tigger2 wrote:
2timothy316 wrote:
hoghead1 wrote:
[
Replying to tigger2]
That still avoids answering my question. If you have all this knowledge of Greek, it should be no problem for you to state clearly and right here and now your case that the indefinite article has to be used. Saying, "Well, go and read my material elsewhere" is simply a major cop out.
The above statement is like asking for water from someone, then the person points to a table of cups filled with water. The person asking refuses to go get one and demands the person go make them glass right in front of them. What the person provides is nothing different from the water found on the table. What would you think of such an odd request from such an uncompromising person?
It seems to me that you are burying your head in the sand here. I had no problems going to Tigger's site. It was actually quite in formative and I enjoyed the read.
The truth of this whole conversation is that the Greek of that time didn't have an indefinite article. They didn't use an 'a or an' in their writing. This means if you want to know if an 'a or an' should be used, the translator must figure it out using the context. This applies to any translator and this applies to every 'a and an' you see in the Bible. No one has to be a Greek expert to understand this. Tigger was pointing you to the sound reasoning behind the translation 'a god' without having to reinvent the wheel or rather pour another cup of water when there are already cups of water within your reach.
There are others that understand that it should be rendered 'a god'.
"and the Word was a god" " Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcomes New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
"and the Word was a god" " The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)
"and the Word was a god" " The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)
"and the Word was a god" " A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)
"and the Word was a god" " Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)
"and the Word was a god" " Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)
"and the Word was a god" " The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911)
Of course I have a feeling this will not be good enough either, however to claim your question has been avoided is invalid.
You can add the following
Trinitarian scholars to those who admit that John 1:1c is
literally translated with an indefinite article: C.H. Dodd, W.E. Vine, Murray J. Harris, William Barclay, and Robert Young.
Furthermore, probably the greatest Koine Greek scholar ever was Origen (184-254 A.D.) He wrote that not only was the Logos created by God, but that he was
a god (the highest of those
'other gods' [angels] who were with God Almighty). - See Lesson F in my "Seven Studies for John 1:1c."
In addition to your excellent post, I have given John 1:1 and all the rest of what John wrote, a lot of thought. He, as a Jew and a follower of God's Son, did not believe in three or even two members of a "Godhead." He was totally
monotheistic. So how would he express that in a sentence like John 1:1? Wouldn't he try to
differentiate between God and His Word/Son? Wouldn't he label, if you will, God as
THE theos, therefore making a distinction between God (Almighty) and the Word (which was god-like in that he was a powerful, important, mighty Being), penning that the Word was "A god?" Along this line of thinking, another group of scholars has written this:
"John in his prologue is
counteracting the Gnostic tendency towards a dualistic or pluralistic idea of God. A Gnostic 'Christian' [my quotation marks] believed that the ineffable, unapproachable God, who was remote and distant from His creation, was mediated to His world by lesser divine figures---'aions,' or a single lesser divine figure. Justin Martyr, who certainly did not claim any Gnostic affiliation, nevertheless has no qualms about speaking of the preexisting Son who is 'an arithmetically second God,' NOT however uncreated and eternal as the Son in the developed Trinitarian sense, but preexisting as the Son and
coming forth at a moment of time just before the Genesis creation. Justin strikes out on a path which is alien to the New Testament when he sees the Son of God active in Old Testament times as the angel of the Lord....
"The public continues to rely heavily on John 1:1 for the doctrine of the coequal deity of Christ. But
what if they had been schooled on any one of the eight English translations which preceded the publication of the King James Version in 1611?" (G.T. Purves, Presbyterian Review, 1888)
The Doctrine of the Trinity/ Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound, Anthony Buzzard & Charles Hunting, 1998, pp.188,189.
These authors bring to our attention the several writers that obviously thought that Christ was not equal to God Almighty. Justin Martyr uses some questionable wording when he says that the Son is "an arithmetically second God," which seems to conflict with the rest of his ideas.....but he teaches that Christ was created and not eternal, coming into existence sometime before Genesis. G.T. Purves, in his
Presbyterian Review, October, 1888, as quoted above, brought out that before the KJV of 1611, versions of the Bible apparently did not support a pervasive belief that Christ was equal to God.
