Find any errors in these excerpts from my study of John 1:1c

[tigger 2]

John 1:1c and John’s use of grammar

Let’s look at some Bible translations that differ from the majority of trinitarian translations. Some use the term “divine.” (1) Trinitarian Moffatt’s popular New Translation of the Bible and (2) trinitarian Smith-Goodspeed’s An American Translation both say that the Word “was divine.” The translations by (3) Boehmer, (4) Stage, and (5) Menge all say the Word was “of divine being.” (6) John L. McKenzie, S. J., writes in his Dictionary of the Bible:

“Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God (equals the Father), and the word was a divine being.’” - 1965, p. 317, published with Catholic nihil obstat and imprimatur.

Why have these translators refused to make a more literal translation (“the Word was God”), as many other trinitarians have done? After all, if the original Greek of a scripture is written in such a manner that it can honestly be translated into English with several different meanings (as so frequently happens), an honest translator will invariably pick the meaning that is closest to his own beliefs and prejudices. And an honest trinitarian would, therefore, translate John 1:1c as “and the Word was God” If he felt he could honestly do so! So why have some trinitarian translators refused to so translate it?

The Greek words, grammar, and context clues used here by John have convinced them something else was clearly intended at John 1:1c. Rather than make a highly probable error (with extremely serious consequences - John 17:3 and 2 Thess. 1:8), they have very carefully selected a word (“divine”) that has several meanings.

If they had honestly believed that John was saying that Jesus is God, they certainly would not have hesitated to say “the Word was God.” Why, then, did some trinitarian translators of Christendom, some of the best Bible scholars and translators in the world, choose the English word “divine”? Well, what does “divine” mean? According to the best authority on English word meanings, it means - “1a: of or relating to God: proceeding from God...b: of or relating to a god; having the nature of a god; like a god or like that of a god.” - Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1962.

Notice that the number one meaning is “of God” or “from God.” It may be that these translators have honestly felt that this understanding is correct, and John originally wrote “and the Word was of God (ΘY –“of God” abbreviation - instead of ΘC).” Or they may even have believed that the abbreviated form of ΘC (ancient form of θς or ths) found in all the earliest manuscripts of John 1:1c was an abbreviation for “divine” (θεῖός or theios) rather than “god” (θεός or theos).

We see that the #1b meaning for “divine” would make John 1:1c read “and the Word was like a god.” If these translators had that definition of “divine” in mind, we would understand John 1:1c to mean “and the Word was like a god.”

See how the word “divine” is used in the footnotes for Genesis 18:2-8 and Gen. 1:26 in the highly trinitarian New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1977 ed.: The three angels are “divine beings” and, “the plural us, our probably refers to the divine beings who compose God’s heavenly court (1 Ki. 22:19; Job 1:6).”

Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, Unger and White, p. 159, 1980 ed., speaking of an angel, says:

“... refers to a divine being or messenger sent to protect the three Hebrews (Dan. 3:28).”

Examine the explanation of the strongly trinitarian author of Christianity Through the Centuries which shows how the strongly anti-trinitarian Arius of the 4th century viewed God and Jesus:

“Arius believed that Christ was a being, created out of nothing, subordinate to the Father.... To Arius He was divine but not deity.” - p. 143, Earl E. Cairns, Ph. D., 1977.

Even Arius’ opponent, hyper-trinitarian Athanasius, believed that men can be divine: Speaking of Christ, “‘He was made man,’ said Athanasius, ‘that we might be made divine.’” - pp. 116-117, A Short History of the Early Church, Dr. H. R. Boer (trinitarian), 1976, Eerdmans Publishing.

Yes, even the greatest defender of the doctrine of the trinity of all time, Augustine, said that the Scriptures themselves “were truly divine” and he spoke of “our true divine,” Moses - Book xviii, chapters 37 and 42, The City of God, pp. 646, 651, Random House, 1950.

Notice what the Encyclopaedia Britannica reveals about John 1:1, Jesus, and the word “divine.”

“the Logos [‘the Word’] which, having been in the beginning, and with God, and ‘divine,’ had entered human life and history as the Word ‘made flesh.’ .... but the identification of Jesus with the Logos was not tantamount to recognizing him as ‘God.’ Neither the ‘Word of God’ in Hebrew nomenclature nor the Logos in Greek speculation was ‘God,’ though it was definitely ‘divine.’” - p. 25, vol. 13, 14th ed.

 

[tigger 2]

Literal Translation of John 1:1c

Even the trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Word”. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.

Equally trinitarian Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:

“A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

The reason Prof. Dodd rejected “a god” as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upset his trinitarian interpretations of John’s Gospel!

Rev. J. W. Wenham wrote in his The Elements of New Testament Greek: “Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god [God]’.” - p. 35, Cambridge University Press, 1965.

"In John i.1 (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος), the article could not have been omitted if John had wished to designate the λόγος as ὁ θεὸς, because in such a connexion θεὸς without the article would be ambiguous." - A treatise on the grammar of New Testament Greek : regarded as a sure basis for New Testament exegesis, p. 151, G. B. Winer.

(Of course if you carefully examine the rest of this study, you will find that the grammar really shows that ‘The Word is [or “was” in John 1:1c] a god’ is what John intended.)

Trinitarian NT scholar Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that “John’s monotheism” will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992. However, his acknowledgment of the use of “god” for men at John 10:34-36 and the use of “god/gods” for angels, judges, and other men in the Hebrew OT Scriptures contradicts his above excuse for not accepting the literal translation. - p. 202, Jesus as God.

And Dr. J. D. BeDuhn in his Truth in Translation states about John 1:1c:

“ ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar… supports this translation.” - p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003.

Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is “and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word” - p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.

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.

You see, in ancient times many of God’s servants had no qualms about using the word “god” or “gods” for godly men, kings, judges, and even angels.

 

[tigger 2]

New Testament Greek expert Joseph H. Thayer also defined theos:

“θεὸς [theos] is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically, i.q. God’s representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges.” - p. 288, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

Angels are literally called “gods” (Hebrew - elohim) at Ps. 8:5, 6. We know angels are called “gods” here because this passage is quoted at Heb. 2:6, 7, and there the word “angels” is used in New Testament Greek. In fact, the highly trinitarian NKJV actually translates the elohim of Ps. 8:5, 6 as ‘angels’ (“For you have made him a little lower than the angels.”)

The very trinitarian New American Bible (1970), St. Joseph ed., states in a footnote for Ps. 8:6:

“The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for ‘God’ or ‘the gods;’ hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels].” So how does noted trinitarian Dr. James Moffatt translate (at Ps. 8:6) this word that means “God” or “gods” and which is here applied to angels? Again, as at John 1:1, he translates the word for “God/god” as “divine”! “Yet thou hast made him little less than divine [elohim].” (“Heavenly beings,” NIV - see NIVSB footnote for Heb. 2:7.)

The equally trinitarian New Bible Dictionary tells us:

“Sons (children) of God” - “a. Individuals of the class ‘god’.... ‘Son of God’ in Heb. means ‘god’ or ‘godlike’ rather than ‘son of (the) God (Yahweh)’. In Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1; 89:6, the ‘sons of God’ [angels] form Yahweh’s heavenly train or subordinates.” - p. 1133, New Bible Dictionary, (second ed.), 1982. Also note p. 1134. And see “Sons of God” in Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 591 and An Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 726, (1945 ed.).

The NIV Study Bible [1985 ed.] states:

“In the language of the OT ... rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could be given the honorific title ‘god’ ... or be called ‘son of God’.” - footnote for Ps. 82:1. And, in a footnote for Ps. 45:6, this same highly-respected trinitarian publication says: “In this psalm, which praises the [Israelite] king..., it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor (cf. Isa. 9:6).”

 

[tigger 2]

"Justin and the other Apologists [including, of course, the writer of the Epistle to Diognetus] therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world, but nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to dependent upon, and caused by the Father." - p. 110, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.

"Before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) all theologians viewed the Son as in one way or another subordinate to the Father." - pp. 112-113, Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity (Trinitarian), 1977; and p. 114, The History of Christianity, A Lion Handbook, Lion Publishing, 1990 revised ed.

It is therefore more than a little strange that the author of this very early Christian letter would actually call Jesus “God”!

When we examine the actual Greek text of this very early Christian letter the mystery is solved. The writer of this letter has used theos without the article (“a god”) at this verse (7:4) and at 10:6. In fact, the Encyclopedia Britannica translates verse 10:6 as

“If thou too wouldst have this faith, learn first the knowledge of the Father [see John 17:3]...knowing Him, thou wilt love Him and imitate his goodness; and marvel not if a man can imitate God: he can if God will. By kindness to the needy, by giving them what God has given to him, a man can become a god [theos without the definite article] of them that receive, an imitator of God.” - p. 395, vol. 7, 14th ed. (Also see Early Christian Writings, Staniforth, Dorset Press, p. 181, and The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Roberts and Donaldson, p. 29, vol. 1, Eerdmans, 1993 printing.)

So, not only has this early Christian author taught that a Christian who truly helps his neighbor “becomes a god [theos without the article and coming before the verb in the Greek],” but at the verse in question (7:4) he clearly says about Jesus that the Father “sent him as a god [theos without the article].” - see The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot and Harmer, pp. 495, 498, Baker Book House.

Yes, when we see how this first (or second) century Christian used theos without the article for men (10:6), we then know that he really said at verse 7:4: “The Father sent the Word into the world in this way:....he sent him as a god”! - - - - - Compare this description of “the Word” with that of John 1:1.

Also, Clement of Alexandria (circa 150 A. D. - 215 A. D.) was “one of the most learned fathers of the church”. - Encyclopedia Americana, 1957, vol. 7, p. 87a.

The Encyclopedia Britannica tells us that Clement of Alexandria taught that the object of Christ's incarnation and death ‘was to free man from sin ... and thus in the end elevate him to the position of a god.’ - p.799, vol. 5, Britannica., 14th ed.

Yes, in his Exhortation to the Greeks this respected early Christian scholar writes:

“…. it is even possible for [a] man to become a god.” - pp. 22, 23, Clement of Alexandria, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1999 reprint.

Here we find the famed second century Greek-speaking Christian writing in Koine Greek that a man can “become a god” (nominative theos coming after the verb).

All of this shows (for the first 400 years of Church history, at least) that many of those early writers (including Origen, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus, the writer of ‘The Epistle to Diognetus,’ and even super-trinitarians Athanasius and St. Augustine of the 4th and 5th centuries) continued to use the term theos (without the article) as John sometimes did (“a god”). They saw nothing wrong with calling certain men “gods” if they were sincerely trying to follow God and be his representatives or ambassadors. Just because it sounds strange to our ears today in modern English is no reason to ignore the facts!

This is a fact acknowledged by many trinitarian experts:

Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, faithful Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods (or a god) include:

1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;

2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;

4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;

5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;

6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;

7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;

8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7; 82:1; Jn 10:34; 1970 ed.;

11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;

12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;

13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;

14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;

15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);

16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (John 10:34-36);

18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);

19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).

20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.

23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.

24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.

25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.

26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.

27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.

28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.
29. Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, John 10:36.
30. C. J. Ellicott, John 10:34, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers.

(also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV; David Guzik)

And, of course, the highly respected and highly popular Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for “God”/“a god” about the same time the NT was written.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”

Even distinguished NT scholar (trinitarian) Robert M. Grant, when discussing the writings of the noted 2nd century Christian, Theophilus, said that this respected early Christian wrote that if Adam had remained faithful, he would have become ‘perfect’ and would have been ‘declared a god’! Dr. Grant then added that this corresponds with Jesus being ‘declared a god’ elsewhere in the Gospel of John! So this respected trinitarian NT scholar admits that Jesus himself was called a god in John’s Gospel. - p. 171, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, The Westminster Press, 1988.
....................................................................
Where have I misquoted or lied so far??

 

[tigger 2]

John 1:1 and the Use of the Article With Theos

The importance of the definite article (the word “the” in English; ho in NT Greek) when it is used with the Greek word for “God”/“god” (theos in Greek) is a major point of disagreement between non-trinitarians and some trinitarians when they discuss John 1:1 where theos appears without the article.

A few trinitarians will even deny the significance of the article (“the”) and say that theos (θεός) is usually translated as “God” whether it has the article or not, and, therefore, even though there is no article with theos (θεός) at John 1:1, the probability (they say) is very high that theos in John 1:1 means “God” and not “god” (or “a god”).

Most trinitarian scholars, however, will admit the importance of the article when distinguishing between “the only true God” and “a god” (“a mighty one”). However, some of them will attempt to prove that the article is properly understood to be there because of the “peculiarity” of the Greek grammar used at John 1:1c. Therefore, they will tell you, since the article is “understood” to be with theos at John 1:1c, then the Word is the God (the “understood” article showing that the only true God was meant)!

Let’s start by looking at the first statement. Is it true that the use of the article with theos (in the nominative case, θεός, as used at John 1:1c) makes little or no difference in distinguishing between “god” and “God”? - (See the THEON study for significance of the article usage in the accusative case - theon, θεόν - and lack of significance of the article usage in the genitive case - theou, θεοῦ.)

Here’s what Professor J. G. Machen says in his New Testament Greek for Beginners, p. 35:

“The use of the article in Greek corresponds roughly to the use of the definite article in English. Thus [logos, λόγος] means ‘a word’; [ho logos, ὁ λόγος] means ‘the word’.”- Macmillan, 1951.

So, basically, the word “the” (the definite article, ho - or ὁ - in NT Greek, when used with a singular masculine nominative case noun - such as theos) shows that the noun it is used with is one certain, special thing. “The boss” is one certain individual, whereas “a boss” is indefinite and could be any one of millions of individuals.

If we examine all the uses of “God” and “god” in the nominative case (theos - the same form found at Jn 1:1c, not theou, theo, etc.) in all the writings of the Gospel writers, we see that it always has the article (“the” or ho in NT Greek) with it when the inspired Bible writer is referring to the God of the Bible. Therefore it is of essential importance to know if John intended that the definite article really should be “understood” to be with theos at Jn 1:1c. See end note 5 - Examining the Trinity: DEF - Part 4 (End Notes)

 

[tigger 2]

Grammatical “Rules” for a Definite John 1:1c

Many trinitarian defenses (or offenses) for their favored translation of John 1:1c pretend to refer to rules of Greek grammar. Many people, trinitarian and non-trinitarian alike, are afraid to begin a study of anything that sounds so difficult. But take heart! It really isn’t nearly as difficult as it sounds to understand the so-called rules of Greek grammar that are involved and to prove them false to anyone who is willing to listen.

The first thing you need is any good interlinear Greek-English version of the New Testament Christian Greek Scriptures. You can obtain a trinitarian-biased interlinear from most Bible book stores or even online.

You may also need the use of several different Bible translations (public libraries usually have these for checkout) and a very brief refresher course in the meaning of a few words that may sound intimidating at first but that are really quite simple.

A “rule” preferred by some trinitarians for “proving” that Jesus is called “God” at John 1:1c is called “Colwell’s Rule.” This “rule” was first developed by E. C. Colwell and published by him in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 1933.

To understand Colwell’s Rule we need to learn (or review) the meanings of 5 terms:

(1) The DEFINITE ARTICLE is simply the word “the” in English. In NT Greek the definite article is oJ (or ho) when it used with a singular masculine predicate noun (such as “God”).

(2) The INDEFINITE ARTICLE is simply the word “a” (or “an”) in English. There is no indefinite article in Greek. However, it is usually provided by the English translator when there is no definite article present with a noun in the original Greek - see below.

(3) The ‘BE’ VERBS are all the different ways we use “be” in English. For example, we say “I am tall” instead of “I be tall.” Instead of “they be tall” we say “they are tall” or “they were tall.” Here, then, are the most-used “be verbs”: Am, is, are, was, were, be, been.

(4) The SUBJECT is the person or thing which is “doing” the verb in a sentence. For example: “He is a man.” Who or what is “doing” the “be verb” in that sentence? “He” is; so the word “He” is “doing” the verb “is,” and, therefore, “He” is the subject.

Therefore, “cow” in “the purple cow was his pet” is the subject. And “house” in “my old house is now a restaurant” is the subject.

(5) The PREDICATE NOUN (also called the predicate nominative) is the person or thing which is the same as the subject and usually follows a be verb in the English language. If the sentence has a be verb as the only verb (or as the main verb), then the predicate noun (if there is one in that sentence) can easily be found by following this formula:

(A) Say the subject.

(B) Say the be verb.

(C) Ask, “What?”.

For example: “He is a man.” “He” is the subject (it’s “doing” the be verb “is”). So (A) say the subject (“He”), and (B) say the be verb (“is”), and (C) ask “what?”: “He is what?”

The answer is “man,” so “man” is the predicate noun. Remember that, like the subject, the predicate noun must be a person or thing (not a describing word like “tall,” “green,” “good,” “seven,” etc.).

Word Order

The predicate noun in English is nearly always found after the be verb. In the ancient Greek manuscripts of the Bible, however, the predicate noun frequently comes before (precedes) the be verb. For example, at John 18:37a John writes in NT Greek: “king are you.” Notice that the subject “you” comes after the verb and the predicate noun “king” is before the be verb “are.” This is correctly translated into English as “You are a king” - NIV. Since there is no definite article (“the”) with “king,” English-language translators properly supply an indefinite article (“a king”). - see any Bible, John 18:37a. This is also the case at John 1:1c where the predicate noun (theos) comes before (precedes) the be verb (“was”): “and god [theos] was the word.” We see that here at John 1:1c the predicate noun precedes the verb and the subject follows the verb.

If you have gone over the 5 terms above until you are certain of their meanings, you will have no trouble understanding Colwell’s Rule (and no trouble disproving it!).

Here, then, is how Bowser (What Every Jehovah’s Witness Should Know) ‘quotes’ Colwell’s Rule:

“‘The absence of the [definite] article does not make the predicate [noun] indefinite when it precedes the verb.’” - p. 57, material in brackets added for clarity.

Bowser then adds:

“Even a casual look at the Greek text in John 1 shows that the predicate [noun] ‘God’ precedes the verb ‘was’ and consequently the testimony of John is that ‘the Word was God.’”(Cf. p. 99, So Many Versions, Kubo & Specht, Zondervan Publ., 1983.)

Remember that we have already seen in all the Gospels and all the writings of John that when “the only true God” is intended (in non-“preposition-modified” nominative form) a definite article is used with it: “the God.”[5] And, when “a god” is meant, there is no definite article with the word. So Bowser, by adding his own interpretation, has made it appear that Colwell’s Rule insists that, if the predicate noun comes before the verb, it must be translated as though it had a definite article! In the case of John 1:1c that would mean that even though “god” (theos) does not have an article with it in the Greek (which would normally mean that “a god” was intended), it must be translated as though it did and therefore must be translated “The Word was the god.” And since the definite article coming before “god” (theos) means the only true God is being spoken of, then John 1:1c must mean “The Word was God.”

It’s obvious, then, that it all boils down to whether a definite article (“the”) must be understood to be with theos or not at John 1:1c.

But notice what Colwell himself really said. Colwell published his rule in a 1933 JBL article entitled, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament.” In that article he wrote: “A predicate nominative [or predicate noun] which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a ‘qualitative’ noun [see the QUAL study] solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite it should be translated as a definite noun in spite of the absence of the article.” - p. 20, JBL, 1933, vol. 52.

Nowhere did Colwell ever say that all (nor even most) predicate nouns that precede the verb in NT Greek are definite nouns. Not any inviolable rule of NT Greek grammar, but context alone, says Colwell, must guide the translator in such cases. And, as we have already seen (and according to some of the best trinitarian scholars themselves - see the QUAL study), the context of John 1:1 makes it clear that if the Word were with the God of the Bible he could not himself be that God. Even context alone makes it certain that John meant “the Word was a god.”

But let’s return to the usual trinitarian misinterpretation of Colwell’s Rule: “a predicate noun that has no definite article must be considered definite anyway when it comes before the verb in NT Greek.”

One of the first things a beginning student of New Testament Greek learns is that word order has very little, if any, significance as far as the meaning is concerned. (This is especially true when one is examining nominative case nouns - see the THEON study.) For example, respected NT Greek authorities, Dr. Alfred Marshall and Prof. J. Gresham Machen tell us in their NT Greek primers that, unlike English, NT Greek does not use word order to convey meanings but instead uses the individual endings on each word (inflections).

 

[tigger 2]

"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.)

Also see p. 148, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, where trinitarians Dana and Mantey translate an example they admit is parallel to John 1:1c as “And the place was a market,” The Macmillan Company (see PRIMER pp. 1-2 for similar examples).

And noted trinitarian scholar of NT grammar, A.T. Robertson, when analyzing John 18:37a where the predicate noun “king” comes before the verb [“king are you”], prefers this translation: “Art thou a king then”? - p. 294, Vol. 5, Word Pictures in the New Testament. (Compare his use of "prophet" at John 4:19, p. 65.)

Others who also translate John 18:37a. 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; MOUNCE; NAB; NABRE; NASB; NCV; NET; NIRV; NIV; NJB; NKJV; NLT; NLV; NMB; NOG; NRSV; PHILLIPS; RSV; TLV; TPT; VOICE; WEB; WE; WYC; YLT.



(To Be Continued)

 

[tigger 2]

But even if you haven’t even begun studying NT Greek, you can prove the trinitarian misinterpretation of Colwell’s Rule to be completely false simply by actually going through the Gospel of John in a Greek-English Interlinear New Testament and finding all the places where a predicate noun precedes the be verb. (Skim through and find all the ‘be’ verbs, then see if there is a predicate noun that has no definite article coming before that verb. Then check all Bible translations to see if that predicate noun is translated with a definite article or not.) - For a detailed examination of all proper examples (those most equivalent to Jn 1:1c) see the Appendix of the DEF study: Examining the Trinity: DEF - Part 3 (Appendix)

 

[tigger 2]

Proper examples and exceptions

Personal names such as “Jesus,” “Abraham,” “Mary,” etc. should not be included as proper examples of predicate nouns in this case because they take the article erratically in the Greek text. They may take a definite article in NT Greek or not according to the whim of the writer and yet in English are always translated without the definite article.

And more confusing yet are nouns which are not “countable” (that is, they are things that are found in indeterminate amounts: “soup,” “mashed potatoes,” “flesh,” “blood,” “wine,” “honey,” etc. rather than things we can count: “three cows,” “two peas,” “ten prophets,” etc.) but may also be treated as plurals. Since the use of plural examples can be so confusing concerning the definite and indefinite articles in English translations (and since plurals were not used at Jn 1:1c anyway), I try to avoid using them as proper examples. And I avoid even more strongly the ambiguous, confusing “amount” nouns as proper examples. [[More recently, I have discovered that others have called these “amount” nouns “non-count” nouns. Examples of non-count nouns include "flesh," "blood," "wine," "wheat," "soup," “fat,” "water," "gold," "silver," etc. Most confusing are words which have more than one meaning: one as a count noun and one as a non-count noun. For example, "stone" may be considerd as a mass: "the house was made of stone." In that example "stone" would be a non-count noun. But when used in a different sense ("a stone was in his hand"), it is a count noun! We find these examples in English: "spirit," "hair," "marble," "light," etc.]]

We must also remember the problem with “possessive” (or ‘prepositional’) constructions.[8] Examining the Trinity: DEF - Part 4 (End Notes) They, like personal names, should not be included in our listing of all the proper examples of John’s use of predicate nouns coming before the verb. Colwell used such improper “prepositional” examples almost exclusively to “prove” his rule.

We should also know that some scholars, like trinitarian P. B. Harner, exclude predicate nouns that are with numerals (“three angels”) as also having irregular article usage - see p. 76 f.n., JBL, vol. 92, 1973 [or HARNJBL]. Included among numerals we find that words translated as negative adjectives ('no' - John 7:46, NKJV; HCSB; ISV; NLV; RSV; WEB; Luke 4:24, most bibles; Luke 16:13; etc.) are, like numerals, considered indefinite or irregular. (Some writers apparently even found irregular article usage with nouns modified by other adjectives - A. T. Robertson, 795; D. B. Wallace, 253; 734 [pronominal].) I have also noticed that trinitarian scholars Wallace (1981), Harner, and even Colwell himself (and perhaps all Bible language scholars) do not include the 5 “TIME/SEASON” predicate nouns (John 5:10; 10:22 [10:23 in some Bibles]; 19:31; and 1 John 2:18 [2 occurrences]).[9] Appositives, too, exhibit article irregularity.[10] Therefore, I have excluded these from my lists of proper examples truly parallel to John 1:1c.

You will find that when John uses an unmodified predicate noun (without a definite article) before the verb (as in Jn 1:1c), most Bible translators (trinitarian and non-trinitarian alike) translate it as an indefinite noun (often even in spite of ambiguous contexts) just as the New World Translation has done at John 1:1c. For example: John 4:19 “...you are a prophet” (compare all Bible translations). Also see John 6:70; John 8:44 (a); John 9:24; John 10:1; etc.

 

[tigger 2]

In the following list if the predicate noun (p.n.) has no article, it has “an.” (anarthrous) written before it. “Art.” (articular) means the article (“the”) is with it (making it an improper example for a John 1:1c - type rule, of course). Other improper examples have “prep.,” “abstract,” “numeral,” etc. written after them. “Prep.” indicates that the p.n. has a phrase joined to it (prepositional), e.g., ’son of man’; ‘slave to me’; etc. “Abstract #”: the p.n. is abstract and/or an indeterminate amount (see “John 1:14” below, p. 7). “No subject” means the subject is clearly understood only by the verb form used. “Participle”[14] means the subject is not present but only imperfectly identified by a participle (“having,” “saying,” etc.).




All Verses Where the NT Greek Predicate Noun Precedes Its Verb in John's Writings

an. Jn 1:1 (verse under study)

an. Jn 1:12 - prep.

an. Jn 1:14 - plural (amount)

art. Jn 1:21 (the prophet)

an. Jn 1:49 (b) - prep.

an. Jn 2:9 - accusative, not p.n

an. Jn 3:6 (a) - plural (amount)

an. Jn 3:6 (b) - abstract #

an. Jn 3:29 - participle

-an. Jn 4:9 (a)

an. Jn 4:9 (b) (adj.?)

#an. Jn 4:19 (a prophet)

an. Jn 4:24 - abstr. # - NO VERB

an. Jn 5:27 - prep.

art. Jn 6:51 (b) - prep.

an. Jn 6:63 - abstract

-an Jn 6:70

an. Jn 8:31 - prep.

an. Jn 8:33 - prep.

an. Jn 8:34 - prep.

an. Jn 8:37 - prep.

an. Jn 8:39 - prep.

an. Jn 8:42 - prep.

-an. Jn 8:44 (a)

an. Jn 8:44 (b) - no subject

#an. Jn 8:48

an. Jn 8:54 (a) - abstract

an. Jn 8:54 (b) - prep.

an. Jn 9:5 - prep

an. Jn 9:8 (a) - no subject

an. Jn 9:17 - no subject

-an. Jn 9:24

an. Jn 9:25 - no subject

an. Jn 9:27 - prep.

an. Jn 9:28 (a) - prep.

-an. Jn 10:1

an. Jn 10:2 - prep.

an. Jn 10:8 - plural

an. Jn 10:13 - no subject

art. Jn 10:21 - prep.

-an. Jn 10:33

an. Jn 10:34 - plural

an. Jn 10:36 - prep.

an. Jn 11:49 - prep.

an. Jn 11:51 - prep.

an. Jn 12:6 - no subject

an. Jn 12:36 - prep.

an. Jn 12:50 - abstract

an. Jn 13:35 - prep. (poss. pronoun)

art. Jn 15:1 (b)

an. Jn 15:14 - prep.

an. Jn 17:17 - abstract

an. Jn 18:26 - prep.

-an. Jn 18:35

#an Jn 18:37 (a)

an. Jn 18:37 (b) - no subject (except in TR)

an. Jn 19:21 - prep.

art. Jn 20:15

art. Jn 21:7 (a)

art. Jn 21:7 (b)

art. Jn 21:12


an. 1 Jn 1:5 (b) - abstract #

an. 1 Jn 2:2 - prep.

an. 1 Jn 2:4 - participle

an. 1 Jn 3:2 - prep.

an. 1 Jn 3:15 - participle

an. 1 Jn 4:8 - abstract

an. 1 Jn 4:16 - abstract

an. 1 Jn 4:20 - no subject

an. 1 Jn 5:17 - abstract


art. 2 Jn :6 (b)


an. Rev. 1:20 (a) - prep.

an. Rev. 1:20 (b) - numeral

an. Rev. 2:9 - accusative, not p.n.

an. Rev. 3:9 - accusative, not p.n.

an. Rev. 13:18 - prep.

an. Rev. 14:4 - no subject/plural

an. Rev. 17:9 - numeral

an. Rev. 17:10 - numeral

an. Rev. 17:11 - numeral

an. Rev. 17:12 - numeral

an. Rev. 17:14 - prep.

an. Rev. 17:15 - plural

an. Rev. 18:7 - no subject

art. Rev. 19:8 - prep.

art. Rev. 19:9 - prep.

an. Rev. 19:10 (a) - prep.

art. Rev. 20:14 - numeral

an. Rev. 21:3 - prep.

an. Rev. 21:22 - prep.

art. Rev. 21:23 - prep. - NO VERB

an. Rev. 22:9 - prep.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

91 total (excluding John 1:1c)

The 3 closest examples to Jn 1:1c have the anarthrous predicate noun before the verb and the subject after the verb. These 3 proper examples are shown above with a numeral sign (#) before them. And they also exclude personal names, abstract nouns, numerals, prepositional constructions (prep.), “time/season” nouns, clauses in which the subject is missing [but understood by the verb], clauses in which the subject is “represented” by a participle [“having,” “saying,” “hating,” etc.], plurals [especially plural/amount: ‘blood,’ ‘wine,’ ‘honey,’ ‘flesh,’ ‘fat,’ etc.].

Here, then, are all the proper examples (truly comparable to Jn 1:1c) from the writings of John (W&H text)[15] for an honest examination of “Colwell’s Rule” (or any related rules, including Harner’s “qualitative” rule, concerning the simple, unmodified anarthrous predicate noun coming before the verb):

H,W 1. John 4:19 - (“a prophet”) - all Bible translations (KJV; ASV; NASB; NIV; NRSV; RSV; ESV)

H,W 2. John 8:48 - (“a Samaritan”) - all

H,W 3. John 18:37 (a) - (“a king”) - all

[H,W 4. John 18:37 (b) - (“a king”) - from the Received Text (TR) and the 1991 Byzantine text]

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 are all indefinite nouns. All modern trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite!

If we wish to supply more examples, we must include some which are less perfect than these three (or four). The best we can do is to include all those constructions (W&H text) which comply with the other qualifications above but which, unlike Jn 1:1c, have the subject before the verb also. Since trinitarian scholars themselves include such examples, they should not object if we also include all such examples.

When we add those constructions to our list, we have:

H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all

H,W 2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all

H,W 3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”) - all [16]

H,W 4. John 8:44 - indefinite (“a murderer”/“a manslayer”) - all

H,W 5. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”) - all

H,W 6. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all

H,W 7. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer”) - all

H,W 8. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”) - all

H,W 9. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all

H,W 10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”) - all

[H,W 11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]


These are all indefinite nouns (not definite, not “qualitative”). All trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite! We should have enough examples to satisfy the most critical (but honest) scholar now. (And I wouldn’t strongly resist the use of the “no subject” examples above which clearly intend the subject as being a pronoun included with the verb, e.g., “[he] is” (John 9:8, 17), which would then bring our total of proper examples to nearly 20.)

In that case we would have:

H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all

H,W 2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all

H,W 3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”) - all [16]

H,W 4. John 8:44 - indefinite (“a murderer”/“a manslayer”) - all

H,W 5. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”) - all

H,W 6. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all

H,W 7. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer”) - all

H,W 8. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”) - all

H,W 9. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all

H,W 10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”) - all

[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) - liar (he) is.

H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - beggar (he) was.

H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - prophet (he) is.

H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - sinner (he) is.

H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - hireling (he) is.

H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - thief (he) was.

18. 1 Jn 4:20 - liar (he) is.

And, possibly,

H,W 19. 1 John 2:4 - liar (he) is.


So when all the proper (those most closely equivalent to the actual usage found at John 1:1c) examples found in John’s writings[17] are examined in various trinitarian Bibles (KJV, NASB, RSV, NIV, etc.), we find they are always translated with indefinite count nouns such as “you are a prophet” (Jn 4:19) which perfectly corresponds with a rendering of John 1:1c as “The Word was a god”!

 

[tigger 2]

We also find in very early Coptic language translations of John 1:1c that it is rendered “and the Word was a god.” - http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/

In fact, even certain trinitarian scholars have correctly admitted that those very first readers for whom John wrote his Gospel were already aware of the 'Logos' concept even before John wrote to them. This was the concept of famed Jewish scholar and writer, Philo. In this best-known Jewish concept of the Logos of that time, the Word ("Logos") was "the Son of God" and "with God" and "a god" in his own right, but that he was certainly not God nor equal to the one true God! (See the QUAL and LOGOS studies.)

The fact that John provided no further explanation of the Word proves that he intended the Logos concept that his readers already knew: "The Word was a god."!

And, of course, John himself recorded the following prayer by Jesus: "Father, .... This is eternal life: to know thee who ALONE art truly God..." - John 17:1, 3, New English Bible. And John summed up his Gospel with "20:31 - but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." - ASV.

So, after all the many "proofs" found by trinitarians for Jesus being God in the Gospel of John, we see that John intended no such thing.

 

[APAK]

Can the Greek transliterated word 'logos' ever be considered a person or being under any circumstance(s)?

 

[tigger 2]

Can the Greek transliterated word 'logos' ever be considered a person or being under any circumstance(s)?

...........................................
I believe it could. After all, we know a person was called a rock. And we believe Jesus was called Wisdom.

 

[APAK]

...........................................
I believe it could. After all, we know a person was called a rock. And we believe Jesus was called Wisdom.

So based on this response then the answer is really a 'no,' as what you have just described here are specific metaphors or characteristics for these people. And Jesus cannot be the logos although actually wisdom can and is a general definition of 'the word' in John 1:1.

Logos can only be a 'thing,' a neuter pronoun; 'it.' Logos for John 1:1 is God's intrinsic central attribute for expressing and communicating life from within himself, in wisdom and purpose, and formed into instructions and even commands to affect things outside of himself for creation, by his spirit for example.

 

[Enoch111]

John 1:1c and John’s use of grammar

That's your first error. Grammar has nothing to do with spiritual discernment.

 

[tigger 2]

As I feared, there are no students here who are able to point out any errors I may have made in the above excerpts from my studies of the grammar and usage found in the writings of John concerning John 1:1c.

 

[tigger 2]

Excerpt from End Note #5 from the DEF study:

But most important to a study of John's use of the article with theos to indicate God, here are all his uses of the nominative theos:

There are 51 such uses of theos by John (18 in the Gospel of John, 13 in First John, 20 in Revelation). Here is the list of every theos (nominative case) used by John. If it has the definite article, “art.” has been written after the verse number. If it does not have the definite article, “an.” (for “anarthrous”) has been written before the verse number. If it appears to be applied to Jesus, “Jesus” has been written after the verse number.

an. John 1:1c - - - Jesus
an. Jn 1:18 - - - - Jesus (W and H, Nestle, UBS - [Received Text and Byzantine Text have "Son"])*
Jn 3:2 art.
Jn 3:16 art.
Jn 3:17 art.
Jn 3:33 art.
Jn 3:34 art.
Jn 4:24 art.
Jn 6:27 art.
Jn 8:42 art.
an. Jn 8:54 - - -"God of you"
Jn 9:29 art.
Jn 9:31 art.
Jn 11:22 art.
Jn 13:31 art.
Jn 13:32 art. (2 occurrences)
Jn 20:28 art. Jesus (?) "God of me" - see 'My God' study paper

1 John 1:5 art.
1 Jn 3:20 art.
1 Jn 4:8 art.
1 Jn 4:9 art.
1 Jn 4:11 art.
1 Jn 4:12 art.
1 Jn 4:15 art.
1 Jn 4:16 art. (3 occurrences)
1 Jn 5:10 art.
1 Jn 5:11 art.
1 Jn 5:20 art.

Rev. 1:1 art.
Rev. 1:8 art.
Rev. 4:8 art.
Rev. 4:11 art. "the God of us"
Rev. 7:17 art.
Rev. 11:17 art.
Rev. 15:3 art.
Rev. 16:7 art.
Rev. 17:17 art.
Rev. 18:5 art.
Rev. 18:8 art.
Rev. 18:20 art.
Rev. 19:6 art. "the God of us"
Rev. 21:3 art.
an. Rev. 21:7 ---- "God to him" (modified by a dative - "prepositional")
Rev. 21:22 art.
Rev. 22:5 art.
Rev. 22:6 art. "the God of the spirits"
Rev. 22:18 art.
Rev. 22:19 art.

We can see that out of at least 48 uses of theos for the only true God (all those apparently not applied to Jesus), 46 of them have the definite article. And the only two exceptions are, again, "prepositional" (modified by a dative and a genitive).

So, again, John always uses the article with theos in proper examples to denote "God"! And he has used theos without the article to denote the Son (John 1:1, John 1:18) - 'a god.'

Nouns used as subjects or predicate nouns (i.e. the nominative case), if they are part of a possessive phrase (e.g. "the God of me," "the God of Israel," etc., meaning "my God," "Israel's God," etc.), may or may not take the article. The use of the article under those conditions appears to be purely arbitrary and is used at random with little or no significance. A good example of this is found at 2 Cor. 4:4 - "the god OF this age [or system]...".


Of all the 37 uses of "theos" (nominative case) by Matthew, Mark, and Luke can you guess which ones are used with "prepositional phrases"? That's right! The 4 anarthrous "exceptions" are all used with "prepositional phrases"!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

John 1:1c and John’s use of grammar

Let’s look at some Bible translations that differ from the majority of trinitarian translations. Some use the term “divine.” (1) Trinitarian Moffatt’s highly acclaimed New Translation of the Bible and (2) trinitarian Smith-Goodspeed’s An American Translation both say that the Word “was divine.” The translations by (3) Boehmer, (4) Stage, and (5) Menge all say the Word was “of divine being.” (6) John L. McKenzie, S. J., writes in his Dictionary of the Bible:

“Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God (equals the Father), and the word was a divine being.’” - 1965, p. 317, published with Catholic nihil obstat and imprimatur.

Why have these translators refused to make a more literal translation (“the Word was God”), as many other trinitarians have done? After all, if the original Greek of a scripture is written in such a manner that it can honestly be translated into English with several different meanings (as so frequently happens), an honest translator will invariably pick the meaning that is closest to his own beliefs and prejudices. And an honest trinitarian would, therefore, translate John 1:1c as “and the Word was God” If he felt he could honestly do so! So why have some trinitarian translators refused to so translate it?

The Greek words, grammar, and context clues used here by John have convinced them something else was clearly intended at John 1:1c. Rather than make a highly probable error (with extremely serious consequences - John 17:3 and 2 Thess. 1:8), they have very carefully selected a word (“divine”) that has several meanings.

If they had honestly believed that John was saying that Jesus is God, they certainly would not have hesitated to say “the Word was God.” Why, then, did some trinitarian translators of Christendom, some of the best Bible scholars and translators in the world, choose the English word “divine”? Well, what does “divine” mean? According to the best authority on English word meanings, it means - “1a: of or relating to God: proceeding from God...b: of or relating to a god; having the nature of a god; like a god or like that of a god.” - Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1962.

Notice that the number one meaning is “of God” or “from God.” It may be that these translators have honestly felt that this understanding is correct, and John originally wrote “and the Word was of God (ΘY –“of God” abbreviation - instead of ΘC).” Or they may even have believed that the abbreviated form of ΘC (ancient form of θς or ths) found in all the earliest manuscripts of John 1:1c was an abbreviation for “divine” (θεῖός or theios) rather than “god” (θεός or theos).

We see that the #1b meaning for “divine” would make John 1:1c read “and the Word was like a god.” If these translators had that definition of “divine” in mind, we would understand John 1:1c to mean “and the Word was like a god.”

See how the word “divine” is used in the footnotes for Genesis 18:2-8 and Gen. 1:26 in the highly trinitarian New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1977 ed.: The three angels are “divine beings” and, “the plural us, our probably refers to the divine beings who compose God’s heavenly court (1 Ki. 22:19; Job 1:6).”

Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, Unger and White, p. 159, 1980 ed., speaking of an angel, says:

“... refers to a divine being or messenger sent to protect the three Hebrews (Dan. 3:28).”

Examine the explanation of the strongly trinitarian author of Christianity Through the Centuries which shows how the strongly anti-trinitarian Arius of the 4th century viewed God and Jesus:

“Arius believed that Christ was a being, created out of nothing, subordinate to the Father.... To Arius He was divine but not deity.” - p. 143, Earl E. Cairns, Ph. D., 1977.

Even Arius’ opponent, hyper-trinitarian Athanasius, believed that men can be divine: Speaking of Christ, “‘He was made man,’ said Athanasius, ‘that we might be made divine.’” - pp. 116-117, A Short History of the Early Church, Dr. H. R. Boer (trinitarian), 1976, Eerdmans Publishing.

Yes, even the greatest defender of the doctrine of the trinity of all time, Augustine, said that the Scriptures themselves “were truly divine” and he spoke of “our true divine,” Moses - Book xviii, chapters 37 and 42, The City of God, pp. 646, 651, Random House, 1950.

Notice what the Encyclopaedia Britannica reveals about John 1:1, Jesus, and the word “divine.”

“the Logos [‘the Word’] which, having been in the beginning, and with God, and ‘divine,’ had entered human life and history as the Word ‘made flesh.’ .... but the identification of Jesus with the Logos was not tantamount to recognizing him as ‘God.’ Neither the ‘Word of God’ in Hebrew nomenclature nor the Logos in Greek speculation was ‘God,’ though it was definitely ‘divine.’” - p. 25, vol. 13, 14th ed.

first lets get on ething clear: Moffat and goodspeed are not acclaimed scholars nor are their translations widely acclaimed.

And you need to ask the authors of these variant dynamic translations why they used divine for Jesus and God for the Father in John 1:1.

I know I use it to differentiate the two meanings of God (English) Theos( Greek). One meaning a person as a deity and the other meaning a nature-divine)

But Teh Father and Son are both God as a person and divine as to nature. SCripture is very clear that teh One (echad-Hebrew) God exists in three separate people-

Father , Son and Holy spirit.

 

[Davy]

Jesus of Nazareth IS GOD...

John 8:54-58
54 Jesus answered, "If I honour Myself, My honour is nothing: it is My Father That honoureth Me; of Whom ye say, that He is your God:

55 Yet ye have not known Him; but I know Him: and if I should say, I know Him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know Him, and keep His saying.

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day: and he saw it, and was glad."

57 Then said the Jews unto Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?"

58 Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
KJV

 

[tigger 2]

Whether anyone believes Jesus is God is not the point of this discussion. Trinity "proofs" have nothing to do with it. I'm only asking for folks to read my study excerpts posted here and point out any provable errors. I tried to find what John truly intended at John 1:1c. Is there another, more accurate way to find out? Did I misquote someone? Did I leave out something in my lists? Did I misunderstand the exceptions? Etc.