How the New Word Translation Contradicts Itself: The Word was a god

[Wrangler]

You ignore the argument: the koine was all caps …If there is a difference between THE GOD, and GOD, then it must be doctrinally made.

The presence or absence of definite articles is not a matter of CAPITALUZATION.

‘I gave him apples’ denotes something different from ‘I gave him THE apple.’ You know this. You just don’t want to acknowledge the significance of it.

It is a grammatical difference, the presence or absence of definite articles.

 

[robert derrick]

And you missed the point about what the word "theos" means in the first place.
Strongs primary definition of "theos" is..."a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities"....so Jesus fits the definition of "a god" as his Father's divine representative. Do you see "deities or divinities".....Jesus was never "deity", but indisputably "divine" in origin.....and by authorization, the one chosen by God to redeem mankind. An immortal God cannot die,


You have provided no scripture to back up a thing you've said. Post #66 is the scriptural explanation of why Jesus is NOT said to be "ho theos" in any verse in the whole Bible.

Calling him "theos" does not make him "God" any more than calling him "Lord" does.

You can go back to the first post.

Otherwise, end of discussion.

 

[robert derrick]

The presence or absence of definite articles is not a matter of CAPITALUZATION.

‘I gave him apples’ denotes something different from ‘I gave him THE apple.’ You know this. You just don’t want to acknowledge the significance of it.

It is a grammatical difference, the presence or absence of definite articles.

Ok, I'll go down this road once, since I have not fully addressed it. I will use NWT to be consistent, since it translates the word as a god.

1.
Nevertheless, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those who are not really GODS.

There is no Greek definite article for God even as in John 1:1.

Grammatical consistency requires either both are God, or a god:

Nevertheless, when you did not know a god...

To do differently, is doctrinal context only.

2.
The use of the indefinite article 'a' before a noun, without a corresponding Greek article, is false translation. There is never an 'a' without a Greek article.

And so, 'a' god is only inserted for doctrinal reasons: 'a' god is false, even as 'a' beginning would be false. Neither have a Greek article.

The same is for giving different upper and lower cases.

The Word was with God, and the Word was god.


3.
To be consistent in John 1:1 where there is a god:

In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

And with this consistent translation, I would completely agree: In a beginning on earth, there was a god called the Word, which man began to teach after John 1:1 was written.

Which is exactly what happened.

 

[Wrangler]

There is no Greek definite article for God even as in John 1:1.

Grammatical consistency requires either both are God, or a god:

I cannot believe you are serious. but I do believe you continue to post verses without citing the book, chapter verse.

The contrast you are drawing fails because "those" are referring to other Beings, not non-Beings, such as words.

Even if you claim this as an example of inconsistency, it does not make NWT wrong about John 1:1.

The use of the indefinite article 'a' before a noun, without a corresponding Greek article, is false translation.

Pronouncement that has been repeatedly debunked. What's telling is the absence of the definite article. Most people with a passing familiarity with Greek no the absence of the definite article implies the indefinite, generic reference, e.g., I opened a book last night.

3.
To be consistent in John 1:1 where there is a god:

In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

And with this consistent translation

Can you explain how anything can be with what it is and be the same thing? Logic, language usage and definition. If I say that I am an American and am with an American, that means there are 2 Beings.

So, in addition to the absence of the definite article, parsing God from a god, is this consistent application of logic, language usage and definition.

 

[robert derrick]

I cannot believe you are serious. but I do believe you continue to post verses without citing the book, chapter verse.

The contrast you are drawing fails because "those" are referring to other Beings, not non-Beings, such as words.

Even if you claim this as an example of inconsistency, it does not make NWT wrong about John 1:1.

You just dismissed that your Greek article argument is false. In John 1:1 you demand the translation be for a god, and not God, and in Gal 4:8 you allow it for God, and not a god.

Your translation arguments are doctrinal, not grammatical.

Can you explain how anything can be with what it is and be the same thing? Logic, language usage and definition. If I say that I am an American and am with an American, that means there are 2 Beings.

And so, you return to old hat carnal arguments, that have already be responded to. Which responses you ignore.

As I said, none of these arguments mean anything to you, but are just intellectual games.

All you really care about is doing away with a tormenting hell for wicked souls. The mortal soul and created christ arguments are just sideshows.

And so, until you have something new to play with, then there's no more discussion. I don't argue for just argument's sake, which is what you people love to do.

 

[Wrangler]

You just dismissed that your Greek article argument is false. In John 1:1 you demand the translation be for a god, and not God, and in Gal 4:8 you allow it for God, and not a god.

Your translation arguments are doctrinal, not grammatical.

No. They are grammatical not doctrinal. Reating this strawman does not make it so.

 

[Wrangler]

Can you explain how anything can be with what it is and be the same thing? Logic, language usage and definition. If I say that I am an American and am with an American, that means there are 2 Beings.

So, in addition to the absence of the definite article, parsing God from a god, is this consistent application of logic, language usage and definition.

And so, you return to old hat carnal arguments, that have already be responded to. Which responses you ignore.

Rather than tell me you already answered this question, try actually answering the question. Can you explain how anything can be with what it is and be the same thing? Logic, language usage and definition. If I say that I am an American and am with an American, that means there are 2 Beings.

 

[robert derrick]

And so, with the pseudo-grammatical argument, we have a double conclusion:

All translations of the Word as a god, condemn themselves by making a god, that is elsewhere rebuked as not really a god at all.

As well as contradicting themselves, by translating a god in one place, and translating the same word as God elsewhere.

All translations of apostolic written Greek, must be doctrinal, if they are not translated with all caps, just as the Greek.

And that is the case for the apostles' own pens in hand: they would never have thought the doctrine of the Godhead relied solely upon case lettering.

If all NT Scripture written in Greek, were translated accurately into ALL CAPS like the Greek, then it would still rely on doctrinal dividing of the Word, to show there is the one true GOD, and then there is A GOD and GODS, that are no GODS at all.

To interpret the WORD as A GOD, is to condemn that word and christ as a false GOD made by man, not revealed by God.

 

[robert derrick]

Rather than tell me you already answered this question, try actually answering the question. Can you explain how anything can be with what it is and be the same thing? Logic, language usage and definition. If I say that I am an American and am with an American, that means there are 2 Beings.

I have learned from created christ and OSAS folks, to take the Scripture serious, not to repeat myself for then once or twice at most.

It's all just a string along game with you.

Unless you address responses I've already given on certain points of yours, or come up with something new and interesting to respond to, then we're done here.

 

[Wrangler]

I have learned from created christ and OSAS folks

Of course Christ is created! Acts 2:36 says so explicitly.

I specifically asked you about this and it means nothing to you. We are done here.

 

[tigger 2]

And so, with the pseudo-grammatical argument, we have a double conclusion:

All translations of the Word as a god, condemn themselves by making a god, that is elsewhere rebuked as not really a god at all.

As well as contradicting themselves, by translating a god in one place, and translating the same word as God elsewhere.

All translations of apostolic written Greek, must be doctrinal, if they are not translated with all caps, just as the Greek.

And that is the case for the apostles' own pens in hand: they would never have thought the doctrine of the Godhead relied solely upon case lettering.

If all NT Scripture written in Greek, were translated accurately into ALL CAPS like the Greek, then it would still rely on doctrinal dividing of the Word, to show there is the one true GOD, and then there is A GOD and GODS, that are no GODS at all.

To interpret the WORD as A GOD, is to condemn that word and christ as a false GOD made by man, not revealed by God.

..............................................
John 1:1c - English translations: "The Word was God [or 'a god']."
-- NT Greek: θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
---------------"god was the word."

The NT Greek word for "God" and "god" is theos (θεὸς). In the writings of all the Gospel writers (including John), when an unmodified theos (the form used for subjects and predicate nouns) is accompanied by the article, "the" (ὁ [pronounced ho] in Greek), and has no added phrases (e.g., "the god of this world"), then it always refers to the only true God. - (See my DEF study for a list of all uses of theos in John and the other Gospels.)

But Jn 1:1c has an unmodified "theos" (nominative case) without the article. Therefore, even a few trinitarian scholars feel forced to admit that this passage may be literally translated as "the Word was a god"! This includes W. E. Vine (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words); Dr. C. H. Dodd (director of the New English Bible project); Murray J. Harris (Jesus as God); Dr. Robert Young (Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary); Rev. J. W. Wenham, The Elements of New Testament Greek. Of course, being trinitarians, they often insist that the correct interpretation of such a literal translation must be, somehow, trinitarian.

The usual trinitarian interpretation for John 1:1c ("the Word was God") is based on the fact that an unmodified theos is used as a predicate noun (predicate nominative) without a definite article (anarthrous) and comes before the verb in the original New Testament (NT) Greek. When you find an anarthrous predicate noun in that position, some trinitarians will say, it is to be interpreted differently ("qualitative" or "definite": i.e., as though it actually had the definite article with it) from a predicate noun which normally comes after the verb.

But when they present examples to prove this opinion, they invariably have to use improper examples. Some (as in this discussion) even attempt to use the other cases for the Greek words meaning ‘God.’ These include the accusative case (theon), the genitive case (theou), the dative case (theo), and the vocative (thee). These vary in their clear use and non-use of the definite article, but none are as certain as the nominative case (theos in John 1:1c)

Some other reasons for eliminating examples supposed to be parallel to John 1:1c include: using nominative nouns which are non-count nouns; nominative nouns which are part of prepositional phrases (‘man of God,’ ‘wife of him,’ etc.) personal names; abstract nouns.

So when you eliminate such improper examples which are not parallel to John 1:1c anyway, you will find that the examples remaining (nearly 20 in all the writings of John) are translated into English with an indefinite article (“a king”; “a prophet”; “a man”; etc.)

So, just as in all the proper examples, John 1:1c should read "a god."

John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity

(From the RDB Files) John 1:1 Primer For Grammatical Rules " Proving " the Trinity John 1:1c - English translation: "The Word wa...

examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com

 

[Aunty Jane]

The NWT contradicts itself by translating John 1:1 as the Word was a god, because it does accurately translate several other Scripture, that declare there is no such thing as any god, really being a god:

Can a man make gods for himself, When they are not really gods?

Nevertheless, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those who are not really gods.

By their own translation, they make a god of the Word, and so a god unto themselves, which they also declare cannot really be a god at all.

LOL....and now what? You want me to repeat everything you have ignored?

 

[The Learner]

"Colwell discovered that "Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article ... a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun ...""( E. C. Colwell, A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament, in Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933) 20.)

 

[The Learner]

For an Answer: Christian Apologetics - John 1

 

[The Learner]

https://www.equip.org/PDF/DJ520.pdf

 

[tigger 2]

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

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...

www.christianityboard.com

John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity

DEFinite John 1:1c

The "Definite" John 1:1 (part 1 of 4) ( View Entire File ) (An RDB File) ( Note: I did the bulk of the personal research for th...

examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com

 

[robert derrick]

..............................................
John 1:1c - English translations: "The Word was God [or 'a god']."
-- NT Greek: θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
---------------"god was the word."

The NT Greek word for "God" and "god" is theos (θεὸς). In the writings of all the Gospel writers (including John), when an unmodified theos (the form used for subjects and predicate nouns) is accompanied by the article, "the" (ὁ [pronounced ho] in Greek), and has no added phrases (e.g., "the god of this world"), then it always refers to the only true God. - (See my DEF study for a list of all uses of theos in John and the other Gospels.)

But Jn 1:1c has an unmodified "theos" (nominative case) without the article. Therefore, even a few trinitarian scholars feel forced to admit that this passage may be literally translated as "the Word was a god"! This includes W. E. Vine (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words); Dr. C. H. Dodd (director of the New English Bible project); Murray J. Harris (Jesus as God); Dr. Robert Young (Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary); Rev. J. W. Wenham, The Elements of New Testament Greek. Of course, being trinitarians, they often insist that the correct interpretation of such a literal translation must be, somehow, trinitarian.

The usual trinitarian interpretation for John 1:1c ("the Word was God") is based on the fact that an unmodified theos is used as a predicate noun (predicate nominative) without a definite article (anarthrous) and comes before the verb in the original New Testament (NT) Greek. When you find an anarthrous predicate noun in that position, some trinitarians will say, it is to be interpreted differently ("qualitative" or "definite": i.e., as though it actually had the definite article with it) from a predicate noun which normally comes after the verb.

But when they present examples to prove this opinion, they invariably have to use improper examples. Some (as in this discussion) even attempt to use the other cases for the Greek words meaning ‘God.’ These include the accusative case (theon), the genitive case (theou), the dative case (theo), and the vocative (thee). These vary in their clear use and non-use of the definite article, but none are as certain as the nominative case (theos in John 1:1c)

Some other reasons for eliminating examples supposed to be parallel to John 1:1c include: using nominative nouns which are non-count nouns; nominative nouns which are part of prepositional phrases (‘man of God,’ ‘wife of him,’ etc.) personal names; abstract nouns.

So when you eliminate such improper examples which are not parallel to John 1:1c anyway, you will find that the examples remaining (nearly 20 in all the writings of John) are translated into English with an indefinite article (“a king”; “a prophet”; “a man”; etc.)

So, just as in all the proper examples, John 1:1c should read "a god."

John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity

(From the RDB Files) John 1:1 Primer For Grammatical Rules " Proving " the Trinity John 1:1c - English translation: "The Word wa...

examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.

No articles for God, even as in John 1:1.

Only in John 1:1, do the pagan god and christ makers insist on the non-article be a god.

Also, in the beginning also has no article, so that none is needed to speak of the beginning, nor the God.

Here is pagan man's translation for John 1:1, where they insist the nonarticle be a god:

In a beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.

Which is what happened when pagan men first made the word a god, and not God.

There was a beginning, when the word was made a god by men, some time after John 1:1 was written in Scripture.

And that god is a man-made pagan god and false christ, that is no god nor Christ Jesus at all.

 

[robert derrick]

Of course Christ is created! Acts 2:36 says so explicitly.

I specifically asked you about this and it means nothing to you. We are done here.

Correct. I am not a pagan believer in gods and hero worship of deified men.

 

[robert derrick]

Rather than tell me you already answered this question, try actually answering the question. Can you explain how anything can be with what it is and be the same thing? Logic, language usage and definition. If I say that I am an American and am with an American, that means there are 2 Beings.

If you care enough to know, you will go back and read what I already told you, rather than just skip over it as usual.

 

[Wrangler]

Correct. I am not a pagan believer in gods and hero worship of deified men.

Not responsive to the Scriture which Jesus God made Jesus - both, lord and Messiah.

This is not equivalent to God making himself lord and messiah. God made somebody else, some other being these things. Isn’t that what Acts 2:36 says?