70 Non Trinitarian translations of John 1:1

[Shermana]

An 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"?

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 77 by jedicri]

It is important to realize that the "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" do NOT mean that a book bearing these labels is inerrant, inspired, or divine. It also does not mean that those who reviewed it agrees with the content, opinions, or statements expressed by the author.

What are “imprimatur� and “nihil obstat� in Catholic books?

Before addressing the terms themselves, we must remember that the Magisterium, the teaching authority of our Church, has the duty to “preserve God’s people from deviations and defections, and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error� (Catechism, #890). Therefore, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom our Lord called the Spirit of Truth, the Magisterium preserves, understands, teaches, and proclaims the truth which leads to salvation.

With this in mind, the Magisterium will examine those works, particularly books, on faith and morals and pronounce whether they are free from doctrinal error. On March 19, 1975, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the following norms in this matter: “The Pastors of the Church have the duty and the right to be vigilant lest the faith and morals of the faithful be harmed by writings; and consequently, even to demand that the publication of writing concerning the faith and morals should be submitted to the Church’s approval, and also to condemn books and writings that attack faith or morals.� This mandate was reiterated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, #823.

The review process would then begin with the author submitting the manuscript to the censor deputatus, who is appointed by the bishop or other ecclesiastical authority to make such examinations. If the censor deputatus finds no doctrinal error in the work, he grants a nihil obstat attesting to this. Translated as “nothing stands in the way,� the nihil obstat indicates that the manuscript can be safely forwarded to the bishop for his review and decision.

Similarly, a member of a religious community would submit his work to his major superior. If the work is found free of doctrinal error, the major superior grants an imprimi potest, translated as “it is able to be printed.� With this approval, the manuscript is then forwarded to the bishop for his review and decision.

If the bishop concurs that the work is free from doctrinal error, he grants an imprimatur. From the Latin imprimere, meaning to impress or to stamp an imprint, imprimatur translates, “let it be printed.� Technically, this is the bishop’s official declaration that the book is free from doctrinal error and has been approved for publication by a censor. - Catholic Straight Answers

[onewithhim]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shermana wrote:

Okay, that was a nice discourse on why you think the Catholic Church has all the answers, but it doesn't exactly hit any of the specifics about John 1:1c.

Jedicri answered:

Actually, it does. By having written what I have written, I question your authority and others, for that matter, on your interpretation of Scripture. If you did not canonize the Bible, and you did not, what authority have you to challenge what Catholicism has taught for over 2000 years?

...................

Well-respected Catholic Jesuit Bible scholar John J. McKenzie, S. J., writes in his Dictionary of the Bible:

“Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God (equals the Father), and the word was a divine being’.� - p. 317, 1965, published with Catholic nihil obstat and imprimatur. McKenzie was a Trinitarian (of course); he just didn’t believe John 1:1c was evidence for it.

The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. XIII, No. 4, Oct. 1951, stated: “Grammar alone cannot prove how the predicate in this verse [John 1:1c] should be translated, whether ‘God’ or ‘a god’.�

In addition to the greatest NT scholar of the first centuries A.D. (Origen), we should add the words of Hippolytus, “the most important 3rd century [he lived from about 170 A.D. – 236 A.D.] theologian of the Roman Church� (p. 652, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F. L. Cross, Oxford University Press, 1990 reprint), who wrote, showing his understanding of the word "god" in relation to men and the Word [Logos]:

"The Creator did not wish to make him [man] a god, and failed in His aim; nor an angel, -be not deceived,- but a man. For if He had willed to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou hast the example of the Logos." - Book X, Ch. XXIX, 'The Refutation of all Heresies' by Hippolytus as translated in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 151, vol. 5, Eerdmans.

In other words, Hippolytus, who is even considered by some to have contributed to the development of the trinity doctrine in Christendom, also considered the Logos (the Word) to be a god.

It is important to realize that the "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" do NOT mean that a book bearing these labels is inerrant, inspired, or divine. It also does not mean that those who reviewed it agrees with the content, opinions, or statements expressed by the author.

I really do not think that the Vatican would agree with you, according to what Pope Paul VI wrote in the New American Bible (1970). After Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur was listed, including The Archbishop of Washington, Patrick Cardinal O'Boyle, Pope Paul wrote:

"...The publication of The New American Bible represents a notable achievement. Its pages contain a new Catholic version of the Bible in English, along with illustrations and explanations that facilitate the understanding of the text."

Does that sound like he and Archbishop O'Boyle and the others did not agree with the content of this version of the Bible? It looks to me like the pope was recommending this Bible version as one that will help people understand what the Bible is saying.


He goes on: "For more than a quarter of a century, members of the Catholic Biblical Association of America, sponsored by the Bishops' Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, have labored to create this new translation of the Scriptures from the original languages or from the oldest extant form in which the texts exist. In so doing, the translators have carried out the directive of our predecessor, Pius XII, in his famous Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, and the decree of the Second Vatican Council (Dei Verbum), which prescribed that 'up-to-date and appropriate translations be made in the various languages, by preference from the original texts of the sacred books,' and that with the approval of Church authority, these translations may be produced in cooperation with our separated Brethren' so that 'all Christians may be able to use them."

He concludes by saying: "On all who have contributed to this translation, and all who seek in its pages the sacred teaching and the promise of salvation of Jesus Christ our Lord, we gladly bestow our paternal Apostolic Blessing."


Would the pope be so enthusiastically supporting the efforts of the New American Bible translators if he didn't necessarily agree with its contents? It looks like he certainly did, and I would surely guess that the Archbishops who gave it their Imprimatur agreed with his assessment. Why on earth would they put their stamp of approval on something if they didn't agree with it?


.

[onewithhim]

Okay, that was a nice discourse on why you think the Catholic Church has all the answers, but it doesn't exactly hit any of the specifics about John 1:1c.

Actually, it does. By having written what I have written, I question your authority and others, for that matter, on your interpretation of Scripture. If you did not canonize the Bible, and you did not, what authority have you to challenge what Catholicism has taught for over 2000 years?

By the authority of good Greek translation, following the rules of translation into English, which the King James and Douay translators and others did not do concerning John 1:1.

[onewithhim]

Surely the good people of this forum would have some thoughts on what has been said here. Please contribute.

[onewithhim]

Here it is again, so Pinseeker and others can avail themselves of the fact that many other versions besides the NWT agree that the verse says, "and the Word was a god."

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 85 by onewithhim]

"My Lord and My God - Shema Trinity" viewtopic.php?t=36144&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90

My earlier posts (84, 91 and links) listed exceptions to the use of the definite article which made their use ambiguous (abstract nouns; personal names; nouns modified by prepositions and genitive nouns; etc.)

post 104 "My Lord and My God - Shema Trinity":

Here are all the proper unambiguous examples in constructions parallel to John 1:1c (predicate noun before the verb):

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 - 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]
H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - a liar (he) is.
H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - a beggar (he) was.
H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - a prophet (he) is.
H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - a sinner (he) is.
H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - a hireling (he) is.
H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - a thief (he) was.
18. 1 Jn 4:20 - a liar (he) is.

But Trinitarians insist that John 1:1c must be understood as literally "and the god is the word" since John always uses 'the' with theos to mean 'God.'

Apparently no trinitarian looked them up but still disagreed with them. I'm asking again for those who insist that John 1:1c is correctly translated as "And the Word was God" to look up all the other parallel examples listed above and see if 'the' is with the predicate nouns there as I have said. And if anyone finds an error in my list, please let me know. There are online interlinears which can help you.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 86 by tigger2]

Excellent, tigger. I wonder if folks here understand the importance of the definite article before a noun. If it's NOT THERE then the noun needs an INDEFINITE article, but Greek doesn't have any. Therefore, according to the rules of translating from the Greek, the English language would demand the indefinite article (though understood in the Greek). Otherwise we wouldn't get the meaning of the phrase.

We wouldn't say "Snoopy is dog." We would say "Snoopy is A dog," even though the indefinite article is not there in the Greek.

Because "Snoopy is dog" in the Greek does not have the DEFINITE article (the), the Greeks would know that Snoopy is not the only dog. But for English speaking people, the translators would have to insert the indefinite article so that we could understand the meaning.

So....John wrote "the Word was with the God, and the Word was a god," according to the rules of translation.


tigger, I'm thinking that this is a bit too complicated for the folks here.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 85 by onewithhim]

"My Lord and My God - Shema Trinity" viewtopic.php?t=36144&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90

My earlier posts (84, 91 and links) listed exceptions to the use of the definite article which made their use ambiguous (abstract nouns; personal names; nouns modified by prepositions and genitive nouns; etc.)

post 104 "My Lord and My God - Shema Trinity":

Here are all the proper unambiguous examples in constructions parallel to John 1:1c (predicate noun before the verb):

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 - 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]
H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - a liar (he) is.
H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - a beggar (he) was.
H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - a prophet (he) is.
H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - a sinner (he) is.
H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - a hireling (he) is.
H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - a thief (he) was.
18. 1 Jn 4:20 - a liar (he) is.

But Trinitarians insist that John 1:1c must be understood as literally "and the god is the word" since John always uses 'the' with theos to mean 'God.'

Apparently no trinitarian looked them up but still disagreed with them. I'm asking again for those who insist that John 1:1c is correctly translated as "And the Word was God" to look up all the other parallel examples listed above and see if 'the' is with the predicate nouns there as I have said. And if anyone finds an error in my list, please let me know. There are online interlinears which can help you.

Hopefully there are some people currently who would like to address your post. Any takers?

[onewithhim]

Why does no one have anything to say about this? Any comments are welcome.

[tigger 2]

I think most trinitarians are satisfied with what they have been taught and don't want to spend real study time on something which might disprove an important part of that belief.