait for Part 4" in your above referenced post, it is obvious that you try to use the same tired old failed arguments again and again.

JW grammar skills in Greek to English translation are pitted in corruption and deceit.

The Apostel John wrote "the Word was God" (John 1:1).

 

[Kermos]

Part 4

Mantey next berates the NWT’s “mistranslating arche tes ktisoos” as “beginning of the creation” at Rev. 3:14

...snip...

Wait for Part 5.

Watchtower Society DECEPTION AND DISTORTION ALERT

Part 4 of tigger 2's post appears to be a major content copy and paste of Defending The New World Translation: NWT - Rev. 3:14 (link goes off site to http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/2009/09/nwt_1692.html)

Lord Jesus said "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30 - thus conveying His Diety)

 

[Kermos]

Part 5
Punctuation of Luke 23:43

Mantey says, "Why the attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after "today" in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and all English translations except yours, even in the Greek in your KIT, the comma occurs after lego (I say) -- 'Today you will be with me in Paradise.'"

...snip...

If you truly care to discuss John 1:1c, cease the anti-JW copied insults and stick to the grammar and usage by John which are actually parallel to John 1:1c.

Watchtower Society DECEPTION AND DISTORTION ALERT

Part 5 of tigger 2's post appears to be a major content copy and paste of Defending The New World Translation: 2013 (link goes off site to http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/2013/ )

Or, maybe it's Defend Jehovah's Witnesses: Luke 23:43 - Punctuation and the New World Translation; "Truly I tell you today,..."(link goes off site to http://defendingjehovahswitnesses.blogspot.com/2011/08/luke-2343-punctuation-and-new-world.html)

Or, perhaps some other site or conglomoration of JW distortion and deception. I noticed minor, very little, deviation from the off site content.

You bring up the Luke 23:43. It appears that you want to disrepute Mantey, the same Mantey that JW's misquote for seeking support to JW error!

tigger 2, the Greek grammar practiced by the NWT deceivers/speculators (not translators) produced a deadly NWT book. John 1:1 is properly rendered "the Word was God" per the Greek manuscripts. The Watchtower Society does not understand:

For your husband is your Maker,
Whose name is the YHWH of hosts;
And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel,
Who is called the God of all the earth.
(Isaiah 54:5)

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law
(Galations 2:13)

He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons
(Galatians 4:5)

looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,
14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.
(Titus 2:13-14)

Behold, the Redeemer is Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is Savior and Jesus Christ is God!