"The word was a god"?

[Johann]

Die griech. Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus (1901).
———, Die sprachgesch. Stell. des bibl. Griech. (Theol. Rund., 1902).
https://bibletranslation.ws/down/Robertson_Greek_Grammar.pdf

This makes absolute sense to me, the Memra IS Theos, strengthening my faith more and more...

 

[Johann]

VIII. The Absence of the Article. I do not care to use the term “omission” in
connection with the article. That word implies that the article ought to be present. As
has been already shown, the article is not the only means of showing that a word is
definite. This luxury in language did not become indispensable. The servant never
became master. There remained in the classic period many parallel phrases which
were intelligible without the article. Indeed, new phrases came into use by analogy
without the article. I do not think it is necessary to devote so much space to this phase
of the subject as is done in most grammars. Most of the cases have already come up
for discussion in one way or another. It is sufficient here to give a résumé of the chief
idioms in the N. T. which are without the article and are still definite. Much of the
modern difficulty about the absence of the Greek article is due to the effort to
interpret it by the standard of the English or German article. So Winer (Winer-Thayer,
p. 119) speaks of “appellatives, which as expressing definite objects should have the
article”! Even Gildersleeve, in discussing the “Absence of the Article” (note the
phrase, Syntax, p. 259), says that “prepositional phrases and other formulæ may
dispense with the article as in the earlier language,” and he adds “but anaphora or
contrast may bring back the article at any time and there is no pedantical uniformity.”
Admirably said, except “dispense with” and “bring back,” dim ghosts of the old
grammar. Moulton2
cites Jo. 6:68, ῥήµατα ζωῆς αἰωνίου, which should be translated
‘words of eternal life’ (as marg. of R. V.). There are indeed “few of the finer points of
Greek which need more constant attention”3
than the absence of the article. The word
may be either definite or indefinite when the article is absent. The context and history
of the phrase in question must decide. The translation of the expression into English
or German is not determined by the mere [Page 791] absence of the Greek article. If
the word is indefinite, as in Jo. 4:27; 6:68, no article, of course, occurs. But the article
is absent in a good many definite phrases also. It is about these that a few words
further are needed. A brief summary of the various types of anarthrous definite
phrases is given.1
A sane treatment of the subject occurs in Winer-Schmiedel.2

https://bibletranslation.ws/down/Robertson_Greek_Grammar.pdf

ROFL that is not dealing with John 1:1 ROFL

Was with God (ἦν πὸς τὸν Θεὸν)
Anglo-Saxon vers., mid Gode. Wyc., at God. With (πρός) does not convey the full meaning, that there is no single English word which will give it better. The preposition πρός, which, with the accusative case, denotes motion towards, or direction, is also often used in the New Testament in the sense of with; and that not merely as being near or beside, but as a living union and communion; implying the active notion of intercourse. Thus: “Are not his sisters here with us” (πρὸς ἡμᾶς), i.e., in social relations with us (Mar_6:3; Mat_13:56). “How long shall I be with you” (πρὸς ὑμᾶς, Mar_9:16). “I sat daily with you” (Mat_26:55). “To be present with the Lord” (πρὸς τὸν Κύριον, 2Co_5:8). “Abide and winter with you” (1Co_16:6). “The eternal life which was with the Father” (πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, 1Jn_1:2). Thus John's statement is that the divine Word not only abode with the Father from all eternity, but was in the living, active relation of communion with Him.
And the Word was God (καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος)
In the Greek order, and God was the Word, which is followed by Anglo-Saxon, Wyc., and Tynd. But θεὸς, God, is the predicate and not the subject of the proposition. The subject must be the Word; for John is not trying to show who is God, but who is the Word. Notice that Θεὸς is without the article, which could not have been omitted if he had meant to designate the word as God; because, in that event, Θεὸς would have been ambiguous; perhaps a God. Moreover, if he had said God was the Word, he would have contradicted his previous statement by which he had distinguished (hypostatically) God from the word, and λόγος (Logos) would, further, have signified only an attribute of God. The predicate is emphatically placed in the proposition before the subject, because of the progress of the thought; this being the third and highest statement respecting the Word - the climax of the two preceding propositions. The word God, used attributively, maintains the personal distinction between God and the Word, but makes the unity of essence and nature to follow the distinction of person, and ascribes to the Word all the attributes of the divine essence. “There is something majestic in the way in which the description of the Logos, in the three brief but great propositions of Joh_1:1, is unfolded with increasing fullness” (Meyer).


(2) If the Word was thus in the beginning, what relation did He hold to God? Was He identical or opposed? ὁ λόγος ἦν πρός τὸν θεόν. πρός implies not merely existence alongside of but personal intercourse. It means more than μετά or παρά, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another. Thus in classical Greek, τήν πρός Σωκράτην συνουσίαν, and in N. T. Mar_6:3, Mat_13:56, Mar_9:19, Gal_1:18, 2Jn_1:12. This preposition implies intercourse and therefore separate personality. As Chrysostom says: “Not in God but with God, as person with person, eternally”.
(3) The Word is distinguishable from God and yet Θεὸς ἧν ὁ λόλος, the Word was God, of Divine nature; not “a God,” which to a Jewish ear would have been abominable; nor yet identical with all that can be called God, for then the article would have been inserted (cf. 1Jn_3:4). Consult Du Bose’s Ecumenical Councils, p. 70–73. Luther says “the Word was God” is against Arius: “the Word was with God” against Sabellius.

Anyway, late here.

 

[Johann]

John 4:24 - “a spirit/Spirit” KJV; ASV; BRG; Darby; DRA; GNV; GW; KJ21; JUB; RGT; WYC; YLT; The Interlinear Bible; Charles B. Williams NT; William F. Beck NT.

You should really look up Jewish resources in what the ancient rabbis found in the Torah, I could give you the sources but it would be futile, since your translation is in circulation and you have NOT consulted with prominent Jewish scholars.
One of your sources is outreach for Judaism, here, let me help you,

Jesus is not for Jews

She would gladly assist you in this downward spiral.


יְבָרֶכְךָ֥ יְהוָ֖ה וְיִשְׁמְרֶֽךָ׃ ס
יָאֵ֨ר יְהוָ֧ה ׀ פָּנָ֛יו אֵלֶ֖יךָ וִֽיחֻנֶּֽךָּ׃ ס
יִשָּׂ֨א יְהוָ֤ה ׀ פָּנָיו֙ אֵלֶ֔יךָ וְיָשֵׂ֥ם לְךָ֖ שָׁלֹֽום׃ ס
וְשָׂמ֥וּ אֶת־שְׁמִ֖י עַל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַאֲנִ֖י אֲבָרֲכֵֽם׃ פ

 

[Wrangler]

Jn 1:1c has an unmodified "theos" without the article. Therefore, even some trinitarian scholars [the first 5 listed below at least] are forced to admit that this passage may be literally translated as "the Word was a god"!

I'm sorry I just can't grasp the significance of the subtleties of Greek. Bottom line, are you saying that without the definite article "the" in Greek, the default meaning is "a" god?

 

[Johann]

I'm sorry I just can't grasp the significance of the subtleties of Greek. Bottom line, are you saying that without the definite article "the" in Greek, the default meaning is "a" god?

That's what he is saying.

 

[tigger 2]

You have obviously not read my study. That is not what I said!

Only by actually reading all of my study will you know.

 

[Johann]

Only by actually reading all of my study will you know.

I have, and disagree.

 

[tigger 2]

Show me by telling me what I really found about the use of the article with 'god.'

It does little good to disagree with black and white facts!

 

[Johann]

It does little good to disagree with black and white facts!

Circular reasoning, plus Orthodox Jewish sources I disagree with.
Question.
Learner gave you the answer, why didn't you respond to him?
I have asked you several questions, all unanswered.
Almost like you give your autonomy from a heteros stance.

 

[Johann]

Show me by telling me what I found about the use of the article with 'god.'

Show me by telling me what I really found about the use of the article with 'god.'

Guess you would disagree with Vincent also?

 

[Jack]

so how was it have you gotten the right answer to your simple question in this debate?

definitely Jesus is not a false god

Amen! Jesus is the real God of the Bible.

 

[Wrangler]

Amen! Jesus is the real God of the Bible.

So, Jesus taught us to pray to a false God in heaven, who we relate to as Father?

The New World Translation says a god.

We are talking about the word of God, not Jesus, in John 1:1.

So, it does not really matter if the figurative use of language contains - or is properly translated "a" god. The point is about the word of God, not Jesus. When we talk today about 'the green monster,' we are talking about an attribute of a Being, that they are envious. The figurative use of language is personifying an attribute of existence. 'The green monster' is not a separate person in a multi-person Being.

Scripture often personifies attributes of existence. Proverbs refers to Wisdom as a Lady. It does not make wisdom a Lady.

 

[RLT63]

So, Jesus taught us to pray to a false God in heaven, who we relate to as Father?



We are talking about the word of God, not Jesus, in John 1:1.

So, it does not really matter if the figurative use of language contains - or is properly translated "a" god. The point is about the word of God, not Jesus. When we talk today about 'the green monster,' we are talking about an attribute of a Being, that they are envious. The figurative use of language is personifying an attribute of existence. 'The green monster' is not a separate person in a multi-person Being.

Scripture often personifies attributes of existence. Proverbs refers to Wisdom as a Lady. It does not make wisdom a Lady.

And the word became flesh and dwelt among us

 

[Wrangler]

And the word became flesh and dwelt among us

Yes, the word of God became flesh, in fulfillment of Deut 18:15-18.

What did not become flesh is God, himself. See the difference?

 

[RLT63]

Yes, the word of God became flesh, in fulfillment of Deut 18:15-18.

What did not become flesh is God, himself. See the difference?

You just said the word was not Jesus. John 10:30 - I and the Father are one.”...

 

[Wrangler]

You just said the word was not Jesus

Correct. God's word is not Jesus. Joe Biden's word is not Jesus, etc. Words are WHAT's not WHO's.

In the human experience, detailed many times in Scripture, is the concept of agency. Prophets speak the word of God. It does not make them God. Agents of kings are not the king - even though they say what the king told them to say. Today people have Last Will's. The last Will is not the person whose Will is documented. The lawyer who reads the Will is not the person whose Will is documented.

Earlier this year, there was a thread that delved into who was talking to Moses from the burning bush and who destroyed Sodom and Gomorra. There are verses that state it was God himself and other verses that state it was Angels. This is explained through Agency.

We speak this way today. We say 'Hitler killed 4M Jews.' Fact is, he killed no one. He ordered his agents to kill. His agents are not Hitler.

Hope this helps!

 

[RLT63]

Correct. God's word is not Jesus. Joe Biden's word is not Jesus, etc. Words are WHAT's not WHO's.

In the human experience, detailed many times in Scripture, is the concept of agency. Prophets speak the word of God. It does not make them God. Agents of kings are not the king - even though they say what the king told them to say. Today people have Last Will's. The last Will is not the person whose Will is documented. The lawyer who reads the Will is not the person whose Will is documented.

Earlier this year, there was a thread that delved into who was talking to Moses from the burning bush and who destroyed Sodom and Gomorra. There are verses that state it was God himself and other verses that state it was Angels. This is explained through Agency.

We speak this way today. We say 'Hitler killed 4M Jews.' Fact is, he killed no one. He ordered his agents to kill. His agents are not Hitler.

Hope this helps!

How did the word become flesh if the word is not Jesus? All things were created by him. So who is the word if it's not Jesus?

 

[Wrangler]

How did the word become flesh if the word is not Jesus? All things were created by him. So who is the word if it's not Jesus?

I use an anvil to do my work. Although an anvil is the agent through which my work is done, it is not me. Agents are not their patrons. No comment on the notion of Agency, huh?

All things were created by God, not Jesus. See GE 1.

 

[RLT63]

I use an anvil to do my work. Although an anvil is the agent through which my work is done, it is not me. Agents are not their patrons. No comment on the notion of Agency, huh?

All things were created by God, not Jesus. See GE 1.

See John 1. As far as Agency The Angel of The Lord speaks for God and is the pre- incarnate Christ

 

[Wrangler]

See John 1.

A Biblical fact that is little advertised by trinitarians is that Jesus explicitly stated he has a God himself (John 20:17, Mark 15:33) who is the only true God (John 17:3). What does this mean for other gods, like the trinitarian god?

The most anti-trinitarian book in the whole Bible, John also explicitly tells us at 20:31 that everything he wrote was to prove something other than the idea that Jesus is God; namely, that Jesus is God’s Anointed. So, it is funny to see trinitarians try to twist 1:1 – and indeed, his entire Gospel - to have a purpose other than what John explicitly stated is the purpose of his Gospel!

John 8:54 ‘If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing.’ Yet, trinitarians contradict Jesus, asserting he is claiming all glory by reading into his words to mean he is God. And then overlook a stronger explicit anti-trinitarian verse than is hard to imagine. For us, there is one God, the Father. 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Finally, the 1st verse of the Bible’s last book informs us the resurrected Jesus, having been given all authority in heaven and Earth, waiting to return, sitting on God’s throne is still NOT God! (Revelation 1:1 explicitly states that God - in his unitarian nature - gave Jesus the revelation.)