101G
Well-known member
see, you don't KNOW.... just as I thought.
101G.
PS 101G is neither into modalism. Oh my....
Even in John 1, Jesus is not God
- Thread starter Wrangler
- Start date
101G.
PS 101G is neither into modalism. Oh my....
I asked the following:
You clearly answered "Jesus".
There you have it. We'll be sending you a Trinitarian membership card in the mail soon.
Wrangler
Well-known member
Now you are moving the goal post. Jesus is not God and this is the answer no matter what back door path you attempt to advance.
Yes, John was referring to Jesus - who God put his words in Jesus’ mouth.
How can the Word made flesh (who you agreed is Jesus) can be "put .. in Jesus' mouth"?
In other words, how can Jesus be put in Jesus' mouth? This should be interesting....
Wrangler
Well-known member
Simple. Jesus told us that God told him WHAT to say and HOW to say it. Nothing mystical, violating the 1C. Jesus was not a trinitarian and neither were the Apostles.
You are not answering my question.
You agreed that the Word is now flesh as Jesus.
So how can that Word be "put .. in Jesus' mouth"?
In other words, how can Jesus be put in Jesus' mouth?
e v e
Well-known member
just as the OT fathers listened to their priests and got themselves
into captivity and cursed...
those rabbis who wrote down the words
to conform to their own traditions..
the kjv is but a continuation of this situation...
on purpose since the last thing satan wants is that
the sons will understand what He Said
and that His souls go home and with Christ restore eden paradise
Why, after eden was destroyed (because His sons and daughters left!)
would He would just go off and 'do something else'? He will not.
No.
He will restore His creation to that He declared Good Already... before the fall.
Just as he spoke it into being....
Wrangler
Well-known member
I did answer your question. Words are WHAT’s, not WHO’s.
Even in John 1, Jesus is not God. It says the word was god and was with god. How can this be?
......................................................
1 Tim. 3:16 ("God was manifest in the flesh")
As this is translated in the KJV it makes Paul say that Jesus is God “manifest in the flesh.”
Although the KJV translates 1 Tim. 3:16 with “God” as above, nearly all other translations today use a word which refers, not to God, but to Jesus: “he” (NIV; RSV; NRSV; JB; NJB; REB; NAB [‘70]; AT; GNB; CBW; and Beck’s translation), “he who” (ASV; NASB; NEB; MLB; BBE; Phillips; and Moffatt), “who,” or “which.” Even the equally old Douay version has “which was manifested in the flesh.” All the very best modern NT texts by trinitarian scholars (including Westcott and Hort, Nestle, and the text by the United Bible Societies) have the NT Greek word ὃς (“who”) here instead of θεὸς (“God”).Why do the very best trinitarian scholars support this NON-trinitarian translation of 1 Tim. 3:16?
Noted Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:
“A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where ‘OS’ (OC or ὃς, ‘who’) was later taken for theta sigma with a bar above, which stood for theos (θεὸς, ‘god’). Since the new reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian, at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts .....” – p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed. (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the latest Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the 1990 ed., pp.696-698, vol. 3.)
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] as the original reading in their NT text for this verse:
“it is supported by the earliest and best uncials.” And, “Thus, no uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports θεὸς [“God”]; all ancient versions presuppose ὃς [or OC, “who” - masc.] or ὅ [“which” - neut.]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [370 A.D.] testifies to the reading θεὸς. The reading θεὸς arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of OC as ΘC, or (b) deliberately....” - p. 641.
In actuality it appears to be a combination of both (with the emphasis on the latter). You see, the word ὃς was written in the most ancient manuscripts as OC (“C” being a common form for the ancient Greek letter “S” at that time). Most often at this time the word for God (θεὸς) was written in abbreviated form as ΘC. However, to show that it was an abbreviated form a straight line, or bar, was always drawn above ΘC. So no copyist should have mistaken ὃς (or OC) for ΘC, in spite of their similarities, simply because of the prominent bar which appeared over the one and not over the other.
What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714. As he was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known (the Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the word originally written there was OC but that a horizontal stroke from one of the words written on the other side of the manuscript showed through very faintly in the middle of the O. This still would not qualify as an abbreviation for θεὸς, of course, but Wetstein discovered that some person at a much later date and in a different style from the original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original word! Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit ΘC [with bar above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own trinitarian views)!
Of course, since Wetstein’s day many more ancient NT manuscripts have been discovered and none of them before the eighth century A.D. have been found with ΘC (“God”) at this verse!
Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes: “The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [‘who’], along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC as the original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text] and UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a ‘B’ rating) [also the Westcott and Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological [‘Jesus is God’] use of θεὸς.” - Jesus as God, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992.
And very trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about this scripture:
“He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). The correct text, not theos (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [‘mystery’] the reading of Western documents.” - p. 577, Vol. 4, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press.
And even trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses the relative pronoun ὃς (‘who’) in this scripture and tells us:
“The textual variant θεὸς [‘god’] in the place of ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the ‘majority text’ school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested, but the syntactical argument that ‘mystery’ (μυστήριον) being a neuter noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (ὃς) is entirely without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians, of course] as the reading θεὸς may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit reference in this text.” [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. - pp. 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.
The correct rendering of 1 Tim. 3:16, then, is: “He who was revealed in the flesh ….” - NASB. Cf. ASV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; JB; NJB; NIV; NEB; REB; ESV; Douay-Rheims; TEV; CEV; BBE; NLV; God’s Word; New Century Version; Holman NT; ISV NT; Lexham English Bible; The Message; Weymouth; Moffatt; etc.
Even if we were to insist that those later manuscripts that used theos were, somehow, correct, we would have to recognize that it is the anarthrous (without the definite article) theos which we find. This is rarely, if ever, the form used for the only true God (when the known exceptions are taken into account - see MARTIN study). Instead, it either points to the probability that it is a corrupted OC (which of course would not have the article in the first place), or, less probable, but still possible, that Christ is being called “a god” - see the BOWGOD and DEF studies.
....................................
"The use of the article in Greek corresponds roughly to the use of the definite article in English. Thus [logos,] means `a word'; [ho logos] means `the word'."- Macmillan, 1951.
So, basically, the word "the" (the definite article, ho in NT Greek, when used with a singular masculine nominative case noun - such as theos) shows that the noun it is used with is one certain, special thing. "The boss" is one certain individual, whereas "a boss" is indefinite and could be any one of millions of individuals.
If we examine all the uses of "God" and "god" in the nominative case (theos - the same form found at Jn 1:1c, not theou, theo, etc.) in all the writings of the Gospel writers, we see that it always has the article ("the" or ho in NT Greek) with it when the inspired Bible writer is referring to the God of the Bible [5 see next post for this footnote]. Therefore it is of essential importance to know if John intended that the definite article really should be "understood" to be with theos at Jn 1:1c.
Remember that we have already seen in all the Gospels and all the writings of John that when "the only true God" is intended (in non-"preposition-modified" nominative form) a definite article is used with it: "the God."[5] And, when "a god" is meant, there is no definite article with the word.
Last edited:
.................................................
f.n. 5
5. "Before we begin to investigate John's use of theos (which, after all, is the real point in question), let's look at the rest of the Gospel writers: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Here are all the uses of theos (in its nominative form) in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke as found in the Westcott and Hort text (W&H).
- If the definite article ("the") is used with theos in the original manuscripts, "art." has been written after the verse number. If the definite article is not there, "an." (for "anarthrous") has been written before the verse number:
Matthew 1:23 -art.
Mt 3:9 -- art.
Mt 6:8 -- art. (W&H text, Nestle text; theos not found here in UBS text or Received Text)
Mt 6:30 -- art.
Mt 15:4 -- art.
Mt 19:6 -- art.
Mt 22:32 -- art. (4 occurrences) "the God of...." (W&H, UBS text, Nestle text)
Mark 2:7 -- art.
Mk 10:9 -- art.
Mk 10:18 -- art.
Mk 12:26 -- art. (2 occurrences)
an. Mk 12:26 ---- (2 occurrences) "God of...."
an. Mk 12:27 ---- "a God of..."
Mk 12:29 -- art. "the God of..."
Mk 13:19 -- art.
Mk 15:34 -- art. "the God of me" (2 occurrences)
Luke 1:32 -- art.
Lk 1:68 -- art. "The God of..."
Lk 3:8 -- art.
Lk 5:21 -- art.
Lk 7:16 -- art.
Lk 8:39 -- art.
Lk 12:20 -- art.
Lk 12:24 -- art.
Lk 12:28 -- art.
Lk 16:15 -- art.
Lk 18:7 -- art.
Lk 18:11 -- art.
Lk 18:13 -- art.
Lk 18:19 -- art. (W&H, UBS, Received Text) - Appositive[10]
an. Lk 20:38 ---- "a God of..."
You can see that (except for 3 examples) Matthew, Mark, and Luke always (33 times) used the article ("the") with theos when 'God' was intended.
And the three exceptions were all modified by "prepositional" constructions (or, most often, modified by a genitive noun): "God of ....") which many noted NT Greek scholars (trinitarian, of course) have admitted makes the use or non-use of the article uncertain.
Luke also wrote Acts wherein we find he always uses the article with its 59 uses of the nominative theos for God - even in the 9 "prepositional" (or genitive-modified) instances!
So Matthew, Mark, and Luke used the article (the word "the") every time (92 times) with theos when it intended "God."
But most important to a study of John's use of the article with theos to indicate God, here are all his uses of the nominative theos:
There are 50 such uses of theos by John (17 in the Gospel of John). Here is the list of every theos (nominative case) used by John. If it has the definite article, "art." has been written after the verse number. If it does not have the definite article, "an." (for "anarthrous") has been written before the verse number. If it appears to be applied to Jesus, "Jesus" has been written after the verse number.
an. John 1:1c - - - Jesus
an. Jn 1:18 - - - - Jesus (W and H; Nestle; UBS - Received Text has "Son")*
Jn 3:2 art.
Jn 3:16 art.
Jn 3:17 art.
Jn 3:33 art.
Jn 3:34 art.
Jn 4:24 art.
Jn 6:27 art.
Jn 8:42 art.
an. Jn 8:54 - - -"God of you"
Jn 9:29 art.
Jn 9:31 art.
Jn 11:22 art.
Jn 13:31 art.
Jn 13:32 art.
Jn 20:28 art. Jesus (?) "God of me" - see 'My God' study paper
1 John 1:5 art.
1 Jn 3:20 art.
1 Jn 4:8 art.
1 Jn 4:9 art.
1 Jn 4:11 art.
1 Jn 4:12 art.
1 Jn 4:15 art.
1 Jn 4:16 art. (3 occurrences)
1 Jn 5:10 art.
1 Jn 5:11 art.
1 Jn 5:20 art.
Revelation
Rev. 1:1 art.
Rev. 1:8 art.
Rev. 4:8 art.
Rev. 4:11 art. "the God of us"
Rev. 7:17 art.
Rev. 11:17 art.
Rev. 15:3 art.
Rev. 16:7 art.
Rev. 17:17 art.
Rev. 18:5 art.
Rev. 18:8 art.
Rev. 18:20 art.
Rev. 19:6 art. "the God of us"
Rev. 21:3 art.
an. Rev. 21:7 ---- "God to him" (modified by a dative - "prepositional")
Rev. 21:22 art.
Rev. 22:5 art.
Rev. 22:6 art. "the God of the spirits"
Rev. 22:18 art.
Rev. 22:19 art.
We can see that out of at least 47 uses of theos for the only true God (all those apparently not applied to Jesus), 45 of them have the definite article. And the only two exceptions are, again, "prepositional" (modified by a dative and a genitive).
So, again, John always uses the article with theos in proper examples to denote "God"! And he has used theos without the article to denote the Son (John 1:1, John 1:18) - 'a god.'
Nouns used as subjects or predicate nouns (i.e. the nominative case), if they are part of a possessive phrase (or more precisely a prepositional phrase e.g. "the God of me," "the God of Israel," etc., meaning "my God," "Israel's God," etc.), may or may not take the article. The use of the article under those conditions appears to be purely arbitrary and is used at random with little or no significance. A good example of this is found at 2 Cor. 4:4 - "the god OF this age [or system]...".
Of all the 37 uses of "theos" (nominative case) by Matthew, Mark, and Luke can you guess which ones are used with "prepositional phrases"? That's right! The 4 "exceptions" are all used with "prepositional phrases"!
Mark 12:26 says literally: "the God said, 'I [am] the God of Abraham and God OF Isaac and God OF Jacob.' " But the parallel account at Matthew 22:32 says literally: "I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." Even though Mark didn't use the definite article with theos in the last half of this verse, it made no difference to the meaning because of the uncertainty of meaning inherent in such "possessive" usages. Matthew did use the article in the parallel account, but its use under those circumstances was unnecessary. (It was Matthew's custom to ALWAYS use the article with theos when referring to the true God regardless of grammatical options, but, obviously, Mark and Luke sometimes took advantage of the "possessive" article uncertainty to ignore the usually required article for "God.")
This is further shown at the continuation of these parallel accounts.
Matt. 22:32 says literally: "not he is the God of dead". But the parallel account at Mark 12:27 says literally: "not he is God of dead". And the parallel account at Luke 20:38 says literally: "God not he is of dead". Notice that Both Mark and Luke do not use the definite article, but most trinitarian Bible translators consider them just as definite as the parallel verse in Matthew which does use the definite article - NIV, TEV, ASV, NAB, NASB, CBW, Beck, The Amplified Bible. (But due to the article inconsistency with "possessive" constructions, we can also find indefinite translations of these verses: "a God" - KJV, Mo, NWT; and "He is not God of the dead" - NEB, JB, ASV, Phillips.)
You can also see that "God" in Mark 12:27 is a predicate noun which comes after its verb, whereas "God" in Luke 20:38 is a predicate noun which comes before its verb. But since both are frequently translated "the God," we can easily see that it is not because of word position, but because of the "possessive" (prepositional) constructions, which these verses have in common, that they are so translated.
So we see that if we exclude all the nouns used with "possessive" ('prepositional') phrases (in which there is little or no significance for the definite article - see Appendix for further examination of this characteristic of "possessive" phrases), we then find that Matthew, Mark, and Luke always (in all 25 instances) use the definite article with the nominative form for theos when they mean the only true God!
And if we include all the writings of Gospel writer Luke (Acts was also written by Luke), we find the definite article is still always used with the non-"possessive" nominative theos (in all 74 instances) when the only true God is the subject! Yes, Acts always uses the article with its 59 uses of the nominative theos for God - even in the 9 "possessive" (or prepositional) instances!
But it doesn't matter what language rules may be used by others. What really matters is: What rules are being used by this writer? For example, one of the many rules of standard English tells that one must use the subject form pronoun as a predicate noun. I.e., one should say, "It is I;" "It is he;" etc. And yet many Americans say (and write), "It's me;" "It's him;" etc. So we must always carefully examine the rules that the writer in question uses in order to understand what meaning he really intended!
We can also see in John's writings that of the 3 uses of theos that appear to be applied to Jesus (obviously Jn 1:1c and Jn 1:18 are applied to him; Jn 20:28 is not so certain and is modified by a prepositional modifier anyway- see MY GOD study), two of them (Jn 1:1c and 1:18) do not have the article. But if the article before theos indicates that the only true God is being spoken of, and if the absence of the article before "theos" usually indicates "god" or "a god" is being spoken of, how do we explain John 8:54 (absence of article even though applied to God), John 20:28 (article present even though, possibly, applied to Jesus), and Rev. 21:7 (article absent even though applied to God)?
Again we need to examine these "exceptions" as we did those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Remember that nouns in the nominative case, if they are used in a possessive (or any prepositional) construction (such as "God of me," "God of Israel," etc.- meaning "my God," "Israel's God," etc.), may or may not use the article with little or no effect on the actual meaning.
Of all the 50 uses of theos (nominative case) by John can you guess which ones are with "possessive" phrases? That's right! John 8:54 says literally: "you are saying that God of you is." John 20:28 says literally: "the Lord of me and the God [or 'god'] of me." Revelation 21:7 says literally: “I shall be to him God and he will be to me son.”
That the last scripture (Rev. 21:7) should be considered in the same way as "of him" (i.e., the use of the article is basically without meaning in this case) is shown not only by its "possessive" meaning ("his God" and "my son" - see most Bibles) but by the actual usage in this very scripture. (Remember, too, that in reality it is nouns with prepositional constructions that have the article ambiguity, and we have a prepositional construction here: "God to him.")
We can see that God (the God) is speaking here at Rev. 21:7. "The" should normally be here to indicate "God" and not "god," but in this case it is not. If anyone should say that the grammar used indicates that it should be understood to be there, you should point out that the very same grammar is used in the following words of the same verse - "he will be to me son." If the article must be understood to be with "God" in this verse, it must also be understood to be with "son." This would make "anyone" who overcomes "the Son of God." But we know "the Son of God" is exclusively Jesus. Therefore, the intended meaning of article usage (or non-usage) in this verse must be determined only by context as in other possessive (actually, prepositional) phrases.
There are only 3 other places in John's writings where theos is part of a "possessive" phrase: Rev. 4:11, Rev. 19:6, and Rev. 22:6. These, however, do take the definite article. So sometimes John uses the article with a "possessive" phrase and sometimes he doesn't. Which is exactly what we would expect when the use of the article is purely arbitrary in such circumstances!
So we find that if we exclude all the "possessive" constructions (only 6 for theos in all of John's writings) as we should, then all of the remaining 44 instances of theos follow the rule (theos with article = "God," and theos without article = "god").
Yes, 42 of these 44 proper examples of article usage with the nominative "theos" refer to the only true God, and all 42 of them use the article! Can you guess which of the 44 are the only 2 which do not use the article (and, therefore, should properly be translated "god")? That's right, the only 2 which obviously refer to Jesus: John 1:1 and John 1:18!
In fact, there is a total of 117 places in ALL of the writings of the 4 Gospel writers where the nominative theos in non-"possessive" form is applied to the only true God. EVERY ONE OF THEM HAS THE DEFINITE ARTICLE! The only 2 places in all of these inspired scriptures where theos in non-"possessive" phrases is clearly not applied to the only true God (John 1:1c and John 1:18*[see note below] which apply to the Son of God) also just "happen" to be the only 2 places that do not have the definite article! So, in all 119 of the non-"possessive" uses of theos by the Gospel writers the presence of the definite article always determines the only true God!
...............
* Note: John 1:18 is a disputed scripture. Trinitarian scholars and translators themselves are strongly divided as to whether the original writing here was an anarthrous or articular “only-begotten son (huios)” or an anarthrous or articular “only-begotten theos.”
If it were an articular “only-begotten theos,” then, perhaps, we could render it as “The only-begotten God” (although the modifier “only-begotten” would preclude it being the eternal God who had no beginning).
If, however, John did intend to write “only-begotten god,” to agree with the opening of his Prologue (“the Word was a god”), how would he write it in the NT Greek? The answer can only be an anarthrous “only-begotten theos”!
The texts I have used for this study (Westcott and Hort; United Bible Societies; and Nestle) use that very phrase for John 1:18: an anarthrous “only-begotten theos.” That is why I have listed John 1:18 in the list of John’s uses of the nominative theos. However, it must be noted that so many Trinitarian scholars and translators have decided that “the only-begotten son,” was the original writing that I cannot be absolutely certain as to whether I should list John 1:18 as being one of John’s uses of theos! As I said, it is a disputed scripture and maybe I should have omitted it.
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
All the "best" translations come from the Greek text of Westcott and Hort (1881) who used Greek texts the Church did not use because they were corrupt.
Westcott and Hort did not believe in the inerrancy of the inspiration of the Scripture. They were closet Catholics who worshiped Mary. Their work was successfully challenged and revealed to be corrupt by John William Burgon.
Θεὸς translates to God.
Whoever intentionally inserts an extra article such as "a" is adding to the word of God.
Therefore, Θεὸς is God, not a god.
Again, John 1:1c literally translates to "and God was the Word".
Notice also that it does not say "the God" but just "God".
So John is not talking about a Person (i.e.: God the Father), he is talking about the essence/nature of God.
In other words, the Word was God in nature/essence.
Wrangler
Well-known member
You are locked into a translation quagmire because you think it’s the only way to support your doctrine.
This shows how Scripture does not teach your doctrine!
What @tigger2 is talking about is the thoughts of YHWH having authority -not that these thoughts give rise to a person, Jesus. To argue that the attributes of a Being (thoughts, logos) is that Being is absurd on its face.
But that is the extent you have to reach since the monotheist text does not teach the trinity doctrine in any manner, shape or form.
...................................................
So, since the following parallels to John 1:1c do not use 'a' or 'an' in the Greek texts, they must be translated into English without them?
H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all translations
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 (a) - 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]
All examples above were considered as parallel to John 1:1c by Dr. Harner (H) and by Daniel B. Wallace (W).
By the way, NT Greek did not use (or even have) indefinite articles. Translators add them in all other proper examples of clauses which are parallel to John 1:1c. Examine the translations of the above verses!
You are correct in saying that Greek does not have indefinite articles. The best solution is not to insert one in the translation to English if you don't have to. You don't have to in John 1:1c.
Also, Greek is a much more philosophical language than English. Greeks can easily talk about forms, nature, personhood, classes, and other philosophical topics. English is much more restricted. That's why in Greek "God" can be viewed as nature, depending on the context, whereas "the God" is a person. English has a hard time distinguishing between person and nature/essence. That's why learning the NT without understanding Greek is like having both your hands tied behind your back.
101G
Well-known member
so, what Moses wrote is corrupt?
Eden destroyed? post book chapter and verse to that effect. but was not, the way kept?
son and daughters left? was that not God command and plan? Genesis 1:28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
101G
APAK
Active member
Over and above explanation, and the use of theos, with or without the definite article and associated adjectives.
Similar threads
