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

[Ronald Nolette]

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.

Well then one of your errors is that theos should be translated equally in the same passage. The accusative and nomniative cases in Greek are the same so they should be read the same.

Also in technical grammatics- divine and its construct are adjectives, whereas in John 1 theos is a noun in both cases!

 

[tigger 2]

Well then one of your errors is that theos should be translated equally in the same passage. The accusative and nomniative cases in Greek are the same so they should be read the same.

Also in technical grammatics- divine and its construct are adjectives, whereas in John 1 theos is a noun in both cases!

..................................
The nominative case theos is used for subjects and predicate nouns. The accusative case theon is used for objects. This includes direct objects and objects of certain prepositions. For the most part it has the definite article when as a direct object it refers to God. But it is not so certain when used as an object of a preposition.

But, no matter, since John 1:1c does not use it anyway, we have ignored it as an example of a predicate noun coming before its verb.

We also are not examining the NT Greek word for "divine."

 

[tigger 2]

16

John 6:70 KJV Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

“and one of you devil is” - anarthrous predicate noun before the verb in NT Greek text, but translated “a devil.”


John 6:70 - - - “One who sins belongs to the devil, like Cain (1 Jn 3:8, 12); or he is a devil himself, like Judas, the betrayer (Jn 6:70). .... Jesus’ enemies are called children [and sons] of the devil, i.e. those who share his nature and behaviour (Jn 8:44) [Acts 13:10; 1 Jn 3:10].” - p. 472, vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan.

So a man who is from [literally “out of,” ek] the Devil (1 Jn 3:8), and is a ‘son of the Devil’ (Acts 13:10), and who is “with the Devil (whether physically or figuratively) may also be called “a devil” (Jn 6:70)! So Judas, for example, could be described in NT terms: “Judas was with ton diabolon [the Devil], and diabolos was Judas.” And no matter how anyone wants to interpret it, it would be incredibly wrong to insist (as many trinitarians do about the parallel statement at Jn 1:1c) that this meant Judas was literally, equally the Devil himself! Whether you translate it literally (“Judas was with the Devil, and Judas was a devil”) or ‘qualitatively’ (“Judas was with the Devil, and Judas had the “nature” of the Devil”), it would mean essentially the same thing: Judas simply shared to some degree some (or one) of the qualities of the Devil, but he is not equally the Devil with Satan himself!

Although trinitarian-translated Bibles at John 6:70 disagree, trinitarian scholar Daniel B. Wallace tries to solve this difficulty by saying that Jesus is actually calling Judas “THE Devil” here, but not in a literal sense. Think about that. Even with this unusual interpretation, we still find that calling Judas “the Devil” in a figurative sense means that Jesus is comparing Judas to Satan in some non-literal sense. He is not really calling Judas the actual Devil, but is merely referring to some quality of Satan that Judas exhibits to some degree. If that were really the case (although not supported by most trinitarian scholars), then the parallel John 1:1c would merely show the Word exhibiting some quality of God to some degree.

No reasonable person would accept any of this as evidence for some mysterious ‘Satanity’ where Judas is equally The Devil with Satan!

So why do so many trinitarians accept the very same unreasonable ‘evidence’ at John 1:1c as proof that the Word was equally God at John 1:1c?

 

[Wrangler]

the Word was like a god.”

Funny that you started this thread from the inside out from my perspective. I've been thinking of starting a thread about REAL lowercase-gods in the Bible, making Ps 82:1-6 as the starting point and working my way up to John 1:1c.

 

[tigger 2]

Funny that you started this thread from the inside out from my perspective. I've been thinking of starting a thread about REAL lowercase-gods in the Bible, making Ps 82:1-6 as the starting point and working my way up to John 1:1c.

...................................
Did you read post #4?

 

[Wrangler]

...................................
Did you read post #4?

Yes. I think you missed my point. Rather than have a thread focus on a verse, my thought was to focus on the idea of REAL lowercase-gods in the Bible. See the difference?

 

[tigger 2]

So can anyone explain why 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 it 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.

[I found an error in my first use of this evidence and have revised it.]

 

[marks]

Well then one of your errors is that theos should be translated equally in the same passage. The accusative and nomniative cases in Greek are the same so they should be read the same.

Also in technical grammatics- divine and its construct are adjectives, whereas in John 1 theos is a noun in both cases!

Good points!

Anyone who claims that these two instances of the same word be translated differently, I would think, is then obligated so show exactly why that is so.

Much love!

 

[tigger 2]

Good points!

Anyone who claims that these two instances of the same word be translated differently, I would think, is then obligated so show exactly why that is so.

Much love!

As already explained above (and in the study itself) The use of theos is the nominative form which can be used for subjects and (obviously) predicate nouns (as in John 1:1c itself). The use of theon is the accusative form which is used as an object as in John 1:1b. Since this study is concerned with how certain predicate nouns are used by John, we are not interested with any other form of nouns than the nominative form.

 

[marks]

we are not interested with any other form of nouns than the nominative form.

I see.

Much love!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

..................................
The nominative case theos is used for subjects and predicate nouns. The accusative case theon is used for objects. This includes direct objects and objects of certain prepositions. For the most part it has the definite article when as a direct object it refers to God. But it is not so certain when used as an object of a preposition.

But, no matter, since John 1:1c does not use it anyway, we have ignored it as an example of a predicate noun coming before its verb.

We also are not examining the NT Greek word for "divine."

Sorry but there is no prepositional phrase in John 1 Except for "in the beginning".

A preposition is a word or group of words used before a noun, pronoun, or noun phrase to show direction, time, place, location, spatial relationships, or to introduce an object. Some examples of prepositions are words like "in," "at," "on," "of," and "to."

Well theon and theos do appear, but that is due to case and location and construct. They are no different from each other.

And a definite article "the" signifies specificity. Example- the park versus just out. We cannot say the park versus a park, because we know from SCriptures there is only one true god and all the rest of beings called God are false.

And in a compound sentence object and subject are signified. THE word was with THE GOD (specificity) and in part B THE WORD is god. not god like or godly, god!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Good points!

Anyone who claims that these two instances of the same word be translated differently, I would think, is then obligated so show exactly why that is so.

Much love!

They try and fail miserably.

 

[tigger 2]

Sorry but there is no prepositional phrase in John 1 Except for "in the beginning".

A preposition is a word or group of words used before a noun, pronoun, or noun phrase to show direction, time, place, location, spatial relationships, or to introduce an object. Some examples of prepositions are words like "in," "at," "on," "of," and "to."

Well theon and theos do appear, but that is due to case and location and construct. They are no different from each other.

And a definite article "the" signifies specificity. Example- the park versus just out. We cannot say the park versus a park, because we know from SCriptures there is only one true god and all the rest of beings called God are false.

And in a compound sentence object and subject are signified. THE word was with THE GOD (specificity) and in part B THE WORD is god. not god like or godly, god!

....................................
John 1:1b says "and the word (nominative) was with (preposition) God (theon, accusative)".

All Grammar studies of John 1:1c recognize that theos is a predicate nominative which comes before its verb. That is what they examine. And this is what I have examined thoroughly.

Your insistence on ignoring the preposition in John 1:1b and in adding an accusative to the study of John 1:1c is either very ignorant or a purposeful device to deny the factual evidence.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

....................................
John 1:1b says "and the word (nominative) was with (preposition) God (theon, accusative)".

All Grammar studies of John 1:1c recognize that theos is a predicate nominative which comes before its verb. That is what they examine. And this is what I have examined thoroughly.

Your insistence on ignoring the preposition in John 1:1b and in adding an accusative to the study of John 1:1c is either very ignorant or a purposeful device to deny the factual evidence.

John 1:1
King James Version

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:1a starts with a preposition
JOhn 1:1b starts with a conjunction "with" is an informal preposition for it associates THE Word with THE God
John 1:1c starts with a conjunction.

and predicative nominatives- you are simply wrong:

A predicate nominative is a noun that follows the verb and renames the subject person, animal, or thing. It explains or defines the subject and is identical with it. The subject and the predicate noun are joined by a linking verb such as am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been, become, or seem.

Now as far as "with" it is considered to be a preposition, but is not a formal preposition. with is used to connect to one to another in space, time, etc.

I have not added an accusative in JOhn 1c I merely said that theos and theon are nominatives and accusatives and are similar in greek

Now, theos and logos in John 1c are both in the nominative so theos defines logos and logos defines theos!

 

[tigger 2]

John 1:1
King James Version

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:1a starts with a preposition
JOhn 1:1b starts with a conjunction "with" is an informal preposition for it associates THE Word with THE God
John 1:1c starts with a conjunction.

and predicative nominatives- you are simply wrong:

A predicate nominative is a noun that follows the verb and renames the subject person, animal, or thing. It explains or defines the subject and is identical with it. The subject and the predicate noun are joined by a linking verb such as am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been, become, or seem.

Now as far as "with" it is considered to be a preposition, but is not a formal preposition. with is used to connect to one to another in space, time, etc.

I have not added an accusative in JOhn 1c I merely said that theos and theon are nominatives and accusatives and are similar in greek

Now, theos and logos in John 1c are both in the nominative so theos defines logos and logos defines theos!

..............................................
But you did not say "nominatives and accusatives are similar." You said: "The accusative and nomniative [sic] cases in Greek are the same so they should be read the same [post 21]." You were attempting to use the accusative ton theon of John 1:1b to influence the translation of theos in John 1:1c. Now that you realize some of your ignorance concerning this, you still refuse to read the actual posts above which explain the intended meaning of John's grammar usage.

 

[Davy]

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.

Can't just make argument against many... Bible Scriptures into a word-play on the word Trinity. That is not valid scholarship, but word fallacy.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

..............................................
But you did not say "nominatives and accusatives are similar." You said: "The accusative and nomniative [sic] cases in Greek are the same so they should be read the same [post 21]." You were attempting to use the accusative ton theon of John 1:1b to influence the translation of theos in John 1:1c. Now that you realize some of your ignorance concerning this, you still refuse to read the actual posts above which explain the intended meaning of John's grammar usage.

No I wasn't trying to use theos in the b part to influence theon in the c part. You are wrong! they are the same word with the exact same definition in the b and c.

In teh c both logos and theon are nominative and theon is a predicate nominative that is used to describe logos


It is the same word with the same meaning- just a different construct in the Greek because of the case.

theos or theon cannot be translated any other thing than god.

What is the Accusative Case?

• of, relating to, or being the grammatical case that marks the direct object of a verb or the object of any of several prepositions

Although the accusative case exists in English, it isn’t obvious because for the most part, the endings of the words don’t change. In the Greek language, the accusative case is more obvious because it affects the endings of the words.

In other words, the accusative case may as well be meaningless in English since it doesn’t have a direct impact on the words themselves. This can cause people some issues when trying to understand what it is in Greek.

How to Use the Accusative Case (αιτιατική) in Greek
There are some predictable rules in Greek with how the accusative case is used. Here’s an overview:

• The accusative is always used after certain prepositions, such as σε – se – in, into, με – me – with, από – apo – from, για – gia – for, to, about

The prepositions and accusative forms are boldfaced in the following examples:

• Το κορίτσι μιλάει με το αγόρι. To koritsi milaei me to agora. The girl is speaking with the boy.
• Οι μαθητές πηγαίνουν στο σχολείο. I mathites piyenoon sto skoleio. The students go to school.
• Το δώρο είναι από τη φίλη μου. To thoro eenai apo ti fili mou. The gift is from my girlfriend.
• Το τυρί είναι για τη γάτα. To tiri eenai ya ti gata. The cheese is for the cat.

Keep in mind that the accusative case also represents the part of the sentence that answers the question what, who, or to whom. So in a sentence like this, the accusative is boldfaced:


Case nominative
Glossary
Nominative is the case used to identify the subject. Because verbs include the subject, the nominative case is used in apposition (or placed next) to the subject of the verb to add further identification. The nominative case is also used as a predicate nominative to equate or describe the subject when used with a linking verb. The nominative is normally the form listed as the headword in a dictionary entry (as the lemma).

 

[ElieG12]

No I wasn't trying to use theos in the b part to influence theon in the c part. You are wrong! they are the same word with the exact same definition in the b and c.

In teh c both logos and theon are nominative and theon is a predicate nominative that is used to describe logos


It is the same word with the same meaning- just a different construct in the Greek because of the case.

theos or theon cannot be translated any other thing than god.

(...)

Grammar is not a field for newbies to brag about... The meaning of a word in Greek is more than a copy/paste from GreekBoston.com

The word "god" in Greek means many diferent things depending not only if it is in a specific case, but depending on to whom it is aplied, if it has the definite article or not, and a lot more aspects of languages.

 

[tigger 2]

No I wasn't trying to use theos in the b part to influence theon in the c part. You are wrong! they are the same word with the exact same definition in the b and c.

In teh c both logos and theon are nominative and theon is a predicate nominative that is used to describe logos


It is the same word with the same meaning- just a different construct in the Greek because of the case.

theos or theon cannot be translated any other thing than god.

What is the Accusative Case?

• of, relating to, or being the grammatical case that marks the direct object of a verb or the object of any of several prepositions

Although the accusative case exists in English, it isn’t obvious because for the most part, the endings of the words don’t change. In the Greek language, the accusative case is more obvious because it affects the endings of the words.

In other words, the accusative case may as well be meaningless in English since it doesn’t have a direct impact on the words themselves. This can cause people some issues when trying to understand what it is in Greek.

How to Use the Accusative Case (αιτιατική) in Greek
There are some predictable rules in Greek with how the accusative case is used. Here’s an overview:

• The accusative is always used after certain prepositions, such as σε – se – in, into, με – me – with, από – apo – from, για – gia – for, to, about

The prepositions and accusative forms are boldfaced in the following examples:

• Το κορίτσι μιλάει με το αγόρι. To koritsi milaei me to agora. The girl is speaking with the boy.
• Οι μαθητές πηγαίνουν στο σχολείο. I mathites piyenoon sto skoleio. The students go to school.
• Το δώρο είναι από τη φίλη μου. To thoro eenai apo ti fili mou. The gift is from my girlfriend.
• Το τυρί είναι για τη γάτα. To tiri eenai ya ti gata. The cheese is for the cat.

Keep in mind that the accusative case also represents the part of the sentence that answers the question what, who, or to whom. So in a sentence like this, the accusative is boldfaced:


Case nominative
Glossary
Nominative is the case used to identify the subject. Because verbs include the subject, the nominative case is used in apposition (or placed next) to the subject of the verb to add further identification. The nominative case is also used as a predicate nominative to equate or describe the subject when used with a linking verb. The nominative is normally the form listed as the headword in a dictionary entry (as the lemma).

............................................

Mostly gibberish. Why not actually read my study and comment on any provable errors?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Well let me sum up! You cannot use theon as God and theos as divine simply because of their case! divine is theios which is a different word.

Divine is a descriptive of nature or used as a neuter for divinities.

theos and its derivatives in the cases is only God. Many authors (this one included) will often use divine synonymously for God to delinieate between nature and specific person! But as Scripture declares there are only three "people" who are truly divine.

And that "gibberish" as you call it is learning grammar! that leads me to believe you are either parroting others or just using prefundamental knowledge of Greek.