The answer of hell and its origins

[The Learner]

Again the qualitative aspect of the predicate is most prominent; they [the Jews] think that Jesus has the nature or character of one who is "sinner." There is no basis for regarding the predicate as definite, although in this instance we would probably use the indefinite article in English translation (IBID, p. 83).

Harner stresses that when considering whether a pre-verbal predicate noun is definite, indefinite, or qualitative, it is important to consider how the writer might have expressed his intentions using another, and possibly less ambiguous, syntax as well as what he actually wrote. Thus, with John 1:1c, Harner notes the following possibilities:

A. hO LOGOS ÊN hO THEOS
B. THEOS ÊN hO LOGOS
C. hO LOGOS THEOS ÊN
D. hO LOGOS ÊN THEOS
E. hO LOGOS ÊN THEIOS

Clause A, with an arthrous predicate, would mean that logos and theos are equivalent and interchangeable. There would be no ho theos which is not also ho logos. But this equation of the two would contradict the preceding clause of 1:1, in which John writes that`o logoV hn proV ton qeon. This clause suggests relationship, and thus some form of "personal" differentiation, between the two (IBID, p. 84-85).

So, Harner, in agreement with Robertson, Dana & Mantey, and most other scholars cited above, notes that if both THEOS and LOGOS were articular, the two terms would be convertible. Since John did not use this syntax, his intended meaning must be something else. Harner continues:

Clause D, with the verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the logos was "a god" or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos but as a distinct being from ho theos. Clause E would be an attenuated form of D. It would mean that the logos was "divine," without specifying further in what way or to what extent it was divine. It could also imply that the logos, being only theios, was subordinate to theos (IBID).

Thus, Harner notes that had John wished to express the idea that the LOGOS was "a god," or a divine being distinct from hO THEOS, he had at least two unambiguous ways of doing so. Since he did not, we may conclude that John in all likelihood chose the syntax he did because he wished to express something else with regard to the LOGOS.

 

[The Learner]

Clauses B and C, with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. This would make B and C equivalent to A, and like A they would then contradict the preceding clause of 1:1 (IBID).

Note here that Harner equates a definite semantic force in a pre-verbal PN without the article to an articular noun. He sees both forms as examples of a convertible proposition. This is the major point of contention between scholars who regard THEOS in 1:1c as definite as opposed to those who see it as qualitative. Scholars on both sides interpret this clause in more or less the same way, as Harner himself notes: "In many cases their [commentators'] interpretations agree with the explanation that is given above" (IBID). Those who agree with Harner reject a definite force because they view it as semantically the same as a convertible proposition, which would present problems with regard to the previous clause (1:1b). Those who view THEOS as definite believe the absence of the article precludes the possibility of convertibility. Yet both generally agree that the meaning of 1:1c is as Harner himself translates it: "The Word had the same nature as God" (IBID, p. 87).

 

[The Learner]

Harner continues:

As John has just spoken in terms of relationship and differentiation between ho logos and ho theos, he would imply in B or C that they share the same nature as belonging to the reality theos. Clauses B and C are identical in meaning but differ slightly in emphasis. C would mean that the logos (rather than something else) had the nature of theos. B means that the logos had the nature of theos (rather than something else). In this clause, the form that John actually uses, the word theos is placed at the beginning for emphasis (IBID, p. 85).

Thus, Harner says that not only is John attributing the nature of THEOS to the LOGOS, but emphasizes that nature by placing THEOS at the head of the clause. The emphasis of THEOS would seem unaccountable if John intended an indefinite nuance, but is perfectly understandable if THEOS is qualitative, signifying that the Son's nature is that of God.

Paul Dixon
Dixon's study is the first of several to challenge the popular application of Colwell's rule. Dixon notes that Colwell's data begins with definite PNs and demonstrates that these usually lack the article. However, those using the rule to "prove" that THEOS in John 1:1c is definite (including Colwell himself!) are not actually citing Colwell's rule, but it's converse:

The rule does not say: an anarthrous predicate nominative which precedes the verb is definite. This is the converse of Colwell's rule and as such is not a valid inference....from the statement "Definite predicate nominatives preceding the verb are anarthrous," it is not valid to infer "Anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb are definite" (Dixon, pp. 11-12).

Colwell himself affirmed that the converse of the rule was as valid as the rule itself, and said that anarthrous pre-verbal PNs would normally be definite (Wallace, p. 259). Like Harner, Dixon considers qualitativeness a semantic force in addition to definiteness and indefiniteness. While Harner says that qualitativeness may exist either independently or along with definiteness or indefiniteness, Dixon argues that only one of these three semantic forces is the author's intended meaning in any given instance:

The whole notion that a noun can have two or more simultaneous nuances as used in a particular context is rather like saying a word can have two or more simultaneous meanings when used in a particular context. There is no question that a word can have two or more meanings, but when it is actually used by an author it almost always has a particular meaning, unless he is intentionally employing a double entendre (perhaps like KEFALÊN in 1 Cor 11:5). Likewise, we can assume an author has a particular nuance of a noun being used and is not intentionally being ambiguous so as to confuse the reader (Dixon, message posted on b-greek discussion list on the Internet, Friday, March 2, 2001).

 

[The Learner]

Dixon's statistical methodology, unlike Colwells', was to begin with anarthrous PNs (as opposed to only examining those PNs that were definite), and determine the semantic force of each. His statistical analysis substantiates Harner's findings: "When the anarthrous predicate nominative precedes the verb it is qualitative in 50 of 53 occurrences, or 94% probability" (Dixon). Dixon concludes:

We may conclude three things about John 1:1. First, Colwell's rule cannot be applied to the verse as an argument for definiteness. Colwell's rule says that definite predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually are anarthrous. The rule says nothing about definiteness. It does not say that anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually are definite. This is the converse of the rule, and as such is not necessarily valid. Indeed, our thesis demonstrates just the opposite, that anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually are qualitative, 94% of occurrences. Second, on the basis of the contrast with 1:14 (where the humanity of Christ is stressed), we conclude that THEOS in 1:1c stresses quality. Third, this thesis demonstrates that the statistical probability for THEOS being qualitative, rather than definite or indefinite, is quite high, 94% (IBID).

Daniel B. Wallace
In his intermediate Greek grammar, Wallace accepts Harner's definition of the qualitative semantic force, and provides a number of examples outside of John 1:1. Wallace, like Harner, advocates qualitativeness as a separate semantic category, either coexisting alongside definite or indefinite semantic forces or existing by itself. Citing Harner and Dixon, Wallace concludes that THEOS in John 1:1 is qualitative, and finds the indefinite semantic force the least likely for preverbal predicate nominatives. Though Wallace says that "the Word was divine" may be an acceptable translation, this is only acceptable if we define "divine" in such a way that it is only applied to true Deity. The import of the qualitative force goes well beyond what we commonly would refer to as "divine" in contemporary usage:

 

[The Learner]

The idea of qualitative qeoV here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that "the God" (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father (Wallace, p. 269, emphasis in original).

Don Hartley
One of the possible objections to Wallace's advocacy of qualitativeness as by far the most likely semantic force (apart from a concurrent definite or indefinite nuance) is that most of the examples he provides are "mass" nouns. Mass nouns are those that cannot be semantically indefinitized or pluralized (that is, that cannot be used with the indefinite article, and for which there is no plural form). "Flesh," is a mass term - we would not say "a flesh," nor "fleshes." A "count" noun, on the other hand, is a noun that can be used with the indefinite article and for which there is a plural form. "Dog" is a count noun - we can say "a dog," or "dogs." Simply put, a count noun is something that can be counted; a mass term is one that cannot. We can count dogs but not flesh. Some have argued that mass terms differ dramatically from count terms in the semantic force they can convey (it is sometimes argued that count terms must always be definite or indefinite and that there is no such thing as a "qualitative count noun").2 Because it is generally conceded that mass terms can exude a qualitative force, it has been argued that the statistical analyses of Harner and Dixon are weighed unfairly towards qualitative nouns, particularly when applying those statistics to THEOS, which is a count noun.

Don Hartley, a student of Dan Wallace's and research assistant on Wallace's grammar, wrote his Master's of Theology thesis at Dallas Theological Seminary on the topic of Colwell's Construction and mass / count nouns. He also published a paper derived from his thesis. Hartley's methodology is to examine every example of Colwell's Construction in the Greek New Testament. Hartley purposely leaves controversial or questionable nouns out of this sample. He then eliminates all factors that would unfairly weigh the sample towards one semantic force, such as mass terms. He carefully identifies all potential semantic forces - following Wallace, Hartley advocates qualitativeness as either a standalone semantic force, or as one that can coexist alongside definite or indefinite forces. He notes that all mass terms exude a purely qualitative force (John 1:14, for example, does not teach that the Logos became The Flesh or a flesh, but rather "flesh," signifying that all the Logos possesses all the qualities or attributes of "flesh"). He therefore concludes that qualitativeness is a valid semantic category apart from definiteness or indefiniteness, and argues that this force may be applied equally to mass or count terms.

Hartley's results demonstrate that in John's Gospel, a preverbal PN is usually qualitative (56%), as opposed to definite (11%), indefinite (17%), or qualitative-indefinite (17%). He concludes that from the standpoint of pure statistical analysis, THEOS in John 1:1c is most likely qualitative: "Thus, Jesus is God in every sense the Father is" (Hartley, p. 40).

Conclusion
While the scholars we have considered have some differences with regard to the applicability of Colwell's Rule to John 1:1c and the particular semantic force of THEOS in this clause, they are unanimous in regarding the proper understanding of John's meaning: The Word has all the qualities, attributes, or nature of God, the same God referenced in the previous clause. The absence of the article, all agree, is purposeful; John intends to remove any possibility of a convertible proposition. The definite article signifies a personal distinction, thus the Person of God is in view in John 1:1b. The absence of the article signifies that the nature or essence of God is in view in 1:1c. John is not teaching that the Logos is the same Person as the Father. Nor, do the scholars believe, is John teaching that the Logos is a second god. All agree that the indefinite semantic force is unlikely.

It is my view that those who argue that the definite semantic force would signify a convertible proposition have the best case (but, see note #2, below). The purely qualitative nuance is well-attested in the Greek New Testament3, as has been demonstrated by Harner, Dixon, Wallace, and Hartley. The latter has demonstrated its application to both mass and count terms, and thus its application to THEOS in John 1:1c. It is important to note that even those scholars who maintain that THEOS is definite nevertheless argue that the significance of John's words are virtually identical with those who argue for a qualitative nuance.

Based on the evidence presented here, we may confidently take John's meaning as:

"In the beginning of all creation, the Word was already in existence. The Word was intimately with God. And the Word was as to His essence, fully God."4

_______________________________
Notes

1. This objection, raised most forcefully by Harner, assumes a mathematical precision that cannot always be sustained in the pragmatics of language use. While convertible propositions usually signify 100% equivalence between subject and predicate, this need not be the case when they are preceded by an explicit statement denying 100% equivalence ("And the Word was with God"). It is doubtful that the 8th Century scribes who wrote "kai ho theos ên ho logos" in Codex L (Regius) understood what is grammatically a convertible proposition to be tantamount to Modalism. Other explanations are certainly possible, such as understanding theos to be used as a title or proper name, or taking the entire verse as a paradox.

2. This line of argument is addressed in the Jehovah's Witness/John 1:1c section of Other Views Considered (below). It has been thoroughly debated by Don Hartley and Jehovah's Witness apologist, Greg Stafford. I had a brief interaction with Greg Stafford on this subject as well. See also "Theos is a Count Noun").

3. C.f., John 3:6 "He who is born of the flesh is (by nature) flesh; he who is born of the Spirit is (by nature) spirit

4. Cf., Wuest's The New Testament: An Expanded Translation: "And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity;" and the New English Translation: "and the Word was fully God." Perhaps the most accurate English translation of John 1:1 has been offered by Robert Bowman: "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Deity, and the Word was Deity" (John, p. 27). This translation preserves the use and non-use of the article, and conveys the purely qualitative nuance of the anarthrous theos. The Dana-Mantey grammar offers essentially the same translation, sans the capital letters: "and the word was deity" (p. 148). In Colossians 2:9, Paul uses a different grammatical construction to say much the same thing about Christ's Deity.

 

[The Learner]

This argument is essentially the same one made by the WT, namely: "Someone who is "with" another person cannot be the same as that other person (SYBT, p. 27), though Mr. Stafford has stated it in more precise terms. As I have written previously (see here), the "logic of pros," as Mr. Stafford calls it, only demands an indefinite rendering if we assume that God is unipersonal from the outset. That is, saying that 'the Logos cannot be the God He is with' is based on the presupposition that God subsists as only one Person. If God subsists in more than one Person, the Logos can be the God He is with, in precisely the way meant by Trinitarians. Mr. Stafford asserts that his Unitarian presupposition is based on how the Bible does and does not define "God." However, Mr. Stafford has not established that the Bible teaches the unitary nature of God; indeed, Trinitarians have long argued that a systematic approach to the Bible's teaching about the nature and attributes of God teaches that God is plural in nature, and that Jesus is God in every sense the Father is God, while remaining personally distinct from Him.1

Mr. Stafford creates something of a strawman when he argues that the Bible nowhere teaches "God as a substance of being that is shared by three persons." Such a definition of "God" is not required to substantiate the Trinitarian understanding of this verse. It is enough to demonstrate that theos is best understood as a qualitative noun, signifying that the qualities, nature, or character of theos is attributed to the Logos.
Many experts in Greek grammar have noted that anarthrous nouns in general often signify the qualities, essence, or nature of the noun.2 If this principle is true of other nouns, we may wonder why it cannot be true of theos?3 Second, in Galatians 4:8, Paul speaks in negative terms of those who are "not gods by nature" (mê phusis ousin theois).4 Paul's statement presupposes that there is at least One who is "God by nature," and thus the concept of Deity ("that which makes God, God") is a Biblical concept. This concept is echoed in Acts 17:29 (where theios means "divine nature"), Col 2:9 (where theotes signifies "Deity"), and 2 Peter 1:4 (theios, again, signifying "the divine nature"). We may debate what each specific reference to "divine nature / Deity" may mean in its context, but it cannot be denied that the idea that God has a unique nature which sets Him apart from all creation is a Biblical teaching. The question is, then, is theos ever used to signify the essence, nature, or qualities of "God?" The Watchtower itself argues that theos in John 1:1c is used in this manner: "Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous construction point to a quality about someone" (NWT 1950, p. 774). Mr. Stafford agrees that this semantic sense is present in theos in this same verse:

The inspired apostle shows that the Word has the same kind of nature and qualities that "the God" (not simply the "person") he existed with has (Stafford, p. 349).​

The Watchtower and Mr. Stafford, of course, do not regard the qualitative aspect as the only semantic force present in theos in John 1:1c, but they acknowledge its existence, and therefore concede that theos is used in the Bible to signify the nature of God. As for whether the qualitative aspect can be the only semantic force in view, I would suggest that the Witnesses have not demonstrated from the known principles of lexical semantics that words can "mean" one thing (class membership, in this case) and "emphasize" another (qualities or characteristics) in a single context like John 1:1c. A more detailed examination of this point may be found here (see in particular note # 14).

 

[The Learner]

Answering this argument will require an in-depth examination of the definition and identification of "count" nouns as well as the way words convey meaning (lexical semantics). For readers not wishing to plumb these particular depths, please refer to the summary, below.

A detailed response to the Witness arguments regarding theos as a count noun may be found here.

Summary
Linguists have differing views on how to identify "count" terms; Witnesses have not established that their particular means of identification (a generally contextual view) is correct. However, even if we grant that their definition is correct, because it is based on context, Witnesses are arguing in circles when they proclaim, "theos is a count noun." They assume that the context demands that theos is a count noun; then conclude that theos must either definite or indefinite, as (they say) all count nouns must. If they wish to follow a contextual definition of count nouns, they must prove that theos in the context of John 1:1c is a count noun in the first place. They cannot merely assume it.

As soon as one defines "count nouns" on the basis of context, the proof that any given noun is a count noun in a certain context must be based on what the noun means in that context. This is precisely what Kidd does in each of the cases he examines - he argues on the basis of what the noun means in context, then determines if that meaning is "countable."

Thus, to prove that theos is a count noun in John 1:1c, Kidd and other Witnesses must first establish that theos means either "the God" or "a god" in this verse (that is, that it can be "counted"). But these are the very meanings they claim theos must convey because it is a count noun! Mr. Stafford and other Witness apologists assume what they seek to prove. Their argument is thus logically unsound and of no value in determining the meaning of theos in John 1:1c.



Notes

1. See, for example, "The Plural Maker Called God"
2. E.g., Dana-Mantey (p. 149); BDF (§252); Moulton, (vol. III, p. 184); Porter (p. 105); Robertson (p. 794 [j]); Wallace (p. 244); Young (pp. 68 - 69); Zerwick, (§171, §176)

For an Answer: Christian Apologetics - Homepage

 

[The Learner]

For an Answer - What's New

Above posts are from above site. Answers about a dozen mis-proof texts.

 

[RLT63]

I'm sorry you had to run to a friend to prove us wrong.....
When there needs to be a differentiation between 'the LORD God' and 'the Lord Jesus Christ', the definite article is clearly seen in the Greek text.

Strongs primary definition of "theos" in Greek is..."a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities." So Jesus qualifies according to this definition as "a god" or "divine one". This one was "with "ho theos" "in the beginning", so how could be also be "ho theos"?

Here is an example that I am sure I have shown you before....
Look for the definite article "ho" with "theos" to show who is "ho theos" and who is just "theos".....
I hope you can follow the word for word Interlinear as it explains....

John 10:31-36....
"The ho Jews Ioudaios again palin brought bastazō stones lithos to hina stone lithazō him autos. 32 Jesus Iēsous said apokrinomai to them autos, · ho “ I have shown deiknymi you hymeis many polys noble kalos works ergon from ek the ho Father patēr; for dia which poios one ergon of them autos do you intend to stone lithazō me egō?” 33 The ho Jews Ioudaios answered apokrinomai him autos, “It is not ou for peri a noble kalos work ergon that we intend to stone lithazō you sy but alla for peri blasphemy blasphēmia; · kai it is because hoti you sy, a mere man anthrōpos, are making poieō yourself seautou God theos.” 34 Jesus Iēsous answered apokrinomai them autos, · ho “ Is it eimi not ou written graphō in en · ho your hymeis law nomos, ‘ I egō said legō, you are eimi gods theos’? 35 If ei the scripture called legō them ekeinos ‘ gods theos’ to pros whom hos the ho word logos of ho God theos came ginomai— and kai scripture graphē cannot ou dynamai be annulled lyō · ho— 36 do legō you hymeis say legō regarding the one whom hos the ho Father patēr consecrated hagiazō and kai sent apostellō into eis the ho world kosmos, ‘ You are blaspheming blasphēmeō,’ because hoti I said legō, ‘ I am eimi the Son hyios of ho God theos’?
Both Jehovah and his Son are identified here by the use or absence of the definite article. Even the judges in Israel were referred to as "gods" by Jehovah himself. They were God's representatives and had his divine authority.

The differentiation there in the Greek is clear, but not if you read it in English....the Jews were not saying that Jesus was claiming to be "GOD (ho theos) but making himself out to be 'a god'. They had no grounds for blasphemy because Jesus never committed it. All he said was that he was "the Son of...."ho theos"...

Let me give you an idea of how accurate some of these verses are in their translation......when bias rears its ugly head....
This is John 1 :18...from the Mounce Interlinear....

"No one oudeis has horaō ever pōpote seen horaō God theos. The only monogenēs Son , himself God theos, the ho one who is eimi in eis the ho bosom kolpos of the ho Father patēr, he ekeinos has made him known exēgeomai."

What do we see there? "No one has ever seen God", yet thousands had seen Jesus. John 1:1 is dismantled.....now look at how Jesus is described next...."The only Son, himself God"...look at the Greek and tell me where it says "the only Son himself God"? As you can see from John 10:36 "son" is "hyios" and it is not even in the text, so how trustworthy are these translations if they deviate from the original to support something Jesus never taught?

You can believe as you wish, but please don't mess with the Greek and tell me what it clearly doesn't say. Perhaps your friend is as misled as you are...? Or perhaps I am....Jesus will be the judge.....right?

Something else to consider: While JW's won't care about what early Christians believed or said, as they believe the Church fell into apostasy. It seems worth noting, at least for your own benefit, that if this were the case, that ho theos always refers to "Jehovah", and theos is just "a god", then why did this never occur to all the Greek speaking Christians throughout history?

For us English-speakers Koine Greek is an ancient, distant, and foreign language. But for hundreds of years in antiquity it was the language tens, even hundreds of thousands of Christians spoke every day, that's why the New Testament is written in it--it was the common language of the entire ancient Mediterranean world. This was the language Christians spoke around the dinner table, it's the language they spoke at church. For thousands and even millions of Christians throughout history the New Testament was written in their native tongue, they didn't need a translation, they spoke the same language which God's word was written

 

[FaithWillDo]

Hebrews 9:27​

​

King James Version​

​

​

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

After Jesus's Resurrection, this text does not allow a sleep peroid before the judgment.

Dear Learner,

Heb 9:27 is referring to the Great White Throne Judgment. Everyone will appear before Christ upon their resurrection from the grave.

Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the Second Death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the Lake of Fire.

The analogy of the sheep and the goats also applies to this time:

Mat 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Since the Elect have already been judged and converted during their lifetimes, they will be found in the Lamb's Book of Life. They will have “life” during the final age. Also, the Old Testament faithful will also be found in the Lamb’s Book of Life. Though they are not yet converted like the Elect, they soon will be with the help of the Elect. After they are converted, they will have “life” during the final age.

As for everyone else, they will not be found in the Lamb’s Book of Life. Christ will reject them and begin their judgment. Once their judgment is complete, Christ will pour out the Holy Spirit upon them and they will enter into life at the end of that final age.

Judgment is a necessary part of salvation. Unless a person spiritually dies, they cannot be made into the new vessel:

Jer 18:4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.

As for the bodily resurrection from the grave, it still remains a future event, even for the Elect. It will occur when the end of this present age comes.

Paul said this to the Thessalonians:

1Thes 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

In these verses, Paul was comforting the Thessalonians who had lost saved loved ones. He reminded them that their loved ones are only in a state of sleep and that they would be with them again when the resurrection from the grave occurs. Paul even said that if the resurrection occurs before a believer dies, that they would still rise to join their loved ones in the air. This truth was to give them “hope”.

As for how you come to the conclusion that Heb 9:27 does not allow for a sleep period, I don't understand your reasoning. That verse does not address that subject. It merely states the "order" of things.

Also, "sleep" only refers to the converted Elect who have died. For the lost, they are in a state of death and are not "sleeping".

Joe

 

[The Learner]

Something else to consider: While JW's won't care about what early Christians believed or said, as they believe the Church fell into apostasy. It seems worth noting, at least for your own benefit, that if this were the case, that ho theos always refers to "Jehovah", and theos is just "a god", then why did this never occur to all the Greek speaking Christians throughout history?

For us English-speakers Koine Greek is an ancient, distant, and foreign language. But for hundreds of years in antiquity it was the language tens, even hundreds of thousands of Christians spoke every day, that's why the New Testament is written in it--it was the common language of the entire ancient Mediterranean world. This was the language Christians spoke around the dinner table, it's the language they spoke at church. For thousands and even millions of Christians throughout history the New Testament was written in their native tongue, they didn't need a translation, they spoke the same language which God's word was written

"
Take for example the word ‘God’ in John 1:6. The definite article is lacking here, just as it is in verse one in the phrase ‘the Word was God’. If the lack of a definite article means there should be an indefinite article, then this passage should be translated something as follows. ‘There was a man sent from a god’. The meaning here is obscured if not altogether changed since it is clear that the writer means to convey the fact that this man was sent from the True Living God, not from a false god.
As another example, see John 1:18. Being consistent with the other instance of the absence of the definite article, the verse would be translated as, ‘No one has ever seen a god; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.’ Again the meaning is distorted by this translation since John is saying that no one has ever seen the Only True Living God. (cf. Exodus 33:20 and Deuteronomy 4:12).
In fact, if the over-generalization of ‘lack of definite article makes an indefinite meaning’ is applied to other words in the first few verses of John 1, the following phrases would be found:
1:1,2 ‘a beginning’ rather than ‘the beginning’
1:4 ‘a life’ rather than ‘life’
1:6 ‘from a god’ as noted above
1:6 ‘a John’ rather than ‘John’
Thus if an implied indefinite article (‘a’) is assumed to be present in every place where no definite article (‘the’) appears in Greek, it can often change the intended meaning of a passage.
These are clear instances that exemplify the fact that Greek cannot be translated according to some imposed English equivalent. The use of the definite article in the two languages has separate meanings and uses altogether."

Comparing the Use of the word God and the Definite Article in John Chapter 1

 

[The Learner]

Google Theos without a definite article means God

"
We see that θεον (the accusative form of θεος) isn’t preceded by a definite article (τον), and is translated God, even in NWT. Of course, rendering it “No one has ever seen a god” is meaningless. So this is an "Anarthrous theos" referring to God.

2-
(Nahum 1:2a [NIV]) The LORD is a jealous and avenging God
(Nahum 1:2a [LXX]) θεος ζηλωτης και εκδικων κυριος
(Nahum 1:2a [HiSB]) אֵ֣ל קַנּ֤וֹא וְנֹקֵם֙ יְהוָ֔ה נֹקֵ֥ם יְהוָ֖ה
(Nahum 1:2a [NWT]) Jehovah is a God exacting exclusive devotion and taking vengeance

So here YHVH (יְהוָ֖ה) is θεος. Which is anarthrous!!!

3-
(Isaiah 37:16 [NIV]) O LORD Almighty, God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth.
(Isaiah 37:16 [LXX]) κυριε σαβαωθ ο θεος ισραηλ ο καθημενος επι των χερουβιν συ θεος μονος ει πασης βασιλειας της οικουμενης συ εποιησας τον ουρανον και την γην
(Isaiah 37:16 [HiSB]) יְהוָ֨ה צְבָא֜וֹת אֱלֹהֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ יֹשֵׁ֣ב הַכְּרֻבִ֔ים אַתָּה־ ה֤וּא הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ לְבַדְּךָ֔ לְכֹ֖ל מַמְלְכ֣וֹת הָאָ֑רֶץ אַתָּ֣ה עָשִׂ֔יתָ אֶת־ הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֶת־ הָאָֽרֶץ׃
(Isaiah 37:16 [NWT]) "O Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, sitting upon the cherubs, you alone are the true God of all the kingdoms of the earth. You yourself have made the heavens and the earth.

​

Here, YHVH (LORD Almighty, O Jehovah) is θεος. Again aranrthrous!!!
Note that συ means "you", it isn’t an article.

4-
(Isaiah 41:4b [NIV]) I, the LORD--with the first of them and with the last--I am he."
(Isaiah 41:4b [LXX]) εγω θεος πρωτος και εις τα επερχομενα εγω ειμι
(Isaiah 41:4b [HiSB]) אֲנִ֤י יְהוָה֙ רִאשׁ֔וֹן וְאֶת־ אַחֲרֹנִ֖ים אֲנִי־ הֽוּא׃
(Isaiah 41:4b [NWT]) "I, Jehovah, the First One; and with the last ones I am the same."

Here, YHVH (the LORD, Jehovah) is translated θεος. Again anarthrous!!!

5-
(Jeremiah 23:23 [NIV]) Am I only a God nearby, declares the LORD, "and not a God far away?
(Jeremiah 23:23 [LXX]) θεος εγγιζων εγω ειμι λεγει κυριος και ουχι θεος πορρωθεν
(Jeremiah 23:23 [HiSB]) הַאֱלֹהֵ֧י מִקָּרֹ֛ב אָ֖נִי נְאֻם־ יְהוָ֑ה וְלֹ֥א אֱלֹהֵ֖י מֵרָחֹֽק׃
(Jeremiah 23:23 [NWT]) "Am I a God nearby," is the utterance of Jehovah, "and not a God far away? "

Again, YHVH (the LORD, Jehovah) is θεος. Again anarthrous!!! No definite article!!!

6-
(Ezekiel 45:9 [NIV]) 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: …
(Ezekiel 45:9 [LXX]) ταδε λεγει κυριος θεος …
(Ezekiel 45:9 [HiSB]) כֹּֽה־ אָמַ֞ר אֲדֹנָ֣י יְהוִ֗ה...
(Ezekiel 45:9 [NWT]) "This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, ...

κυριος θεος (the Sovereign LORD) is anarthrous!!!

Actually there are many other examples, but I think these examples are enough to show that Anarthrous theos ( θεος) can refer to "God" too, and is not necessarily translated "a god".


III) Let’s examine the opposite:
Can "ο θεος" (with definite article) refer to “a god” and not “God”?

1-
(2 Corinthians 4:4 [NIV]) The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
(2 Corinthians 4:4 [TR]) εν οις ο θεος του αιωνος τουτου ετυφλωσεν τα νοηματα των απιστων εις το μη αυγασαι αυτοις τον φωτισμον του ευαγγελιου της δοξης του χριστου ος εστιν εικων του θεου
(2 Corinthians 4:4 [NWT]) among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.

Here, "the god", is ο θεος, with definite article.

2-
(Isaiah 36:19 [NIV]) Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim? Have they rescued Samaria from my hand?
(Isaiah 36:19 [LXX]) που εστιν ο θεος αιμαθ και αρφαθ και που ο θεος της πολεως σεπφαριμ μη εδυναντο ρυσασθαι σαμαρειαν εκ χειρος μου
(Isaiah 36:19 [NWT]) Where are the gods of Ha'math and Ar'pad? Where are the gods of Seph·ar·va'im? And have they delivered Sa·mar'i·a out of my hand?

Here again, ο θεος with definite article refers to gods.

From these examples, we can see that , ο θεος ,with definite article, can refer to “god” and not “God”.


I think so far we have destroyed the argument of the Anarthrous theos, or "a god"


IV) But why is θεος anarthrous in John 1:1c ?


From :
http://www.christiandefense.org/NWT.....1_article.htm

Simply put, if John had written: ho theos ēn ho logos (lit., “the God was the Word” making theos definite), he would have been teaching Oneness doctrine (or Modalism)! In other words, the passage would have indicated that “God” in 1:1b (the Father) and “God” in 1:1c (the Word) were the same Person! But semantically, theos is (qualitative), not definite (and surely not indefinite)."

Google Sites: Sign-in

Access Google Sites with a personal Google account or Google Workspace account (for business use).

sites.google.com

 

[The Learner]

Examples:
1-
(1 John 1:5 [NIV]) God is light
(1 John 1:5 [coptic]) ⲫϯ ⲟⲩⲟⲩⲱⲓⲛⲓ ⲡⲉ (efnouti ou'ou'oini pe)
(1 John 1:5 [TR]) ο θεος φως εστιν

We see that the Greek word for light (φως) is anarthrous (without article). It is qualitative.
We don't translate it "God is a light", but simply "God is light".

In Coptic, the word ⲟⲩⲟⲩⲱⲓⲛⲓ has an indefinite article ⲟⲩ.
We can see that the noun here is qualitative not indefinite, despite the use of the indefinite article.

2-
(1 John 4:8 [NIV]) God is love.
(1 John 4:8 [coptic]) ⲫϯ ⲟⲩⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏ ⲡⲉ (efnouti ouaghapi pe)
(1 John 4:8 [TR]) ο θεος αγαπη εστιν

Again Greek αγαπη is anarthrous (no article).
Coptic ⲟⲩⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏ has the indefinite article ⲟⲩ.

God is love (not "a love")
The nouns αγαπη/ⲟⲩⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏ here are qualitative too.

So we've seen that the Coptic language strengthens our understanding that θεος in John 1:1c is qualitative.


The Coptic indefinite article can be used with "God":

(Deuteronomy 4:31 [NIV]) For the LORD your God is a merciful God;
(Deuteronomy 4:31 [coptic]) ϫⲉ ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ `ⲛⲣⲉϥϣⲉⲛϩⲏⲧ ⲡⲉ ⲡϭⲟⲓⲥ ⲡⲉⲕⲛⲟⲩϯ

(Malachi 2:10[NIV]) Did not one God create us?
(Malachi 2:10[coptic]) ⲙⲏ ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ `ⲛⲟⲩⲱⲧ ⲁⲛ ⲡⲉ `ⲉⲧⲉⲛⲧⲱⲧⲉⲛ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ

In the previous two verses ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ (with the indefinite article) refers to “God”.


The Coptic definite article can be used with "gods":

(Isaiah 36:19 [NIV]) Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad?
(Isaiah 36:19 [coptic]) ⲁϥⲑⲱⲛ ⲫϯ `ⲛ`ⲉⲙⲁⲣ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲁⲣⲫⲁⲑ
Here we see ⲫϯ (efnouti) refers to “the gods”, ⲫ is the definite article.


I think thus far we have destroyed the Coptic Anarthrous argument too.

Coptic John 1:1 - Christian Topics

sites.google.com

 

[The Learner]

Note the following NWT passages in which God is translate from theos – where there is no definite article in the Greek text:

John 1:6 – “…as a representative of God” (no definite article, yet the NWT capitalizes it as referencing God proper).

John 1:12 – “…to them he gave the authority to become God’s children.” Again, no definite article, yet the NWT follows common Greek usage, recognizing that there is no need for a definite article when referencing theos as a proper noun.

John 1:13 – “…but from God.” You guessed it, no definite article here either.

John 1:18 – “No man has seen God at any time.” Hmmm…no definite article again, yet in each instance the NWT translates as God proper.

Q & A: Does the New World Translation accurately render John 1:1? - drcone.com

Q: John 1:1 in the New World Translation (NWT) reads, “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” This clearly references Jesus as divine but not God, Himself. Is this an accurate translation? A: The Greek transliterated is as follows: en arche ēn ho...

drcone.com

 

[The Learner]

Theos without a definite article means God
Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. By Murray J. Harris.

 

[The Learner]

Twenty times, the New World Translation translates “Theos” without the definite article as “God,” referencing the one true God. (Jn. 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 6:45; 8:54; 9:16, 33; 13:3; 16:30; 19:7; 20:17(2); 1 Jn. 3:2; 4:12; 2 Jn. 3, 9; Rev. 21:7). The only places it is not translated as “God” is in John 1:1 and John 1:18. Thus, overwhelming, in the Jehovah Witnesses’ own translation, the word “Theos” without a definite article is believed to be a reference to the one true God. If “Theos” without the article is always translated as God by the New World Translators themselves (except for John 1:1, 18), then the argument that “Theos” should be translated as “a god” because it lacks a definite article fails. Interestingly, in the textual line followed by the New World Translation, John 1:18 has two occurrences of the word “Theos,” both without an article. The New World Translators translated the first usage as “God” and the second as “god.” The inconsistency in the New World Translation cannot be based on the lack of a definite article. The absence of the article does not indicate that John is not referencing the one true God.

Further, even as the absence of the article does not warrant the translation of “Theos” as “a god”, so the presence of the article does not mean that “Theos” must be translated as “God.” Though never by John, the word “Theos” with the article sometimes means another “god” in Scripture, though never by John (Luke in Acts 7:43 and 14:11; Paul in 2 Cor. 4:4). The presence or absence of a definite article does not provide a basis for choosing between “God” and “a god” in translating “Theos.” Rather, as with any word, the most common usage by the author should be used unless the context compels a different usage. Out of some 250 times the singular form of the word “Theos” is used by John, as stated above, every time the word is used to reference the true God. Not once does the word reference a lower deity, unless John 1:1 and John 1:18 are found to be proper exceptions. The remarkably consistent usage by John of the term “Theos” should drive one’s interpretation of his meaning when he used the term in John 1:1 and in John 1:18. Choosing to translate “Theos” as “god” in John 1:1 and John 1:18 goes contrary to John’s consistent usage of the term in all other places of his writings. There is no valid basis for arguing that the lack of an article means that John was referencing someone other than the one true God.

The Predicate Nominative Usage

Apparently understanding that their translation of John 1:1 could not be supported by the lack of an article, the New World Translators present a different argument, one more technical in nature. According to Appendix 2A of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scripture, the translators claim the word “Theos” is “a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article.” As such, the word “points to a quality about someone.” The translators go on to state: “Therefore John’s statement that the Word, or Logos, was ‘a god’ or ‘divine’ or ‘godlike’ does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself.” Then the translators give 14 examples from Mark and John where “a” is inserted in front of a variety of nouns, where the same Greek grammatical structure is in place. Sound convincing?

John 1:1 -- "God" or "a god"?

John 1:1 seems to say that Jesus is God. Is He?

truthsaves.org

 

[The Learner]

There are a number of biblical texts where Christ is referred to as God where the definite article does appear—though with other qualifiers that distinguish Christ from the Father (John 20:28 and 1 John 5:20, and in most Greek texts, Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1).

 

[The Learner]

wife is kicking me off, have a blessed day all

 

[RLT63]

I'm sorry you had to run to a friend to prove us wrong.....
When there needs to be a differentiation between 'the LORD God' and 'the Lord Jesus Christ', the definite article is clearly seen in the Greek text.

Strongs primary definition of "theos" in Greek is..."a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities." So Jesus qualifies according to this definition as "a god" or "divine one". This one was "with "ho theos" "in the beginning", so how could be also be "ho theos"?

Here is an example that I am sure I have shown you before....
Look for the definite article "ho" with "theos" to show who is "ho theos" and who is just "theos".....
I hope you can follow the word for word Interlinear as it explains....

John 10:31-36....
"The ho Jews Ioudaios again palin brought bastazō stones lithos to hina stone lithazō him autos. 32 Jesus Iēsous said apokrinomai to them autos, · ho “ I have shown deiknymi you hymeis many polys noble kalos works ergon from ek the ho Father patēr; for dia which poios one ergon of them autos do you intend to stone lithazō me egō?” 33 The ho Jews Ioudaios answered apokrinomai him autos, “It is not ou for peri a noble kalos work ergon that we intend to stone lithazō you sy but alla for peri blasphemy blasphēmia; · kai it is because hoti you sy, a mere man anthrōpos, are making poieō yourself seautou God theos.” 34 Jesus Iēsous answered apokrinomai them autos, · ho “ Is it eimi not ou written graphō in en · ho your hymeis law nomos, ‘ I egō said legō, you are eimi gods theos’? 35 If ei the scripture called legō them ekeinos ‘ gods theos’ to pros whom hos the ho word logos of ho God theos came ginomai— and kai scripture graphē cannot ou dynamai be annulled lyō · ho— 36 do legō you hymeis say legō regarding the one whom hos the ho Father patēr consecrated hagiazō and kai sent apostellō into eis the ho world kosmos, ‘ You are blaspheming blasphēmeō,’ because hoti I said legō, ‘ I am eimi the Son hyios of ho God theos’?
Both Jehovah and his Son are identified here by the use or absence of the definite article. Even the judges in Israel were referred to as "gods" by Jehovah himself. They were God's representatives and had his divine authority.

The differentiation there in the Greek is clear, but not if you read it in English....the Jews were not saying that Jesus was claiming to be "GOD (ho theos) but making himself out to be 'a god'. They had no grounds for blasphemy because Jesus never committed it. All he said was that he was "the Son of...."ho theos"...

Let me give you an idea of how accurate some of these verses are in their translation......when bias rears its ugly head....
This is John 1 :18...from the Mounce Interlinear....

"No one oudeis has horaō ever pōpote seen horaō God theos. The only monogenēs Son , himself God theos, the ho one who is eimi in eis the ho bosom kolpos of the ho Father patēr, he ekeinos has made him known exēgeomai."

What do we see there? "No one has ever seen God", yet thousands had seen Jesus. John 1:1 is dismantled.....now look at how Jesus is described next...."The only Son, himself God"...look at the Greek and tell me where it says "the only Son himself God"? As you can see from John 10:36 "son" is "hyios" and it is not even in the text, so how trustworthy are these translations if they deviate from the original to support something Jesus never taught?

You can believe as you wish, but please don't mess with the Greek and tell me what it clearly doesn't say. Perhaps your friend is as misled as you are...? Or perhaps I am....Jesus will be the judge.....right?

That’s what friends are for. No one is ever right but you with your heads I win tails you lose arguments

 

[Aunty Jane]

That’s what friends are for. No one is ever right but you with your heads I win tails you lose arguments

So this is about your pride....not whether the truth is actually the truth, and you could avail yourself of it if your wittle feelings were’t hurt. Good grief man, if I broke your arm trying to save your life would you resent the injury or appreciate the fact that you’re still alive?

This is not a struggle for oneupmanship......this is truth verse falsehood.....our very lives are on the line here.....there is only one truth, so we have to choose...not with our pride but with our humility. You sulking and complaining to sympathisers does you no good......it won’t lead you to the truth.....only an honest appraisal of your own beliefs will do that. If you cannot defend what you believe, go and do some solid research and come back with what you have......then we’ll see if what you have researched stand up to scrutiny.....that is how you arrive at solid, concrete conclusions. Our house cannot be built on sand....

C’mon RLT...surely you’re better than that...?