"the Word was God"
- Thread starter Johann
- Start date
LOL, LOL-oh dear?
The Israelites NEVER served a trinity God while serving the true God.. That is undeniable fact. Catholicisms own encyclopedia says-The apostolic Fathers knew nothing of God being a trinity.
How do you read the Scriptures? verse by verse, selectively, here a little there a little..
Joh 1:1 In the beginning [of the ages] was [already pre-existent] the Word [Christ], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Gen_1:1)
the beginning: Joh_1:2; Gen_1:1; Pro_8:22-31; Eph_3:9; Col_1:17; Heb_1:10, Heb_7:3, Heb_13:8; Rev_1:2, Rev_1:8, Rev_1:11, Rev_2:8, Rev_21:6, Rev_22:13
the Word: Joh_1:14; 1Jn_1:1-2, 1Jn_5:7; Rev_19:13
with: Joh_1:18, Joh_16:28, Joh_17:5; Pro_8:22-30; 1Jn_1:2
the Word was: Joh_10:30-33, Joh_20:28; Psa_45:6; Isa_7:14, Isa_9:6, Isa_40:9-11; Mat_1:23; Rom_9:5; Php_2:6; 1Ti_3:16; Tit_2:13; Heb_1:8-13; 2Pe_1:1 *Gr: 1Jn_5:7, 1Jn_5:20
The divinity, humanity, office, and incarnation of Jesus Christ
1 Ἐν In 'The' ἀρχῇ Beginning ἦν Was ὁ The λόγος Word, καὶ And ὁ The λόγος Word ἦν Was πρὸς With τὸν θεόν God, καὶ And θεὸς God ἦν Was ὁ The λόγος Word. 2 οὗτος He ἦν Was ἐν In 'The' ἀρχῇ Beginning πρὸς With τὸν θεόν God. 3 πάντα All Things δι' Through αὐτοῦ Him ἐγένετο Came Into Being, καὶ And χωρὶς Without αὐτοῦ Him ἐγένετο Came Into Being οὐδὲ Not Even ἕν One 'Thing' ὃ Which γέγονεν Has Come Into Being
V-IIA-3S (BSB Morphology)
Verb - Imperfect Indicative Active - 3rd Person Singular -You are aware what an Imperfect is-don't you?
Lemma: εἰμί
Word: was
Greek: ἦν
Transliteration: ēn
English Gloss: Was
Greek Word: ἦν
Lemma: εἰμί
G2258 (Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments)
G2258 ἦν en (een') v.
ἦσαν esan (ee'-san)
ἦτε ete (ee'-te)
ἦμεν emen (ee'-men)
ἦς es (ees')
ἦσθα estha (ees'-tha)
I (thou, etc.) was (wast or were).
[imperfect of G1510]
KJV: + agree, be, X have (+ charge of), hold, use, was(-t), were
Root(s): G1510
With God (προς τον θεον). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Προς with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1Jo 2:1 we have a like use of προς: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (παρακλητον εχομεν προς τον πατερα). See προσωπον προς προσωπον (face to face, 1Co 13:12), a triple use of προς. There is a papyrus example of προς in this sense το γνωστον της προς αλληλους συνηθειας, "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of προς here and in Mr 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koine, not old Attic. In Joh 17:5 John has παρα σο the more common idiom.
MV
And the Word was God (κα θεος ην ο λογος). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ο θεος ην ο λογος. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ο λογος and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ο λογος) and the predicate without it (θεος) just as in Joh 4:24 πνευμα ο θεος can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1Jo 4:16 ο θεος αγαπη εστιν can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in Joh 1:14 ο Λογος σαρξ εγενετο, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.
Having said this-how many do you count?
Shalom
J.
let's have a look at the AHLB
Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and He took one of his ribs [curve, or a side], and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Echad=
1165) Dh% (Dh% HhD) ac: Unite co: Unit ab: Unity: The pictograph h is a picture of a wall. The d is a picture of a door. Combined these mean "wall door". A wall separates the inside from the outside. Only through the door can one enter or exit uniting the inside with the outside.
A) Dh% (Dh% HhD) ac: ? co: Unite ab: ?: Two or more coming together as a unity. The sharp edge of a blade is the coming together of the two to one point.
Nm) Dh% (Dh% HhD) - I. Unit: A singular of a larger group. II. Sharp: The two edges of a sword that meet to form one point. [Hebrew and Aramaic] [freq. 19] |kjv: one, first, together, sharp| {str: 2297, 2298, 2299}
B) Ddh% (Ddh% HhDD) ac: Sharp co: ? ab: ?: The two edges of a sword that meet to form one point.
V) Ddh% (Ddh% Hh-DD) - Sharp: [freq. 6] (vf: Paal, Hiphil, Hophal) |kjv: sharpen, fierce| {str: 2300}
dm) Dfdh% (Dfdh% Hh-DWD) - Sharp: [freq. 1] |kjv: sharp| {str: 2303}
C) Dha% (Dha% AHhD) ac: Unite co: ? ab: Unity: A uniting together. All things are a unity with something else (one man is a unity of body, breath and mind, one family is a unity of father, mother and children, one tree is a unity of trunk, branches and leaves, one forest is a unity of trees).
V) Dha% (Dha% A-HhD) - Unite: [freq. 1] (vf: Hitpael) |kjv: go one way or other| {str: 258}
Nm) Dha% (Dha% A-HhD) - Unity: A group united are one of a group. [freq. 951] |kjv: one, first, another, other, any, once, every, certain, an, some| {str: 259}
H) Edh% (Edh% HhDH) ac: Join co: ? ab: ?: A uniting together in joy.
V) Edh% (Edh% Hh-DH) - Join: [freq. 3] (vf: Paal, Piel) |kjv: rejoice, join, glad| {str: 2302}
J) Dfh% (Dfh% HhWD) ac: ? co: Riddle ab: ?: The riddle begins by dividing the hearer from the listener by creating the riddle. The riddle ends with the answer uniting the two.
V) Dfh% (Dfh% HhWD) - Propose: To give a riddle. [freq. 4] (vf: Paal) |kjv: put forth| {str: 2330}
L) Dhi% (Dhi% YHhD) ac: Unite co: ? ab: Unity: A uniting together. All things are a unity with something else (one man is a unity of body, breath and mind, one family is a unity of father, mother and children, one tree is a unity of trunk, branches and leaves, one forest is a unity of trees).
V) Dhi% (Dhi% Y-HhD) - Unite: [freq. 3] (vf: Paal, Piel) |kjv: unite, join| {str: 3161}
Nm) Dhi% (Dhi% Y-HhD) - Together: [freq. 142] |kjv: together, alike, likewise, withal| {str: 3162}
bm) Dihi% (Dihi% Y-HhYD) - Unity: A child as the product of a union. The soul as a unity of body, soul and breath. [freq. 12] |kjv: only, darling, desolate, solitary| {str: 3173}
M) Dih% (Dih% HhYD) ac: ? co: Riddle ab: ?: The riddle begins by dividing the hearer from the listener by creating the riddle. The riddle ends with the answer uniting the two.
Nf1) Edih% (Edih% HhY-DH) - Riddle: [freq. 17] |kjv: riddle, dark saying, hard question, dark sentence, proverb, dark speech| {str: 2420}
nf1) Ediha% (Ediha% A-HhY-DH) - Riddle: [Aramaic only] [freq. 1] |kjv: hard sentence| {str: 280}
AHLB
If Echad is a composite UNITY-what is Yachid?
Shalom brother
Johann.
If you noticed in the Greek-For the true God the Greek word ends in v=God. The word got the Greek word that ends in g=god. The same occurs at 2 Cor 4:4 where the Greek word ending in g for god, gets god, the true Gods word ends in v=God.
Giving the word-God is a major error instituted by the great apostasy( 2 Thess 2:3) = Catholicism. the Greek lexicons came from Catholicism translating. The trinity scholars must know 100% they are misleading billions of humans.
Fact-Jesus has a God-Psalm 45:7, John 20:17, Rev 3:12--- 2Cor 1:3, Col 1:3, Eph 1:3, 1Pet 1:3-- fact God does not have a God. 2 billion humans being mislead into not entering Gods kingdom because of a letter error in translating.
(Jn. 1:1) Was Jesus God or simply a god?
CLAIM: The translators of the Jehovah’s Witness Bible (the New World Translation, or NWT) render this verse as follows: “The Word was a god.” These translators argue that there is no article before theos (God). Therefore, they argue, this verse does not support the fact that Jesus is divine. Instead, this passage is describing that Jesus is godlike, but not God. Is this the case?
RESPONSE: This debated Greek text reads as follows:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
First, if John was trying to communicate that Jesus was godlike, he had a word at his disposal. Carson writes, “There is a perfectly serviceable word in Greek for ‘divine’ (namely theios).”[1] But John didn’t use this word; he intentionally used theos instead.
Second, there are other places in the NT where the predicate nominative[2] has no article, but the NWT translates the predicate nominative as definite—not indefinite. This shows terrible inconsistency on behalf of the NWT. R.H. Countess writes,
In the New Testament there are 282 occurrences of the anarthrous [or lack of the article] θεός. At sixteen places NWT has either a god, god, gods, or godly. Sixteen out of 282 means that the translators were faithful to their translation principle only six percent of the time… The first section of John-1:1–18—furnishes a lucid example of NWT arbitrary dogmatism. Θεός occurs eight times-verses 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 18—and has the article only twice-verses 1, 2. Yet NWT six times translated “God,” once “a god,” and once “the god.”[3]
If we followed this translation rule consistently, we would need to translate all of these passages in this way (because all of these lack the article in front of them):
John 1:1 as “a beginning,” rather than “the beginning.”
John 1:4 as “a life,” rather than simply “life.”
John 1:6 as “there came a man sent from a god.”
John 1:18 as “No one has seen a god at any time.”
Carson adds, “Even in this chapter, ‘you are the King of Israel’ (1:49) has no article before ‘King’ in the original (cf. also Jn. 8:39; 17:17; Rom. 14:17; Gal. 4:25; Rev. 1:20).”[4]
Third, John most likely wrote it this way to show the diversity in the Godhead. He wanted to be clear that Jesus was God (in nature), but he was a separate person from God (in person).
This grammatical construction brilliantly shows the unity of God (Jesus is God), while also preserving the diversity of God (Jesus is not the Father). Carson notes, “The effect of ordering the words this way is to emphasize ‘God’, as if John were saying, ‘and the word was God!’ In fact, if John had included the article, he would have been saying something quite untrue. He would have been so identifying the Word with God that no divine being could exist apart from the Word.”[5] Greek expert Daniel Wallace writes,
Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus “divine” could be misleading in an English translation. The idea of a qualitative θεός 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.[6]
Fourth, elsewhere, John uses the definite article to refer to Christ. If Jehovah’s witnesses are hanging their case on this weak grammatical argument, they will find themselves in trouble when we get to 20:28. Here, John uses the definite article to refer to Christ (ho theos), when he exclaims, “My Lord and my God!” Jehovah’s Witnesses dodge this biblical assertion of Jesus’ deity by arguing that this is similar to someone winning a car on The Price is Right and exclaiming, “Oh my God! Oh my God! Oh my God!” However, Jesus’ clear affirmation of Thomas’ belief surely invalidates this completely bizarre interpretation (20:29).
It shouldn’t surprise us that Greek grammarians have viciously criticized the translators of the New World Translation for their poor scholarship. Cult expert Ron Rhodes writes,
Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the New World Translation ‘a shocking mistranslation.’ Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls it ‘a frightful mistranslation,’ ‘erroneous,’ ‘pernicious,’ and ‘reprehensible.’ Dr. William Barclay concluded that ‘the deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translation…. It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.’[7]
Due to these vicious critiques by NT scholars, the Watchtower has always protected the identity of its translators. They argue that they hide the identity of the translators in order to be humble and give the glory to God. Suspiciously, however, this anonymity has made it difficult to check the credentials of their “scholarly” translators.
When Raymond Franz was disfellowshiped from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, he gave up the names of the translators: Nathan Knorr, Frederick Franz, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel. Rhodes writes, “It quickly became apparent that the committee was completely unqualified for the task. Four of the five men in the committee had no Hebrew or Greek. The fifth—Frederick Franz—claimed to know Hebrew and Greek, but upon examination under oath in court of law in Edinburgh, Scotland, was found to fail a simple Hebrew test.”[8]
For more on this subject, see our earlier article “Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
[1] Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991. 117.
[2] Grammatically, the predicate noun is the noun that is equated with the subject by means of the verb “to be.” For example, “She is the woman.” She is the subject. Woman is the predicate nominative. In this passage, the predicate nominative is theos or “God.”
[3] R. H. Countess, The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament: A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Philipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982) 54–55. Cited in Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 1996. 267.
[4] Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991. 117.
[5] Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991. 117.
[6] Emphasis his. Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 1996. 269.
[7] Rhodes, Ron. The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions: The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001. 94.
[8] Rhodes, Ron. The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions: The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001. 94
(Jn. 1:1) Was Jesus God or simply a god? | Evidence Unseen
www.evidenceunseen.com
Shalom-I am not here to led "billions astray"
Johann.
Exegetical Insight on John 1:1c by Daniel Wallace(Jn. 1:1) Was Jesus God or simply a god?
CLAIM: The translators of the Jehovah’s Witness Bible (the New World Translation, or NWT) render this verse as follows: “The Word was a god.” These translators argue that there is no article before theos (God). Therefore, they argue, this verse does not support the fact that Jesus is divine. Instead, this passage is describing that Jesus is godlike, but not God. Is this the case?
RESPONSE: This debated Greek text reads as follows:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
First, if John was trying to communicate that Jesus was godlike, he had a word at his disposal. Carson writes, “There is a perfectly serviceable word in Greek for ‘divine’ (namely theios).”[1] But John didn’t use this word; he intentionally used theos instead.
Second, there are other places in the NT where the predicate nominative[2] has no article, but the NWT translates the predicate nominative as definite—not indefinite. This shows terrible inconsistency on behalf of the NWT. R.H. Countess writes,
In the New Testament there are 282 occurrences of the anarthrous [or lack of the article] θεός. At sixteen places NWT has either a god, god, gods, or godly. Sixteen out of 282 means that the translators were faithful to their translation principle only six percent of the time… The first section of John-1:1–18—furnishes a lucid example of NWT arbitrary dogmatism. Θεός occurs eight times-verses 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 18—and has the article only twice-verses 1, 2. Yet NWT six times translated “God,” once “a god,” and once “the god.”[3]
If we followed this translation rule consistently, we would need to translate all of these passages in this way (because all of these lack the article in front of them):
John 1:1 as “a beginning,” rather than “the beginning.”
John 1:4 as “a life,” rather than simply “life.”
John 1:6 as “there came a man sent from a god.”
John 1:18 as “No one has seen a god at any time.”
Carson adds, “Even in this chapter, ‘you are the King of Israel’ (1:49) has no article before ‘King’ in the original (cf. also Jn. 8:39; 17:17; Rom. 14:17; Gal. 4:25; Rev. 1:20).”[4]
Third, John most likely wrote it this way to show the diversity in the Godhead. He wanted to be clear that Jesus was God (in nature), but he was a separate person from God (in person).
This grammatical construction brilliantly shows the unity of God (Jesus is God), while also preserving the diversity of God (Jesus is not the Father). Carson notes, “The effect of ordering the words this way is to emphasize ‘God’, as if John were saying, ‘and the word was God!’ In fact, if John had included the article, he would have been saying something quite untrue. He would have been so identifying the Word with God that no divine being could exist apart from the Word.”[5] Greek expert Daniel Wallace writes,
Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus “divine” could be misleading in an English translation. The idea of a qualitative θεός 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.[6]
Fourth, elsewhere, John uses the definite article to refer to Christ. If Jehovah’s witnesses are hanging their case on this weak grammatical argument, they will find themselves in trouble when we get to 20:28. Here, John uses the definite article to refer to Christ (ho theos), when he exclaims, “My Lord and my God!” Jehovah’s Witnesses dodge this biblical assertion of Jesus’ deity by arguing that this is similar to someone winning a car on The Price is Right and exclaiming, “Oh my God! Oh my God! Oh my God!” However, Jesus’ clear affirmation of Thomas’ belief surely invalidates this completely bizarre interpretation (20:29).
It shouldn’t surprise us that Greek grammarians have viciously criticized the translators of the New World Translation for their poor scholarship. Cult expert Ron Rhodes writes,
Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the New World Translation ‘a shocking mistranslation.’ Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls it ‘a frightful mistranslation,’ ‘erroneous,’ ‘pernicious,’ and ‘reprehensible.’ Dr. William Barclay concluded that ‘the deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translation…. It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.’[7]
Due to these vicious critiques by NT scholars, the Watchtower has always protected the identity of its translators. They argue that they hide the identity of the translators in order to be humble and give the glory to God. Suspiciously, however, this anonymity has made it difficult to check the credentials of their “scholarly” translators.
When Raymond Franz was disfellowshiped from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, he gave up the names of the translators: Nathan Knorr, Frederick Franz, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel. Rhodes writes, “It quickly became apparent that the committee was completely unqualified for the task. Four of the five men in the committee had no Hebrew or Greek. The fifth—Frederick Franz—claimed to know Hebrew and Greek, but upon examination under oath in court of law in Edinburgh, Scotland, was found to fail a simple Hebrew test.”[8]
For more on this subject, see our earlier article “Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
[1] Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991. 117.
[2] Grammatically, the predicate noun is the noun that is equated with the subject by means of the verb “to be.” For example, “She is the woman.” She is the subject. Woman is the predicate nominative. In this passage, the predicate nominative is theos or “God.”
[3] R. H. Countess, The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament: A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Philipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982) 54–55. Cited in Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 1996. 267.
[4] Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991. 117.
[5] Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991. 117.
[6] Emphasis his. Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 1996. 269.
[7] Rhodes, Ron. The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions: The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001. 94.
[8] Rhodes, Ron. The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions: The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001. 94
(Jn. 1:1) Was Jesus God or simply a god? | Evidence Unseen
Shalom-I am not here to led "billions astray"
Johann.
#1
The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case—the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject.
As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1 c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.
We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article?
In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.
To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός
“and the Word was the God”
(i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός
“and the Word was a god” (Arianism)
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“and the Word was God” (Orthodoxy).
Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Daniel B. Wallace
Peace
Johann
Rabbinical Sages certainly did-even BEFORE the apostolic fathers.
J.
Your Greek scholars are lying through their teeth. In 1822 a Greek scholar-Abner Kneeland translated from The Greek lexicons the NT. He compared the Greek to English side by side to prove to the world a god is correct. 19 other translations had a god, 3 had was divine, 1 had was godlike. All rejected by trinity religions because that single fact proves all of them to be false religions. They are a house divided, they will not stand. They fail this true mark 100%-1Cor 1:10= Unity of thought( all of Gods 1 truth) no division.= simple bible milk yet they cant understand it.(Jn. 1:1) Was Jesus God or simply a god?
CLAIM: The translators of the Jehovah’s Witness Bible (the New World Translation, or NWT) render this verse as follows: “The Word was a god.” These translators argue that there is no article before theos (God). Therefore, they argue, this verse does not support the fact that Jesus is divine. Instead, this passage is describing that Jesus is godlike, but not God. Is this the case?
RESPONSE: This debated Greek text reads as follows:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
First, if John was trying to communicate that Jesus was godlike, he had a word at his disposal. Carson writes, “There is a perfectly serviceable word in Greek for ‘divine’ (namely theios).”[1] But John didn’t use this word; he intentionally used theos instead.
Second, there are other places in the NT where the predicate nominative[2] has no article, but the NWT translates the predicate nominative as definite—not indefinite. This shows terrible inconsistency on behalf of the NWT. R.H. Countess writes,
In the New Testament there are 282 occurrences of the anarthrous [or lack of the article] θεός. At sixteen places NWT has either a god, god, gods, or godly. Sixteen out of 282 means that the translators were faithful to their translation principle only six percent of the time… The first section of John-1:1–18—furnishes a lucid example of NWT arbitrary dogmatism. Θεός occurs eight times-verses 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 18—and has the article only twice-verses 1, 2. Yet NWT six times translated “God,” once “a god,” and once “the god.”[3]
If we followed this translation rule consistently, we would need to translate all of these passages in this way (because all of these lack the article in front of them):
John 1:1 as “a beginning,” rather than “the beginning.”
John 1:4 as “a life,” rather than simply “life.”
John 1:6 as “there came a man sent from a god.”
John 1:18 as “No one has seen a god at any time.”
Carson adds, “Even in this chapter, ‘you are the King of Israel’ (1:49) has no article before ‘King’ in the original (cf. also Jn. 8:39; 17:17; Rom. 14:17; Gal. 4:25; Rev. 1:20).”[4]
Third, John most likely wrote it this way to show the diversity in the Godhead. He wanted to be clear that Jesus was God (in nature), but he was a separate person from God (in person).
This grammatical construction brilliantly shows the unity of God (Jesus is God), while also preserving the diversity of God (Jesus is not the Father). Carson notes, “The effect of ordering the words this way is to emphasize ‘God’, as if John were saying, ‘and the word was God!’ In fact, if John had included the article, he would have been saying something quite untrue. He would have been so identifying the Word with God that no divine being could exist apart from the Word.”[5] Greek expert Daniel Wallace writes,
Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus “divine” could be misleading in an English translation. The idea of a qualitative θεός 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.[6]
Fourth, elsewhere, John uses the definite article to refer to Christ. If Jehovah’s witnesses are hanging their case on this weak grammatical argument, they will find themselves in trouble when we get to 20:28. Here, John uses the definite article to refer to Christ (ho theos), when he exclaims, “My Lord and my God!” Jehovah’s Witnesses dodge this biblical assertion of Jesus’ deity by arguing that this is similar to someone winning a car on The Price is Right and exclaiming, “Oh my God! Oh my God! Oh my God!” However, Jesus’ clear affirmation of Thomas’ belief surely invalidates this completely bizarre interpretation (20:29).
It shouldn’t surprise us that Greek grammarians have viciously criticized the translators of the New World Translation for their poor scholarship. Cult expert Ron Rhodes writes,
Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the New World Translation ‘a shocking mistranslation.’ Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls it ‘a frightful mistranslation,’ ‘erroneous,’ ‘pernicious,’ and ‘reprehensible.’ Dr. William Barclay concluded that ‘the deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translation…. It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.’[7]
Due to these vicious critiques by NT scholars, the Watchtower has always protected the identity of its translators. They argue that they hide the identity of the translators in order to be humble and give the glory to God. Suspiciously, however, this anonymity has made it difficult to check the credentials of their “scholarly” translators.
When Raymond Franz was disfellowshiped from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, he gave up the names of the translators: Nathan Knorr, Frederick Franz, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel. Rhodes writes, “It quickly became apparent that the committee was completely unqualified for the task. Four of the five men in the committee had no Hebrew or Greek. The fifth—Frederick Franz—claimed to know Hebrew and Greek, but upon examination under oath in court of law in Edinburgh, Scotland, was found to fail a simple Hebrew test.”[8]
For more on this subject, see our earlier article “Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
[1] Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991. 117.
[2] Grammatically, the predicate noun is the noun that is equated with the subject by means of the verb “to be.” For example, “She is the woman.” She is the subject. Woman is the predicate nominative. In this passage, the predicate nominative is theos or “God.”
[3] R. H. Countess, The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament: A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Philipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982) 54–55. Cited in Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 1996. 267.
[4] Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991. 117.
[5] Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991. 117.
[6] Emphasis his. Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 1996. 269.
[7] Rhodes, Ron. The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions: The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001. 94.
[8] Rhodes, Ron. The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions: The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001. 94
(Jn. 1:1) Was Jesus God or simply a god? | Evidence Unseen
Shalom-I am not here to led "billions astray"
Johann.
When one has holy spirit -they don't to know languages that much. God knows the languages better than any language scholar on earth. Thus in the NT- when they spoke in tongues, they were speaking foreign languages even though they did not know them.
Another fact you must have missed. Jesus promised he would send holy spirit to guide his teachers into ALL truth-- Hundreds of trinity religions all with different truths= a lack of holy spirit.= a mass of confusion= a house divided they will not stand= Gods view of a cult, the only view that matters.
Your best avenue is to learn all that Jesus actually taught, because its 100% fact-in every translation on earth the teachings of Jesus back the JW teachers all the way, as does true God worship history.
Tertullian in the 2nd century was considering God to be a trinity, thus the true God was still being served-At the council of Constantinople 381 ce the holy spirit was added as being apart of God, thus no trinity was ever served prior to that point, barring the false trinity gods.
False words of mislead men. The Israelite religion knew 100% -the Messiah has a God-Psalm 45:7--There is no trinity in Gods OT. The word Elohim translates-the supreme one or the mighty one in Hebrew to English. Only plural in usage for the false trinity gods served back then. As well Hebrew scholars say there is no-i am that i am in there Hebrew written OT-I will be what i will be is correct translating. Trinity bibles are altered(removal of Gods name in over 7000 places, and filled with errors. All accomplished by satans will through wicked men to mislead. God willed his name in those over 7000 spots because he wants it there in HIS bible. The wicked keep it out and even condemned the ones who put it back--think on that. With Gods name back in is support of Gods will over satans will, With his name removed is support of satans will over Gods will. All of creation is watching. One side is light, the other darkness.
Last edited:
I guess you missed what I was saying-the rabbinical Sages knew about the Trinity even BEFORE the apostolic fathers.
Listen to the video clip.
J.
You are using strong language for a man desperate to debunk the Two Powers in ancient rabbinical writings.
I am doing my homework and to infer I am void of the Holy Spirit and "misled" without listening to the evidence as I have given you--
Have a good day.
So say men who are mislead--In Isaiah God said--I am YHWH(Jehovah) beside me( not we) there is no other God.
Is this the only Scripture you can give me?
How do you read the Bible?
--and it is not "mislead" rather "misled"
You refuse to listen to verifiable resources outside Scriptures that confirm what stands written IN the D'varim?
This is undeniable fact--From Moses on up until this very day, the Israelite religion teach, serve and worship the Abrahamic God= a single being God=YHWH(Jehovah) taught, served by and worshipped by Jesus and every bible writer. YHWH(Jehovah) = the Father--One single teaching from Jesus proves the men you listen to are reasoning falsely--John 17:3-This means eternal life, their knowing you( Father) THE ONLY TRUE GOD and the one whom you sent forth Jesus Christ--2 major points there taught by Jesus-The Father is the only true God, and the ONLY TRUE GOD did not come himself he sent another named Jesus as a mortal. It takes believing Jesus over men who are mislead. Paul did-1 Cor 8:5-6-There is ONE God to all=the Father.
So who is Jesus to you? Just a created being? Not worthy to receive worship?
The one being "misled" is you-no offense.
Sit down and read through the book of John, meditate, chew the cud-a rabbinic saying-and come back to me.
Later.
J.
Don't show my cards-and my "play book" is the holy D'varim.
Already answered, many times.
J.
