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

[tigger 2]

RN #37:

"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."
..........................................

There is no theos in Jn 1:1b. And there is no theon in John 1:1c. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Why don't you actually read the study and make an honest comment concerning what's actually there?

 

[Robert Gwin]

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 Predicate Noun Precedes Its Verb

an. Jn 1:1 (verse under study) ||||| an. Jn 12:36 - prep.

an. Jn 1:12 - prep. |||||||||||||||||an. Jn 12:50 - abstract

an. Jn 1:14 - plural (amount) ||||| an. Jn 13:35 - prep. (poss. pronoun)

art. Jn 1:21 (the prophet) ||||||||art. Jn 15:1 (b)

an. Jn 1:49 (b) - prep. ||||||||||||| an. Jn 15:14 - prep.

an. Jn 2:9 - accusative, not p.n|| an. Jn 17:17 - abstract

an. Jn 3:6 (a) - plural (amount) || an. Jn 18:26 - prep.

an. Jn 3:6 (b) - abstract # | || -an. Jn 18:35

an. Jn 3:29 - participle |||| #an Jn 18:37 (a)

-an. Jn 4:9 (a) ||||| an. Jn 18:37 (b) - no subject (except in TR)

an. Jn 4:9 (b) (adj.?) |||||| an. Jn 19:21 - prep.

#an. Jn 4:19 (a prophet) || art. Jn 20:15

an. Jn 4:24 - abstr. # - NO VERB | art. Jn 21:7 (a)

an. Jn 5:27 - prep. |||||||| art. Jn 21:7 (b)

art. Jn 6:51 (b) - prep. |||||| art. Jn 21:12

an. Jn 6:63 - abstract |||||| an. 1 Jn 1:5 (b) - abstract #

-an Jn 6:70 ||||| an. 1 Jn 2:2 - prep.

an. Jn 8:31 - prep. ||||| an. 1 Jn 2:4 - participle

an. Jn 8:33 - prep. |||| an. 1 Jn 3:2 - prep.

an. Jn 8:34 - prep. |||| an. 1 Jn 3:15 - participle

an. Jn 8:37 - prep. |||| an. 1 Jn 4:8 - abstract

an. Jn 8:39 - prep. |||| an. 1 Jn 4:16 - abstract

an. Jn 8:42 - prep. |||| an. 1 Jn 4:20 - no subject

-an. Jn 8:44 (a) |||||| an. 1 Jn 5:17 - abstract

an. Jn 8:44 (b) - no subject ||| art. 2 Jn :6 (b)

#an. Jn 8:48 |||| an. Rev. 1:20 (a) - prep.

an. Jn 8:54 (a) - abstract ||| an. Rev. 1:20 (b) - numeral

an. Jn 8:54 (b) - prep. ||||| an. Rev. 2:9 - accusative, not p.n.

an. Jn 9:5 - prep. |||||| an. Rev. 3:9 - accusative, not p.n.

an. Jn 9:8 (a) - no subject ||| an. Rev. 13:18 - prep.

an. Jn 9:17 - no subject |||| an. Rev. 14:4 - no subject/plural

-an. Jn 9:24||||| an. Rev. 17:9 - numeral

an. Jn 9:25 - no subject|||| an. Rev. 17:10 - numeral

an. Jn 9:27 - prep. ||||||| an. Rev. 17:11 - numeral

an. Jn 9:28 (a) - prep. ||||| an. Rev. 17:12 - numeral

-an. Jn 10:1||||| an. Rev. 17:14 - prep.

an. Jn 10:2 - prep. |||||||| an. Rev. 17:15 - plural

an. Jn 10:8 - plural |||||||| an. Rev. 18:7 - no subject

an. Jn 10:13 - no subject |||| art. Rev. 19:8 - prep.

art. Jn 10:21 - prep. |||| art. Rev. 19:9 - prep.

-an. Jn 10:33 ||||| an. Rev. 19:10 (a) - prep.

an. Jn 10:34 - plural ||||| art. Rev. 20:14 - numeral

an. Jn 10:36 - prep. ||||| an. Rev. 21:3 - prep.

an. Jn 11:49 - prep.||||| an. Rev. 21:22 - prep.

an. Jn 11:51 - prep. ||||| art. Rev. 21:23 - prep. - NO VERB

an. Jn 12:6 - no subject |||||| 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.

Tigger, I salute you sir for the hours of research that must have taken to accumulate all of that info. I hope it helps others who are searching for sure, if it reaches just one persons heart enough to motivate them to life, your sacrifice was worth it sir. You truly sank your heart into it, caring more than I ever did to bring the truth of that verse to others. I generally just show them Acts 28:6 to show the inconsistency of their translators, and to show their deliberate manipulation to support a belief. Really well researched material. Bob

 

[Robert Gwin]

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 Predicate Noun Precedes Its Verb

an. Jn 1:1 (verse under study) ||||| an. Jn 12:36 - prep.

an. Jn 1:12 - prep. |||||||||||||||||an. Jn 12:50 - abstract

an. Jn 1:14 - plural (amount) ||||| an. Jn 13:35 - prep. (poss. pronoun)

art. Jn 1:21 (the prophet) ||||||||art. Jn 15:1 (b)

an. Jn 1:49 (b) - prep. ||||||||||||| an. Jn 15:14 - prep.

an. Jn 2:9 - accusative, not p.n|| an. Jn 17:17 - abstract

an. Jn 3:6 (a) - plural (amount) || an. Jn 18:26 - prep.

an. Jn 3:6 (b) - abstract # | || -an. Jn 18:35

an. Jn 3:29 - participle |||| #an Jn 18:37 (a)

-an. Jn 4:9 (a) ||||| an. Jn 18:37 (b) - no subject (except in TR)

an. Jn 4:9 (b) (adj.?) |||||| an. Jn 19:21 - prep.

#an. Jn 4:19 (a prophet) || art. Jn 20:15

an. Jn 4:24 - abstr. # - NO VERB | art. Jn 21:7 (a)

an. Jn 5:27 - prep. |||||||| art. Jn 21:7 (b)

art. Jn 6:51 (b) - prep. |||||| art. Jn 21:12

an. Jn 6:63 - abstract |||||| an. 1 Jn 1:5 (b) - abstract #

-an Jn 6:70 ||||| an. 1 Jn 2:2 - prep.

an. Jn 8:31 - prep. ||||| an. 1 Jn 2:4 - participle

an. Jn 8:33 - prep. |||| an. 1 Jn 3:2 - prep.

an. Jn 8:34 - prep. |||| an. 1 Jn 3:15 - participle

an. Jn 8:37 - prep. |||| an. 1 Jn 4:8 - abstract

an. Jn 8:39 - prep. |||| an. 1 Jn 4:16 - abstract

an. Jn 8:42 - prep. |||| an. 1 Jn 4:20 - no subject

-an. Jn 8:44 (a) |||||| an. 1 Jn 5:17 - abstract

an. Jn 8:44 (b) - no subject ||| art. 2 Jn :6 (b)

#an. Jn 8:48 |||| an. Rev. 1:20 (a) - prep.

an. Jn 8:54 (a) - abstract ||| an. Rev. 1:20 (b) - numeral

an. Jn 8:54 (b) - prep. ||||| an. Rev. 2:9 - accusative, not p.n.

an. Jn 9:5 - prep. |||||| an. Rev. 3:9 - accusative, not p.n.

an. Jn 9:8 (a) - no subject ||| an. Rev. 13:18 - prep.

an. Jn 9:17 - no subject |||| an. Rev. 14:4 - no subject/plural

-an. Jn 9:24||||| an. Rev. 17:9 - numeral

an. Jn 9:25 - no subject|||| an. Rev. 17:10 - numeral

an. Jn 9:27 - prep. ||||||| an. Rev. 17:11 - numeral

an. Jn 9:28 (a) - prep. ||||| an. Rev. 17:12 - numeral

-an. Jn 10:1||||| an. Rev. 17:14 - prep.

an. Jn 10:2 - prep. |||||||| an. Rev. 17:15 - plural

an. Jn 10:8 - plural |||||||| an. Rev. 18:7 - no subject

an. Jn 10:13 - no subject |||| art. Rev. 19:8 - prep.

art. Jn 10:21 - prep. |||| art. Rev. 19:9 - prep.

-an. Jn 10:33 ||||| an. Rev. 19:10 (a) - prep.

an. Jn 10:34 - plural ||||| art. Rev. 20:14 - numeral

an. Jn 10:36 - prep. ||||| an. Rev. 21:3 - prep.

an. Jn 11:49 - prep.||||| an. Rev. 21:22 - prep.

an. Jn 11:51 - prep. ||||| art. Rev. 21:23 - prep. - NO VERB

an. Jn 12:6 - no subject |||||| 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.

I was able to copy this today and add to my notes. Thanks again. Sad thing is, the translators new this as well, yet chose to alter God's word.

 

[Mr E]

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?

This is a great observation that so many miss. Jesus is 'the word' in the same sense that Judas was 'the devil.' So in what sense was that?

Well, we know that in the case of Judas-- Satan entered him.

After the morsel, Satan then entered into him.

And so with Jesus-- 'the Holy Spirit' descended and rested upon him.

“I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him."

--the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove...

Think on this.

 

[tigger 2]

This is a great observation that so many miss. Jesus is 'the word' in the same sense that Judas was 'the devil.' So in what sense was that?

Well, we know that in the case of Judas-- Satan entered him.

After the morsel, Satan then entered into him.

And so with Jesus-- 'the Holy Spirit' descended and rested upon him.

“I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him."

--the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove...

Think on this.

................................................
I'm not sure that I understand what your point is. Sorry.

 

[Mr E]

................................................
I'm not sure that I understand what your point is. Sorry.

The point is that the Holy Spirit "enters" a person the same way Satan "entered" Judas.

 

[tigger 2]

The point is that the Holy Spirit "enters" a person the same way Satan "entered" Judas.

I'm still waiting for any errors in my study of John 1:1c to be revealed.

 

[Mr E]

I'm still waiting for any errors in my study of John 1:1c to be revealed.

The errors are not in your translation or interpretation, but in your understanding.

You hit it on the head when you said--

I'm not sure that I understand what your point is. Sorry.

 

[tigger 2]

The errors are not in your translation or interpretation, but in your understanding.

You hit it on the head when you said--

So exactly what was the error found in my posted excerpts of my study of John 1:1c?

 

[Heart2Soul]

You are challenging members to find error in your translations....or the translations of what other theologians have come up with. So really, there isn't anything to say about your translations. However, there is much to say on the translations of the theologians and Bible scholars you have copied and pasted.

Have you ever considered that the Word of God is a LIVING Word and that the wisdom, knowledge and understanding of it can only come from the help of the Holy Spirit and having a spiritual mind. For we know the scripture says that a carnal mind is enmity against God....

I receive new revelation knowledge of scripture all the time. I have read the entire Bible and then as I re-read it I am hit with that sudden "oh wow!" moment
Because there was something in a scripture that I never saw before.
I am always in search of Truth and the Holy Spirit IS the Spirit of TRUTH and will teach me and guide me to understand God's Word with clarity.
Another thing I have discovered is that scripture interprets scripture. So it takes alot of cross referencing to end up with a solid conclusive Truth.
Finally, we are to test every spirit to know if it is of God or not...to rightly divide the truth, to discern any false teaching....and if you are being taught by the Holy Spirit you need no man to teach you otherwise.

Now having said all that, I regret to inform you this thread is locked due to a new rule about starting trinity threads.
So until further notice it will remain locked.