John's famous opening: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God� has caused much controversy. Some have suggested God should not have a second capital. Given John was a human, writing for humans, perhaps we should not excavate his words for meanings accessible only to a few men and angels.
Let's go with the text, including capitals. We've already discussed the non-capital interpretation.
Does this opening inevitably lead to Christ's being God?
Can we make sense of Word that allows us to see Jesus as human messenger, without discrediting John's authority?
What did John mean?
Moderator: Moderators
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 15264
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 975 times
- Been thanked: 1801 times
- Contact:
Re: What did John mean?
Post #31[Replying to post 28 by marco]
Perhaps a temporary garment which is no longer required?Good grief what has happened to my cynicism?
Re: What did John mean?
Post #32Vade retro Satana! As the old exorcists might shout. I suppose it is nice to see some light, however temporary the elucidation is. I wonder if John realised the efforts future readers would make over his pronouncement.William wrote: [Replying to post 28 by marco]
Perhaps a temporary garment which is no longer required?Good grief what has happened to my cynicism?
Re: Jesus had a beginning in time
Post #33RESPONSE:marco wrote:You may be misreading the text, Polonius. When it said: "In the beginning was the Word it need not, and probably does not, mean that God started then; rather it means that when all things began, there was the Word, existent for all time. You are taking the meaning to be "the beginning of the Word."
When it is said: In the beginning God made the Earth, the temporal phrase does not refer to God, who was there already at the beginning of things material..
Yes. The "Word" had a "beginning" in time. God did not.
Hence, God is eternal, but the Word is not, it had a beginning. Also it shows that the "Word" is not coequal with God.
Re: Jesus had a beginning in time
Post #34Colossians 1:15-21polonius.advice wrote:RESPONSE:marco wrote:You may be misreading the text, Polonius. When it said: "In the beginning was the Word it need not, and probably does not, mean that God started then; rather it means that when all things began, there was the Word, existent for all time. You are taking the meaning to be "the beginning of the Word."
When it is said: In the beginning God made the Earth, the temporal phrase does not refer to God, who was there already at the beginning of things material..
Yes. The "Word" had a "beginning" in time. God did not.
Hence, God is eternal, but the Word is not, it had a beginning. Also it shows that the "Word" is not coequal with God.
“And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Re: What did John mean?
Post #35I don’t have a lot of time at this week, but I want to comment on this one issue. I thought it might become an issue and I almost put a note about it in my earlier post.marco wrote:bjs wrote: The first is grammatical. When the Bible says “God is love,� we have a description of God as being love in a way that a synecdoche, a part representing the whole, would make grammatical sense. If John’s introduction said, “God was the Word� then we might apply the same logic. However, when the grammatical structure is changed so that the Word is the subject and God is the predicate – i.e. “The Word was God� – that becomes less plausible.
Thanks for your thoughtful suggestions. They present a pleasing challenge.
Word order matters less in inflected languages than in English but you're right in observing this. However, the actual Greek is:
"καὶ Θεὸς ἦν � Λόγος."
This is: God was the word; so your objection doesn't hold in the original nor in the Vulgate: et deus erat verbum.
Poetically God was the very power of reason.
The Greek does say: καὶ Θεὸς ἦν � Λόγος
In English, word order determines subject and predicate. So if this was the word order in English then “God was the Word� would mean that God is the subject and the Word is the predicate.
That is not how Greek grammar works. In Greek the subject and the predicate are determined by the case of the word is in. The word Λόγος is the subjective case, so it is the subject of the sentence.
Most of the time Greek grammar follows the subject-verb-predicate word order that we have in English, but it doesn’t have too. Word order can be changed for emphasis. By moving Θεὸς to the front of the sentence, but keeping Λόγος in the subjective case, John was emphasizing the importance that the word “God� in this sentence while keeping Λόγος as the subject of the sentence.
To accurately translate this Greek sentence into English we have to change the word order so that “the Word� remains the subject of the sentence. “The Word was God� is the accurate translation.
As a side note, I noticed that Tigger2 kind of hit on this issue in post 16. He falsely said the W. E. Vine admits that a literal translation of John 1:1c is “a god was the Word,� on page 490 of An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. I happen to own a copy of An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. I pulled it out and found that Mr. Vine never said anything of that nature. Nor would he, since switching the subject and predicate of a sentence would be a very elementary mistake when translating from Greek to English
Understand that you might believe. Believe that you might understand. –Augustine of Hippo
Re: Jesus had a beginning in time
Post #36[Replying to post 14 by polonius.advice]
Without him nothing was created thus he preceded all creation. The beginning refers to the start of creation not the Word (Jesus). No creation no spinning orbiting planets no time no beginning.
Without him nothing was created thus he preceded all creation. The beginning refers to the start of creation not the Word (Jesus). No creation no spinning orbiting planets no time no beginning.
Re: What did John mean?
Post #37[Replying to post 33 by bjs]
False. Both the subject and the predicate noun (p.n.) are in the NOMINATIVE case.
Yes, the word order in the Greek is most often as we have it in English, but in John's writings we find that 91 times (nearly half the time) the word order is as it is found in John 1:1c.
"The Word was a god" is the intended meaning by the writer of John 1:1c.
The word order in the Greek is 'theos en ho logos' which when LITERALLY translated into English is 'a god is the word.' W.E. Vine admits this by saying: "to translate it literally, 'a god was the Word' is entirely misleading." This admits that when it is translated literally, it means 'a god was the Word.' Of course, being a trinitarian, Vine insists on "God" (incorrect) and, of course, on "the Word" being the subject (which is correct). Yes the anarthrous nominative noun will be the predicate noun in such cases. But, except for certain known exceptions, the p.n. receives no further emphasis in John's constructions which are most parallel to that of John 1:1c.
So, when I quoted Vine - "Trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: 'a god was the Word'." - I did not falsely say it!!
The same goes for the others I quoted.
That is not how Greek grammar works. In Greek the subject and the predicate are determined by the case of the word is in. The word Λόγος is the subjective case, so it is the subject of the sentence.
False. Both the subject and the predicate noun (p.n.) are in the NOMINATIVE case.
Most of the time Greek grammar follows the subject-verb-predicate word order that we have in English, but it doesn’t have too. Word order can be changed for emphasis. By moving Θεὸς to the front of the sentence, but keeping Λόγος in the subjective case, John was emphasizing the importance that the word “God� in this sentence while keeping Λόγος as the subject of the sentence.
Yes, the word order in the Greek is most often as we have it in English, but in John's writings we find that 91 times (nearly half the time) the word order is as it is found in John 1:1c.
To accurately translate this Greek sentence into English we have to change the word order so that “the Word� remains the subject of the sentence. “The Word was God� is the accurate translation.
"The Word was a god" is the intended meaning by the writer of John 1:1c.
As a side note, I noticed that Tigger2 kind of hit on this issue in post 16. He falsely said the W. E. Vine admits that a literal translation of John 1:1c is “a god was the Word,� on page 490 of An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. I happen to own a copy of An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. I pulled it out and found that Mr. Vine never said anything of that nature. Nor would he, since switching the subject and predicate of a sentence would be a very elementary mistake when translating from Greek to English.
The word order in the Greek is 'theos en ho logos' which when LITERALLY translated into English is 'a god is the word.' W.E. Vine admits this by saying: "to translate it literally, 'a god was the Word' is entirely misleading." This admits that when it is translated literally, it means 'a god was the Word.' Of course, being a trinitarian, Vine insists on "God" (incorrect) and, of course, on "the Word" being the subject (which is correct). Yes the anarthrous nominative noun will be the predicate noun in such cases. But, except for certain known exceptions, the p.n. receives no further emphasis in John's constructions which are most parallel to that of John 1:1c.
So, when I quoted Vine - "Trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: 'a god was the Word'." - I did not falsely say it!!
The same goes for the others I quoted.
Re: What did John mean?
Post #38bjs wrote:
The Greek does say: καὶ Θεὸς ἦν � Λόγος
In English, word order determines subject and predicate. So if this was the word order in English then “God was the Word� would mean that God is the subject and the Word is the predicate.
That is not how Greek grammar works. In Greek the subject and the predicate are determined by the case of the word is in. The word Λόγος is the subjective case, so it is the subject of the sentence.
The verb "to be" takes a complement so that the word before and the word after are in the same case, here nominative. The Vulgate rendering "Deus erat verbum" echoes the Greek. Were the words in nominative and accusative: such as
Deus verbum nobis dedit : God gave us the word, then Verbum deus dedit would mean the same, but there might be a subtle distinction to emphasise "word". It was the word God gave us.
You have conceded my interpretation that does not require Jesus to be God is plausible if the word order is καὶ Θεὸς ἦν � Λόγος. And so it is! I'm perfectly familiar with inflected languages and see no good reason to go along with your view here.
Re: What did John mean?
Post #39marco wrote: John's famous opening: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God� has caused much controversy. Some have suggested God should not have a second capital. Given John was a human, writing for humans, perhaps we should not excavate his words for meanings accessible only to a few men and angels.
Let's go with the text, including capitals. We've already discussed the non-capital interpretation.
Does this opening inevitably lead to Christ's being God?
Can we make sense of Word that allows us to see Jesus as human messenger, without discrediting John's authority?
God had no beginning. The "Word" is the Spirit of Revelation, which is the Spirit of God. The "Word" made flesh, is simply the manifestation of the Spirit of Revelation/Scripture. That "Word", had a beginning. The alpha of that "Word" would be manifestated in Adam. The omega, will be manifestated in the "Word of God" per Revelation 19:13. At that time the lawless, the double minded and the hypocrites will be in for a surprize.
Re: What did John mean?
Post #40No one said he had.
I am hoping the capitalisation doesn't mean we're referring to the notorious nonsense at the end of the New Testament.showme wrote:
The "Word" is the Spirit of Revelation, which is the Spirit of God.
You've simply misread the text. It doesn't say: In the beginning of the Word. This doesn't auger well if we're going to attempt an interpretatio of Revelation.showme wrote:
The "Word" made flesh, is simply the manifestation of the Spirit of Revelation/Scripture. That "Word", had a beginning.
Would it? There wouldn't be many around to see this manifestation, then.
showme wrote:
The omega, will be manifestated in the "Word of God" per Revelation 19:13. At that time the lawless, the double minded and the hypocrites will be in for a surprize.
So will the thinkers if it turns out Revelation makes some sense.
I struggle to see how all this relates to John's opening passage.
