70 Non Trinitarian translations of John 1:1
Moderator: Moderators
-
Shermana
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3762
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
- Location: City of the "Angels"
- Been thanked: 2 times
70 Non Trinitarian translations of John 1:1
Post #1An excellent collection though a few show a few signs of liberties. There's a lot more "A god" translations than I realized.
Is it logical to conclude that there is much more than the JWs as an authority that this reading of John 1:1 can be legitimately read as "a god"?
Are there enough translations that present the case of "a god" or "Divine" as the translation of an article-less "Theos" to conclude that it's not just some fringe baseless position? Is it more of a Theological issue why the "A god" translation is so unappreciated by the "Conservative scholars"?
-
teddy_trueblood
- Apprentice
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:15 pm
Post #61
It’s amazing that any Trinitarian scholar would admit that John 1:1 was intended to mean “The Word was a god.� So the number of Trinitarians who have admitted it makes up a truly significant statement.Are there enough translations that present the case of "a god" or "Divine" as the translation of an article-less "Theos" to conclude that it's not just some fringe baseless position? Is it more of a Theological issue why the "A god" translation is so unappreciated by the "Conservative scholars"?
But even better than counting the number of translations which interpret it in a certain way (the VAST majority of trinitarians will win every time) is a study of the actual grammar and usage of John himself. This leads to only one honest interpretation: “And the Word was a god.� -
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... r_21.html Or, if you want to wade through a thorough proof of this rendering see:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... -11c.html and
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... e_12.html
-
teddy_trueblood
- Apprentice
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:15 pm
Post #62
John 1:1c Lessons
A.
John 1:1 in NT Greek:
εν α�χη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην π�ος τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
En arche en ho logos and ho logos en pros ton theon and theos en ho logos
There are three clauses (separated by kai or “and� in English). The first (John 1:1a) is translated: “In beginning was the word.� The second (John 1:1b) is translated “the word was with the god.� And the final one (John 1:1c) is literally translated “god was the word.�
I hope to examine John 1:1c to show that the very grammar used by John himself shows the actual meaning (whether ‘the Word was God,� or the “Word was a god.� Since different NT writers varied somewhat in their grammar and usage of the Greek, we need to stick to John’s usage if we wish to analyze John 1:1c properly.
First, the word in question is θεος (theos in English letters). Notice that this form of the word ends in ‘s.’ Theos can be used to mean ‘God’ or ‘god.’ Also notice that, as used in John 1:1c, theos stands alone. That is, it has no modifiers such as “almighty theos,� or “theos of Israel, or “theos to you,� etc.
Not only do such modifiers cause the use of the definite article (‘the’ in English) to be used irregularly, but the verse in question does not use them anyway.
The next point is that when John (and Matthew, Mark, and Luke also) clearly meant “God� when writing theos, he always used the definite article (‘the’ in English - ho in Greek): ho theos. (You can tell that o in NT Greek is ‘ho’ if it has a tiny c-shaped mark above it providing the 'h' sound in English.)
You can test this ho theos use means ‘God’ in John’s writings yourself with a good interlinear NT and concordance.
A.
John 1:1 in NT Greek:
εν α�χη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην π�ος τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
En arche en ho logos and ho logos en pros ton theon and theos en ho logos
There are three clauses (separated by kai or “and� in English). The first (John 1:1a) is translated: “In beginning was the word.� The second (John 1:1b) is translated “the word was with the god.� And the final one (John 1:1c) is literally translated “god was the word.�
I hope to examine John 1:1c to show that the very grammar used by John himself shows the actual meaning (whether ‘the Word was God,� or the “Word was a god.� Since different NT writers varied somewhat in their grammar and usage of the Greek, we need to stick to John’s usage if we wish to analyze John 1:1c properly.
First, the word in question is θεος (theos in English letters). Notice that this form of the word ends in ‘s.’ Theos can be used to mean ‘God’ or ‘god.’ Also notice that, as used in John 1:1c, theos stands alone. That is, it has no modifiers such as “almighty theos,� or “theos of Israel, or “theos to you,� etc.
Not only do such modifiers cause the use of the definite article (‘the’ in English) to be used irregularly, but the verse in question does not use them anyway.
The next point is that when John (and Matthew, Mark, and Luke also) clearly meant “God� when writing theos, he always used the definite article (‘the’ in English - ho in Greek): ho theos. (You can tell that o in NT Greek is ‘ho’ if it has a tiny c-shaped mark above it providing the 'h' sound in English.)
You can test this ho theos use means ‘God’ in John’s writings yourself with a good interlinear NT and concordance.
-
teddy_trueblood
- Apprentice
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:15 pm
Post #63
B.
John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):
The next step in finding John’s intended meaning of John 1:1c is to look up the meanings of theos in a good NT lexicon. Numerous Trinitarian scholars admit that this word was used for angels, kings, and God-appointed men such as judges in Israel. In such cases it is usually rendered into English as ‘gods’ or ‘a god.’ And it was used that way in the Greek in the writings of Christians up to the time of Augustine at least.
So, why wouldn’t John 1:1c be rendered ‘the Word was god’ then rather than ‘the Word was a god’?
For this part of the analysis, we need to remember that there are exceptions where the article (‘the’) may or may not be used at random as seen in part A. above. So we are trying to find how John intends the lack of an article with a noun (like god, man, cave, etc.). Such nouns must be “count nouns.� That means, using the example of ‘man,’ it must be capable of being made plural: one man, two men, three men, etc. It also must be capable of using both the English indefinite article (‘a,’ ‘an’) and definite article (‘the’): ‘a man,’ ‘the man.’
It is basic knowledge for NT Greek beginners that there is no indefinite article in the Greek. So a count noun without the article (anarthrous) in the Greek is properly translated into English with an indefinite article (‘a,’ ‘an’).
So, again, with a good interlinear and concordance try finding uses of ‘man’ in John’s writing. I know you will find some that do not have the article (ho) used with them. So look up in all the translations you can find to see those have been rendered into English. I found anthropos (‘man’) at John 1:6; 3:4; 3:27 (and many more) did not have the article (ho) used with them, so they were rendered as “a man� in all the Bibles I checked.
So by now we should be able to see that in John 1:1c (‘theos was the Word’) the word theos does not have the article (o or ‘ho’) and, according to John’s usage of such nouns, it would normally be translated as ‘a god.’
- to be continued
John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):
The next step in finding John’s intended meaning of John 1:1c is to look up the meanings of theos in a good NT lexicon. Numerous Trinitarian scholars admit that this word was used for angels, kings, and God-appointed men such as judges in Israel. In such cases it is usually rendered into English as ‘gods’ or ‘a god.’ And it was used that way in the Greek in the writings of Christians up to the time of Augustine at least.
So, why wouldn’t John 1:1c be rendered ‘the Word was god’ then rather than ‘the Word was a god’?
For this part of the analysis, we need to remember that there are exceptions where the article (‘the’) may or may not be used at random as seen in part A. above. So we are trying to find how John intends the lack of an article with a noun (like god, man, cave, etc.). Such nouns must be “count nouns.� That means, using the example of ‘man,’ it must be capable of being made plural: one man, two men, three men, etc. It also must be capable of using both the English indefinite article (‘a,’ ‘an’) and definite article (‘the’): ‘a man,’ ‘the man.’
It is basic knowledge for NT Greek beginners that there is no indefinite article in the Greek. So a count noun without the article (anarthrous) in the Greek is properly translated into English with an indefinite article (‘a,’ ‘an’).
So, again, with a good interlinear and concordance try finding uses of ‘man’ in John’s writing. I know you will find some that do not have the article (ho) used with them. So look up in all the translations you can find to see those have been rendered into English. I found anthropos (‘man’) at John 1:6; 3:4; 3:27 (and many more) did not have the article (ho) used with them, so they were rendered as “a man� in all the Bibles I checked.
So by now we should be able to see that in John 1:1c (‘theos was the Word’) the word theos does not have the article (o or ‘ho’) and, according to John’s usage of such nouns, it would normally be translated as ‘a god.’
- to be continued
-
teddy_trueblood
- Apprentice
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:15 pm
Post #64
C.
John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):
But, you may ask, Isn’t there a significance to the 'reversed' word order in the Greek (‘god was the word’) which is, in English, ‘the word was god.’?
If you will examine a good NT interlinear, you will find that word order is basically meaningless.
NT Greek authorities, Dr. Alfred Marshall and Prof. J. Gresham Machen tell us in their NT Greek primers that, unlike English, NT Greek does not use word order to convey meanings but instead uses the individual endings on each word (inflections).
“The English translation must be determined by observing the [Greek word] endings, not by observing the [word] order.� - New Testament Greek for Beginners, Machen, p. 27. (cf. New Testament Greek Primer, Marshall, pp. 7, 22 and A. T. Robertson, Grammar, p. 417.) [Emphasis added]
And in a later example illustrating predicate nouns Prof. Machen gave this example: “ho apostolos anthropos estin [word for word translation: ‘the apostle man is’],� and he translated that sentence (which has an anarthrous predicate count noun (anthropos, 'man') preceding the verb as in John 1:1c) as “the apostle is a man.� - p. 50, New Testament Greek For Beginners, The Macmillan Company, 1951. Notice the addition of the English indefinite article (‘a’).
But, since the actual grammar of John (and all the other Gospel writers) shows John 1:1c to be properly translated as “and the Word was a god,� some Trinitarians attempted to make this perfectly ordinary NT Greek word order (frequently used by John) into something else.
In 1933, Colwell proposed that the word order could make the definite article understood! This way the understood ho (‘the’) could make Jn 1:1c say “and the word was [the] god.� And, as we have already found, ho theos (‘the god’) always indicates “God� in English translation for John’s writing.
This need by some trinitarians for a new ‘rule’ is a further admission that theos by itself doesn’t mean “God� in the Gospel of John.
Another new ‘rule’ concerning the word order of John 1:1c has been proposed to make the Word of the same 'essence' as God. These ‘Qualitative’ rules are like Colwell’s rule above except they don’t allow for an understood article (ho) before theos. In fact, they say that the use of ho ('the') there would be heresy! They say, instead, that the word order makes theos ‘qualitative.’
The same method of examining all proper examples that are parallel to John 1:1c in John proves both modern inventions to be wrong.
To Be Continued
John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):
But, you may ask, Isn’t there a significance to the 'reversed' word order in the Greek (‘god was the word’) which is, in English, ‘the word was god.’?
If you will examine a good NT interlinear, you will find that word order is basically meaningless.
NT Greek authorities, Dr. Alfred Marshall and Prof. J. Gresham Machen tell us in their NT Greek primers that, unlike English, NT Greek does not use word order to convey meanings but instead uses the individual endings on each word (inflections).
“The English translation must be determined by observing the [Greek word] endings, not by observing the [word] order.� - New Testament Greek for Beginners, Machen, p. 27. (cf. New Testament Greek Primer, Marshall, pp. 7, 22 and A. T. Robertson, Grammar, p. 417.) [Emphasis added]
And in a later example illustrating predicate nouns Prof. Machen gave this example: “ho apostolos anthropos estin [word for word translation: ‘the apostle man is’],� and he translated that sentence (which has an anarthrous predicate count noun (anthropos, 'man') preceding the verb as in John 1:1c) as “the apostle is a man.� - p. 50, New Testament Greek For Beginners, The Macmillan Company, 1951. Notice the addition of the English indefinite article (‘a’).
But, since the actual grammar of John (and all the other Gospel writers) shows John 1:1c to be properly translated as “and the Word was a god,� some Trinitarians attempted to make this perfectly ordinary NT Greek word order (frequently used by John) into something else.
In 1933, Colwell proposed that the word order could make the definite article understood! This way the understood ho (‘the’) could make Jn 1:1c say “and the word was [the] god.� And, as we have already found, ho theos (‘the god’) always indicates “God� in English translation for John’s writing.
This need by some trinitarians for a new ‘rule’ is a further admission that theos by itself doesn’t mean “God� in the Gospel of John.
Another new ‘rule’ concerning the word order of John 1:1c has been proposed to make the Word of the same 'essence' as God. These ‘Qualitative’ rules are like Colwell’s rule above except they don’t allow for an understood article (ho) before theos. In fact, they say that the use of ho ('the') there would be heresy! They say, instead, that the word order makes theos ‘qualitative.’
The same method of examining all proper examples that are parallel to John 1:1c in John proves both modern inventions to be wrong.
To Be Continued
-
InTheFlesh
- Guru
- Posts: 1478
- Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 9:54 pm
Post #65
John.1
1.[10] He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Gen.1
1.[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Acts.17
1.[24] God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
1.[10] He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Gen.1
1.[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Acts.17
1.[24] God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Pss.150
[6] Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.
[6] Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.
-
Shermana
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3762
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
- Location: City of the "Angels"
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #66
A better translation would be Made "Through" him. This is expressed in the "Wisdom of Solomon" and Philo's Logos Theology that the personified Wisdom/Logos was a sort of Foreman assisting the Creation process. John's intended readership were heavily influenced by Philo at the time and understood the Logos Theology very well, and they would have been well familiar with this concept of the Creator using the Logos as his "tool" so to speak. The word "Through" better hits the likely intended meaning.InTheFlesh wrote:John.1
1.[10] He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Gen.1
1.[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Acts.17
1.[24] God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
"
New International Version (©1984)
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him."
-
teddy_trueblood
- Apprentice
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:15 pm
Post #67
D.
John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):
It’s been many years since I looked up all the constructions in John’s writing which are parallel to John 1:1c. I didn’t have a computer then and had to use a concordance and an interlinear NT Bible. Then I typed it all up into 50-page study. Now it’s on my computer and even on some internet sites (you know, the ones I keep giving links to which nearly everyone ignores
).
In addition to examining in detail the steps we’ve looked at already, there is a comprehensive listing of the parallel constructions. When the exceptions (non-count noun, abstracts, personal and proper names, prepositional modifiers, etc.) are sorted out, we find the following passages to be the only proper examples which are parallel to John 1:1c.
Here, then, are all the proper examples (truly comparable to Jn 1:1c) from the writings of John (W&H text) for an honest examination of “Colwell’s Rule� (or any related rules, including Harner’s “qualitative� rule, concerning the simple, unmodified anarthrous predicate count noun coming before the verb):
H,W 1. John 4:19 - (“a prophet�) - all Bible translations
H,W 2. John 8:48 - (“a Samaritan�) - all translations
H,W 3. John 18:37 (a) - (“a king�) - all
[H,W 4. John 18:37 (b) - (“a king�) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]
H: Also found in Harner’s list of “Colwell Constructions�
W: Also found in Wallace’s list of “Colwell Constructions�
These are all indefinite nouns. All modern trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite!
If we wish to supply more examples, we must include some which are less perfect than these three (or four). The best we can do is to include all those constructions (W&H text) which comply with the other qualifications above but which, unlike Jn 1:1c, have the subject before the verb also. Since trinitarian scholars themselves include such examples, they should not object if we also include all such examples.
When we add those constructions to our list, we have:
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
H,W 4. John 8:44 - 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]
These are all indefinite nouns (not definite, not “qualitative�). All trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite! We should have enough examples to satisfy the most critical (but honest) scholar now. (And I wouldn’t strongly resist the use of the “no subject� examples which clearly intend the subject as being a pronoun included with the verb, e.g., “[I] am� (eimi) which would then bring our total of proper examples to around 20.)
To Be Continued
John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):
It’s been many years since I looked up all the constructions in John’s writing which are parallel to John 1:1c. I didn’t have a computer then and had to use a concordance and an interlinear NT Bible. Then I typed it all up into 50-page study. Now it’s on my computer and even on some internet sites (you know, the ones I keep giving links to which nearly everyone ignores
).In addition to examining in detail the steps we’ve looked at already, there is a comprehensive listing of the parallel constructions. When the exceptions (non-count noun, abstracts, personal and proper names, prepositional modifiers, etc.) are sorted out, we find the following passages to be the only proper examples which are parallel to John 1:1c.
Here, then, are all the proper examples (truly comparable to Jn 1:1c) from the writings of John (W&H text) for an honest examination of “Colwell’s Rule� (or any related rules, including Harner’s “qualitative� rule, concerning the simple, unmodified anarthrous predicate count noun coming before the verb):
H,W 1. John 4:19 - (“a prophet�) - all Bible translations
H,W 2. John 8:48 - (“a Samaritan�) - all translations
H,W 3. John 18:37 (a) - (“a king�) - all
[H,W 4. John 18:37 (b) - (“a king�) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]
H: Also found in Harner’s list of “Colwell Constructions�
W: Also found in Wallace’s list of “Colwell Constructions�
These are all indefinite nouns. All modern trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite!
If we wish to supply more examples, we must include some which are less perfect than these three (or four). The best we can do is to include all those constructions (W&H text) which comply with the other qualifications above but which, unlike Jn 1:1c, have the subject before the verb also. Since trinitarian scholars themselves include such examples, they should not object if we also include all such examples.
When we add those constructions to our list, we have:
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
H,W 4. John 8:44 - 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]
These are all indefinite nouns (not definite, not “qualitative�). All trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite! We should have enough examples to satisfy the most critical (but honest) scholar now. (And I wouldn’t strongly resist the use of the “no subject� examples which clearly intend the subject as being a pronoun included with the verb, e.g., “[I] am� (eimi) which would then bring our total of proper examples to around 20.)
To Be Continued
-
teddy_trueblood
- Apprentice
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:15 pm
Post #68
E.
John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):
The above posts show that word order (predicate noun before the verb as found in the NT Greek of John 1:1c) does not change the meaning to an understood article (“the�) or some nebulous ‘qualitative’ meaning.
Pay particular attention to two of the verses found in our list in D. above: John 6:70 and John 10:1.
John 6:70 “Jesus answered them…. and one of you [Judas] is a devil.� - KJV. Greek word order: “out of you one devil is.�
“One who sins belongs to the devil, like Cain (1 Jn 3:8, 12); or he is a devil himself, like Judas, the betrayer (Jn 6:70). .... Jesus’ enemies are called children [and sons] of the devil, i.e. those who share his nature and behaviour (Jn 8:44) [Acts 13:10; 1 Jn 3:10].� - p. 472, vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan.
So a man who is from [literally “out of,� ek] the Devil (1 Jn 3:8), and is a ‘son of the Devil’ (Acts 13:10), and who is “with the Devil (whether physically or figuratively) may also be called “a devil� (Jn 6:70)! So Judas, for example, could be described in NT terms: “Judas was with ho diabolos ['the Devil'], and diabolos ['a devil'] was Judas.� And no matter how anyone wants to interpret it, it would be incredibly wrong to insist (as many trinitarians do about Jn 1:1c) that this meant Judas was literally, equally the Devil himself! Whether you translate it literally (“Judas was with the Devil, and Judas was a devil�) or ‘qualitatively’ (“Judas was with the Devil, and Judas had the ‘nature’ of the Devil�), it would mean essentially the same thing: Judas simply shared to some degree some (or one) of the qualities of the Devil, but he is not literally equally the Devil with Satan himself! No reasonable person would accept this as evidence for some mysterious ‘Satanity’! Compare this with John 1:1c.
John 10:1 John 10:1 has this word order, “that (one) thief is and robber� [the first predicate noun is before the verb and the second is after the verb!]. This is always translated as, “that one [or ‘he’] is a thief and a robber� (both indefinite!). It is never rendered, “that one is the Thief and a robber" [Colwell's Rule]. And it is never “qualitatively� rendered as “that one has the full essence of thiefness and is a robber.�
The word order does not change the meaning. The predicate noun is still indefinite.
To Be Continued
John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):
The above posts show that word order (predicate noun before the verb as found in the NT Greek of John 1:1c) does not change the meaning to an understood article (“the�) or some nebulous ‘qualitative’ meaning.
Pay particular attention to two of the verses found in our list in D. above: John 6:70 and John 10:1.
John 6:70 “Jesus answered them…. and one of you [Judas] is a devil.� - KJV. Greek word order: “out of you one devil is.�
“One who sins belongs to the devil, like Cain (1 Jn 3:8, 12); or he is a devil himself, like Judas, the betrayer (Jn 6:70). .... Jesus’ enemies are called children [and sons] of the devil, i.e. those who share his nature and behaviour (Jn 8:44) [Acts 13:10; 1 Jn 3:10].� - p. 472, vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan.
So a man who is from [literally “out of,� ek] the Devil (1 Jn 3:8), and is a ‘son of the Devil’ (Acts 13:10), and who is “with the Devil (whether physically or figuratively) may also be called “a devil� (Jn 6:70)! So Judas, for example, could be described in NT terms: “Judas was with ho diabolos ['the Devil'], and diabolos ['a devil'] was Judas.� And no matter how anyone wants to interpret it, it would be incredibly wrong to insist (as many trinitarians do about Jn 1:1c) that this meant Judas was literally, equally the Devil himself! Whether you translate it literally (“Judas was with the Devil, and Judas was a devil�) or ‘qualitatively’ (“Judas was with the Devil, and Judas had the ‘nature’ of the Devil�), it would mean essentially the same thing: Judas simply shared to some degree some (or one) of the qualities of the Devil, but he is not literally equally the Devil with Satan himself! No reasonable person would accept this as evidence for some mysterious ‘Satanity’! Compare this with John 1:1c.
John 10:1 John 10:1 has this word order, “that (one) thief is and robber� [the first predicate noun is before the verb and the second is after the verb!]. This is always translated as, “that one [or ‘he’] is a thief and a robber� (both indefinite!). It is never rendered, “that one is the Thief and a robber" [Colwell's Rule]. And it is never “qualitatively� rendered as “that one has the full essence of thiefness and is a robber.�
The word order does not change the meaning. The predicate noun is still indefinite.
To Be Continued
-
teddy_trueblood
- Apprentice
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:15 pm
Post #69
F.
John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):
Origen, the great Christian scholar (185 - 254 A.D.), spoke Koine Greek as his native language and knew it so well that he even taught it professionally. He was “probably the most accomplished Biblical scholar produced by the early Church� (Universal Standard Encyclopedia) and “the greatest scholar and most prolific author of the early church. ... not only a profound thinker but also deeply spiritual and a loyal churchman.� (The History of Christianity, a Lion Book). He certainly knew the Greek used by the NT writers better than any other scholar since.
In his Commentary on John, Origen explained that John 1:1c meant that the Word was not equal to the only true God, the Father, the God (ho theos) but was, instead, theos without the article as are many others who are close to God.
“And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods [angels] beside Him, of whom God is the God� - Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John Book 2, Chapter 2.
Furthermore, some of the very earliest translations of John were into the Coptic language of Egypt. This was at a time when Koine Greek was still the common language of the Mediterranean area and well understood by translators of the time.
This Coptic language did have the indefinite article (“a� in English) and existing early copies of the Coptic manuscripts use that indefinite article at John 1:1c - “the Word was a god.� - http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/
To Be Continued
John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):
Origen, the great Christian scholar (185 - 254 A.D.), spoke Koine Greek as his native language and knew it so well that he even taught it professionally. He was “probably the most accomplished Biblical scholar produced by the early Church� (Universal Standard Encyclopedia) and “the greatest scholar and most prolific author of the early church. ... not only a profound thinker but also deeply spiritual and a loyal churchman.� (The History of Christianity, a Lion Book). He certainly knew the Greek used by the NT writers better than any other scholar since.
In his Commentary on John, Origen explained that John 1:1c meant that the Word was not equal to the only true God, the Father, the God (ho theos) but was, instead, theos without the article as are many others who are close to God.
“And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods [angels] beside Him, of whom God is the God� - Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John Book 2, Chapter 2.
Furthermore, some of the very earliest translations of John were into the Coptic language of Egypt. This was at a time when Koine Greek was still the common language of the Mediterranean area and well understood by translators of the time.
This Coptic language did have the indefinite article (“a� in English) and existing early copies of the Coptic manuscripts use that indefinite article at John 1:1c - “the Word was a god.� - http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/
To Be Continued
Re: 70 Non Trinitarian translations of John 1:1
Post #70“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.�Shermana wrote: Is it logical to conclude that there is much more than the JWs as an authority that this reading of John 1:1 can be legitimately read as "a god"?
Are there enough translations that present the case of "a god" or "Divine" as the translation of an article-less "Theos" to conclude that it's not just some fringe baseless position? Is it more of a Theological issue why the "A god" translation is so unappreciated by the "Conservative scholars"?
We learn from the following verses, John 1:3-18, that ‘the Word’ refers to Jesus.
So this is definitely a theological issue: Is Jesus God?
According to the translation that has always been used: “the Word was God.�
According to the non-Trinitarians’ translation: “the Word was a god�
ChristianAnswers.net is a website I have used for a long time, and I trust them immensely. They wrote an article supporting the original translation and debunking the JWs’ translation.
Please read that article here.
They point out that according to the ‘formula’ JWs use to re-translate verse 1, verse 18 of the same chapter would also contain “a god�.
So instead of:
“No one has ever seen God, but God the Only Son [Jesus], who is at the Father’s [God’s] side, has made Him [God] known.�
The re-translation would be:
“No one has ever seen a god, but god the only son [Jesus], who is at the Father’s [God’s] side, has made him (Jesus) known.�
Obviously, that doesn’t make sense. Non-trinitarianism just can’t stand.
