As to John 1b and the word with(pros) you are incorrect:
The KJV translates Strong's G4314 in the following manner: unto (340x),
to (203x),
with (43x),
for (25x),
against (24x),
among (20x),
at (11x),
not translated (6x),
miscellaneous (53x), variations of 'to' (1x).
it is a directional word and has many english uses. context determines which is best and KJV shows with 43X.
As for your opinion of John 1c you are simply wring. the word god in both instances is theos and must by rule be translated as the same. If the writer wished to simply describe a characteristic (meaning godly) then in this case they would have used the very commonly known noun theotes which means godly or god like. So your argument fails biblically, linguistically and grammatically.
As for the false argument you make about Messiah in John 1:1-3 yes you are correct that Jesus is not specifically named in those three verses. but John 1:14-18, 1 Tim 2 , and Phil. 2 explicitly and umambiguously tell us that teh Word is Jesus!
Ron, you are pulling straws here again.
I will only give you one area of credit and then it does not change a thing. I said that 'with' used for the Greek 'pros' was used only 3 percent of the time. You show 6 percent. So I will agree with this figure of 6 percent then. And does this move the needle Ron? Of course you know it does not at all.
and for John 1:1c again from other sources beside my view...
Since the definite article is missing from the second occurrence of “
theos” (“God,”) the usual meaning would be “god” or “divine.”
The New English Bible gets the sense of this phrase by translating it, “What God was, the Word was.” James Moffatt who was a professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at Mansfield College in Oxford, England, and author of the well-known
Moffatt Bible, translated the phrase, “the
logos was divine.”
And now from a well known TRINITARIAN Ron..
---------------------------------------
A very clear explanation of how to translate
theos without the definite article can be found in
Jesus As They Knew Him, by William Barclay, a professor at Trinity College in Glasgow:
In a case like this we cannot do other than go to the Greek, which is
theos en ho logos.
Ho is the definite article, the, and it can be seen that there is a definite article with
logos, but not with
theos. When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb “to be,” and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully intended to be identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article,
it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or sphere to which the other belongs.
An illustration from English will make this clear. If I say, “The preacher is
the man,” I use the definite article before both preacher and man, and I thereby identify the preacher with some quite definite individual man whom I have in mind. But, if I say, “The preacher is man,” I have omitted the definite article before man, and what I mean is that the preacher must be classified as a man, he is in the sphere of manhood, he is a human being.
and another source:
[In the last clause of
John 1:1] John has no article before
theos, God. The
logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word
theos has become
adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs. We would, therefore, have to say that this means that the
logos belongs to the same sphere as God; without being identified with God, the
logos has the same kind of life and being as God. Here the NEB [
New English Bible] finds the perfect translation: “What God was, the Word was.”
[5] William Barclay, Jesus as They Knew Him (Harper and Row, N.Y., 1962), pp. 21 and 22.
I think you might want to reconsider and do some more research before you fire back at me with more blanks...
The Messiah is not in John 1:1 Ron
End of Story....
APAK
