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: 5 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 #71
In part A. of the examination of John 1:1c posted above it was explained that the "a god" translation is for the subject form of the word: theos as found in John 1:1c. The word you have non-trinitarians 'translating' as 'a god' is theon, not theos. Theon does not always take the definite article to be used for God as does theos in the writings of John (and the other Gospel writers).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.
I have a link to explain the use and non-use of the article with theon, but since no one here ever seems to use my links, I will not trouble you with it.
If you really wanted to learn the truth of this matter you would spend as much time examining what non-trinitarians post (including their links) as you do in reading trinitarian arguments (as in your post and link).
-
teddy_trueblood
- Apprentice
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:15 pm
Post #72
G.
John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):
The Word (ho Logos)
A few trinitarians actually attempt to “prove� that John 1:1c should be translated as “and the Word [Logos] was God� rather than “and the Word [Logos] was a god� by appealing to one of the strictly pagan concepts of “The Logos�!
But, as we will see, what it all boils down to (and many of the most authoritative trinitarian sources agree) is this: either the Gospel of John (written around 90 A.D.) truly reflects John’s Jewish background and the teaching of Jesus and the first century Christians (the “primitive� Church) or it reflects popular pagan Greek philosophies of the time and is, therefore, “a work of imagination, a theological romance of a type not unparalleled in [pagan Greek] literature.� If it were the latter, of course, it wouldn’t matter what Jn 1:1c says anyway, since it would certainly not be the inspired word of God. If it is the former, all the evidence (as a number of trinitarian authorities themselves admit) proves John is basing his Logos [‘Word’] concept on that of the Jewish teaching of Philo.
Philo (who lived about 20 B.C. - 50 A.D.), the best-known, most-respected Hellenistic Jewish theologian by those living in the first and second centuries, clearly and repeatedly taught that the Logos is a god (one lesser than God) and frequently showed this in his writing by using theos without the definite article (“a god�) to refer to the Logos but used theos with the definite article ho theos when referring to God. Since John obviously based most of his Logos statements on Philo’s concept, we would expect him to use theos without the article (“a god�) to refer to the Logos. And that is exactly what he did at John 1:1c!
“The outstanding Alexandrian Jew [‘the chief representative of Alexandrian Judaism’ - J. B. Lightfoot’s commentary: Epistle to the Philippians, p. 130] is, of course, Philo Judaeus (20 B.C.-A.D. 50). .... It has been said rightly that the history of Christian philosophy ‘began not with a Christian but a Jew,’ namely Philo of Alexandria.� - p. 35, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), 1985, Fortress Press.
“Philo, the famous Jewish philosopher, .... is the most important example of the Hellenized Jews outside Palestine... he believed wholly in the Mosaic scriptures and in one God whose chief mediator with the world is the Logos� - Philo, vol. 5, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1988.
Philo also (unlike the pagan Greek Stoic philosophers) “gives the Logos the titles of Son of God [John 1:34], paraclete [‘Comforter,’ ‘Advocate,’ ‘Helper’ - 1 John 2:1], and mediator between God and man [1 Tim. 2:5].� - Americana, 1957, v. 21, pp. 766, 767.
Philo also:
“differentiates the Logos from God as his work or image [2 Cor. 4:4].� Philo’s Logos is also “first-born son [Ro. 8:29]....divine [a god - Jn 1:1] but not God, is with God [Jn 1:1], is light [Jn 1:4],...manna [Jn 6:31-51],...and shepherd [Jn 10:11].� - Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 251, vol. 14, 1968. (Cf. Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 8, p. 135.)
And,
“Philo describes the Logos in terms which often bear striking resemblance to NT descriptions of Christ .... Philo distinguishes God as the cause by which [and]..., the Logos as that through which (di’ hou),... the cosmos originated� [Jn 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6] and “even as theos [‘a god’] in a subordinate sense� [Jn 1:1] and one “from which drawing water one may find eternal life instead of death [Jn 4:14].� - A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 135, vol. 3, Hastings, ed., Hendrickson Publ., 1988 printing.
In fact, Philo even said that
“the Logos is the eldest son [first-born or created] of God.� [Ro. 8:29] - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (trinitarian), p. 639, vol. 3 (also vol. 1, p. 178), 1986, Zondervan.
“Philo of course conceives of the Logos - which he occasionally calls divine (theos) [literally, ’a god’], but never ‘God’ (ho theos) - as the highest angel and as the highest idea at the same time....� - p. 126, John 1, Haenchen, Fortress Press, 1984.
After discussing all other trinitarian-proposed origins of John’s concept of the Logos (including, of course, those of the Stoics; the OT Wisdom concept; etc.) and rejecting them all, a highly-respected trinitarian work concludes:
“In the question of the origin of the Logos-concept [by John], pre-eminent significance is therefore to be attributed to Hellenistic Judaism [Philo].� - p. 1117, vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan.
Even the famed Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics tells us that John must be referring to Philo’s conception of the Logos:
“It is clear from the tone of the Prologue [John 1:1-18] that Philo’s conception of the Logos, or something akin to it, was already familiar to those for whom the Evangelist [John] wrote. No explanation of the word Logos is given [anywhere in the entire Gospel]; and almost every verse in this Prologue might be paralleled from Philo [and only Philo].� - p. 136, vol. 8.
And if John were writing to a group of the “many ... Hellenistic Jews� who had become a part of the Church (or who were at least interested in Christianity), there would be no need to explain the Logos concept which they were already very familiar with from Philo’s Hellenistic Judaism. (The lack of any explanation of his Logos concept by John has been very troubling to many students of the Prologue of the Gospel of John.) And that concept is that the Logos (although the second highest power in the universe, the Son of God, the Mediator between God and Man, the one through whom God created all things) is an intermediate entity who is not the Most High God but is ‘a god’!
The above are excerpts from the ‘Logos (the Word)’ study -
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... word.html
The End
………………………………..
John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):
The Word (ho Logos)
A few trinitarians actually attempt to “prove� that John 1:1c should be translated as “and the Word [Logos] was God� rather than “and the Word [Logos] was a god� by appealing to one of the strictly pagan concepts of “The Logos�!
But, as we will see, what it all boils down to (and many of the most authoritative trinitarian sources agree) is this: either the Gospel of John (written around 90 A.D.) truly reflects John’s Jewish background and the teaching of Jesus and the first century Christians (the “primitive� Church) or it reflects popular pagan Greek philosophies of the time and is, therefore, “a work of imagination, a theological romance of a type not unparalleled in [pagan Greek] literature.� If it were the latter, of course, it wouldn’t matter what Jn 1:1c says anyway, since it would certainly not be the inspired word of God. If it is the former, all the evidence (as a number of trinitarian authorities themselves admit) proves John is basing his Logos [‘Word’] concept on that of the Jewish teaching of Philo.
Philo (who lived about 20 B.C. - 50 A.D.), the best-known, most-respected Hellenistic Jewish theologian by those living in the first and second centuries, clearly and repeatedly taught that the Logos is a god (one lesser than God) and frequently showed this in his writing by using theos without the definite article (“a god�) to refer to the Logos but used theos with the definite article ho theos when referring to God. Since John obviously based most of his Logos statements on Philo’s concept, we would expect him to use theos without the article (“a god�) to refer to the Logos. And that is exactly what he did at John 1:1c!
“The outstanding Alexandrian Jew [‘the chief representative of Alexandrian Judaism’ - J. B. Lightfoot’s commentary: Epistle to the Philippians, p. 130] is, of course, Philo Judaeus (20 B.C.-A.D. 50). .... It has been said rightly that the history of Christian philosophy ‘began not with a Christian but a Jew,’ namely Philo of Alexandria.� - p. 35, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), 1985, Fortress Press.
“Philo, the famous Jewish philosopher, .... is the most important example of the Hellenized Jews outside Palestine... he believed wholly in the Mosaic scriptures and in one God whose chief mediator with the world is the Logos� - Philo, vol. 5, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1988.
Philo also (unlike the pagan Greek Stoic philosophers) “gives the Logos the titles of Son of God [John 1:34], paraclete [‘Comforter,’ ‘Advocate,’ ‘Helper’ - 1 John 2:1], and mediator between God and man [1 Tim. 2:5].� - Americana, 1957, v. 21, pp. 766, 767.
Philo also:
“differentiates the Logos from God as his work or image [2 Cor. 4:4].� Philo’s Logos is also “first-born son [Ro. 8:29]....divine [a god - Jn 1:1] but not God, is with God [Jn 1:1], is light [Jn 1:4],...manna [Jn 6:31-51],...and shepherd [Jn 10:11].� - Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 251, vol. 14, 1968. (Cf. Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 8, p. 135.)
And,
“Philo describes the Logos in terms which often bear striking resemblance to NT descriptions of Christ .... Philo distinguishes God as the cause by which [and]..., the Logos as that through which (di’ hou),... the cosmos originated� [Jn 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6] and “even as theos [‘a god’] in a subordinate sense� [Jn 1:1] and one “from which drawing water one may find eternal life instead of death [Jn 4:14].� - A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 135, vol. 3, Hastings, ed., Hendrickson Publ., 1988 printing.
In fact, Philo even said that
“the Logos is the eldest son [first-born or created] of God.� [Ro. 8:29] - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (trinitarian), p. 639, vol. 3 (also vol. 1, p. 178), 1986, Zondervan.
“Philo of course conceives of the Logos - which he occasionally calls divine (theos) [literally, ’a god’], but never ‘God’ (ho theos) - as the highest angel and as the highest idea at the same time....� - p. 126, John 1, Haenchen, Fortress Press, 1984.
After discussing all other trinitarian-proposed origins of John’s concept of the Logos (including, of course, those of the Stoics; the OT Wisdom concept; etc.) and rejecting them all, a highly-respected trinitarian work concludes:
“In the question of the origin of the Logos-concept [by John], pre-eminent significance is therefore to be attributed to Hellenistic Judaism [Philo].� - p. 1117, vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan.
Even the famed Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics tells us that John must be referring to Philo’s conception of the Logos:
“It is clear from the tone of the Prologue [John 1:1-18] that Philo’s conception of the Logos, or something akin to it, was already familiar to those for whom the Evangelist [John] wrote. No explanation of the word Logos is given [anywhere in the entire Gospel]; and almost every verse in this Prologue might be paralleled from Philo [and only Philo].� - p. 136, vol. 8.
And if John were writing to a group of the “many ... Hellenistic Jews� who had become a part of the Church (or who were at least interested in Christianity), there would be no need to explain the Logos concept which they were already very familiar with from Philo’s Hellenistic Judaism. (The lack of any explanation of his Logos concept by John has been very troubling to many students of the Prologue of the Gospel of John.) And that concept is that the Logos (although the second highest power in the universe, the Son of God, the Mediator between God and Man, the one through whom God created all things) is an intermediate entity who is not the Most High God but is ‘a god’!
The above are excerpts from the ‘Logos (the Word)’ study -
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... word.html
The End
………………………………..
-
Cewakiyelo
- Scholar
- Posts: 471
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:54 pm
Re: John 1:1
Post #73John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend] it.
The verses are speaking of Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Son of God.
Jesus says of the Holy Spirit..
John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
Matt 23:10
And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.
The Holy Spirit teaches all things. There is but One Teacher, the Christ. Jesus is saying that the Holy Spirit is the Christ, the One Teacher. Depending upon the translation Teacher may also be seen as Leader or Master.
So what can we see that demonstrates the truth of this.
Romans 8:29
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren
God foreknows and predestines someone to be conformed to the image of His Son that they may be the firstborn among many brethren
As Jesus comes up from the water of his baptism the heavens open to him and he sees a Spirit overcoming him. He hears the voice of God introducing the Spirit to him. God says that the Spirit is His Son.
Matt 4:1
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil
We see Jesus being led by the Spirit. Jesus is a follower of the Holy Spirit. He sits with the Spirit for 40 days. During that time Jesus is learning from the Spirit. This is his conformation. He is being purified and prepared so that the Spirit has a clean pure place to dwell. We never see it said that the Spirit departs from Jesus. Because it don't happen. Instead what we see is the Holy Spirit of God, Gods Son, the One Teacher, the One Leader, the One Master dwelling within Jesus. When Jesus speaks sometimes it is just Jesus speaking. Other times it is the Holy Spirit speaking through Jesus. The Apostles have a hard time grasping this as they only see Jesus. His lips moving , his voice. They don't comprehend the Spirit which is dwelling within him. They see Jesus do miracles and don't realize it is the Spirit within him that is doing these things. They see him as the Son of God when it is actually the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is the Teacher and teaches the Word of God. The Holy Spirit is the Word of God. It is the Spirit that was in the beginning. It is the Spirit that shines in the darkness. All things were made through the Spirit. Just as all gifts come from the Spirit.
When Jesus asked the Pharisees about Christ and who's son He was. They said David. Jesus knew that was wrong.
Matt 22:43,44
He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying: ‘ The LORD said to my Lord, “ Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool�’?
David in the Spirit said... That is saying that the Spirit of God is moving David to Speak. The LORD said to my Lord. Davids Lord is the Holy Spirit which is instructing him to speak. The LORD of David's Lord (the Holy Spirit) is God the Father. God our Father should be our LORD. His Son the Holy Spirit should be our Lord. So when Jesus asked who's son is Christ, the answer is that Christ is God's Son.
God introduced His Son to Jesus. Jesus then followed God's Son, the Christ into the wilderness where he was conformed to the image (likeness) of God's Son. We to are to be conformed to the image of God's Son, Christ and become the many brethren. Many say that none can be perfect all are sinners yet the scriptures tell us in Revelations that 144,000 shall be seen to be without blemish before God. They are those many brethren that completed their walk with the Spirit without stumbling along the way. Jesus earned his seat at the right hand of the Father as he was the first to accomplish this task without faltering. He became as One with the Spirit and remains so. But Jesus was not there in the beginning He joined later.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend] it.
The verses are speaking of Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Son of God.
Jesus says of the Holy Spirit..
John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
Matt 23:10
And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.
The Holy Spirit teaches all things. There is but One Teacher, the Christ. Jesus is saying that the Holy Spirit is the Christ, the One Teacher. Depending upon the translation Teacher may also be seen as Leader or Master.
So what can we see that demonstrates the truth of this.
Romans 8:29
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren
God foreknows and predestines someone to be conformed to the image of His Son that they may be the firstborn among many brethren
As Jesus comes up from the water of his baptism the heavens open to him and he sees a Spirit overcoming him. He hears the voice of God introducing the Spirit to him. God says that the Spirit is His Son.
Matt 4:1
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil
We see Jesus being led by the Spirit. Jesus is a follower of the Holy Spirit. He sits with the Spirit for 40 days. During that time Jesus is learning from the Spirit. This is his conformation. He is being purified and prepared so that the Spirit has a clean pure place to dwell. We never see it said that the Spirit departs from Jesus. Because it don't happen. Instead what we see is the Holy Spirit of God, Gods Son, the One Teacher, the One Leader, the One Master dwelling within Jesus. When Jesus speaks sometimes it is just Jesus speaking. Other times it is the Holy Spirit speaking through Jesus. The Apostles have a hard time grasping this as they only see Jesus. His lips moving , his voice. They don't comprehend the Spirit which is dwelling within him. They see Jesus do miracles and don't realize it is the Spirit within him that is doing these things. They see him as the Son of God when it is actually the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is the Teacher and teaches the Word of God. The Holy Spirit is the Word of God. It is the Spirit that was in the beginning. It is the Spirit that shines in the darkness. All things were made through the Spirit. Just as all gifts come from the Spirit.
When Jesus asked the Pharisees about Christ and who's son He was. They said David. Jesus knew that was wrong.
Matt 22:43,44
He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying: ‘ The LORD said to my Lord, “ Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool�’?
David in the Spirit said... That is saying that the Spirit of God is moving David to Speak. The LORD said to my Lord. Davids Lord is the Holy Spirit which is instructing him to speak. The LORD of David's Lord (the Holy Spirit) is God the Father. God our Father should be our LORD. His Son the Holy Spirit should be our Lord. So when Jesus asked who's son is Christ, the answer is that Christ is God's Son.
God introduced His Son to Jesus. Jesus then followed God's Son, the Christ into the wilderness where he was conformed to the image (likeness) of God's Son. We to are to be conformed to the image of God's Son, Christ and become the many brethren. Many say that none can be perfect all are sinners yet the scriptures tell us in Revelations that 144,000 shall be seen to be without blemish before God. They are those many brethren that completed their walk with the Spirit without stumbling along the way. Jesus earned his seat at the right hand of the Father as he was the first to accomplish this task without faltering. He became as One with the Spirit and remains so. But Jesus was not there in the beginning He joined later.
-
teddy_trueblood
- Apprentice
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:15 pm
Post #74
The mistranslation of John 1:1 has already been examined in parts A-G of the above posts.
At least the Bible you quote (NKJV?) has given the ‘clue’ which shows who the two “lords� are in this passage. The preface in my copy of the NKJV explains that (just as in the KJV) the actual ‘Covenant’ Name of God is written as ‘LORD’ in all capitals.
We also find that in scripture many persons are called “Lord� (adonai in OT Hebrew; kurios in NT Greek): Angels, kings, others in authority, etc.
If you look in Bibles (such as ASV) or commentaries (such as Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 330, Bethany House, 1982) or Bible Encyclopedias (such as The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 1266, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984) which try to use the actual name given by God himself and used throughout the OT, you will find that the actual name is not ‘LORD,’ but YHWH which is transliterated into English as “Jehovah� (KJV - Psalm 83:18) or “Yahweh.�
This only Personal Name of God is used over 6000 times in the OT and misused in most Bibles over 6000 times. Some Bibles actually use the name throughout (ASV, Young’s, King James II Version, JB, etc.) and some use it in only a very few places (KJV, NEB, MLB, Living Bible, etc.).
The KJV and NKJV, at least, also use the capitalized ‘LORD’ (‘Jehovah’) in quotes from the OT when found in the NT (such as the one you have quoted which is from Psalm 110:1).
Acts 2:34-36 in the NKJV:
“For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘The LORD [Jehovah] said to my Lord [the Messiah, not the Holy Spirit], “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.� ’
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God [Jehovah] has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.�
So, Jehovah (or Yahweh/Yehowah if you prefer) said to Jesus [David’s Lord], “Sit at my right hand, etc.�
[/i]
When Jesus asked the Pharisees about Christ and who's son He was. They said David. Jesus knew that was wrong.
Matt 22:43,44
He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying: ‘ The LORD said to my Lord, “ Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool�’?
David in the Spirit said... That is saying that the Spirit of God is moving David to Speak. The LORD said to my Lord. Davids Lord is the Holy Spirit which is instructing him to speak. The LORD of David's Lord (the Holy Spirit) is God the Father. God our Father should be our LORD. His Son the Holy Spirit should be our Lord. So when Jesus asked who's son is Christ, the answer is that Christ is God's Son.
At least the Bible you quote (NKJV?) has given the ‘clue’ which shows who the two “lords� are in this passage. The preface in my copy of the NKJV explains that (just as in the KJV) the actual ‘Covenant’ Name of God is written as ‘LORD’ in all capitals.
We also find that in scripture many persons are called “Lord� (adonai in OT Hebrew; kurios in NT Greek): Angels, kings, others in authority, etc.
If you look in Bibles (such as ASV) or commentaries (such as Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 330, Bethany House, 1982) or Bible Encyclopedias (such as The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 1266, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984) which try to use the actual name given by God himself and used throughout the OT, you will find that the actual name is not ‘LORD,’ but YHWH which is transliterated into English as “Jehovah� (KJV - Psalm 83:18) or “Yahweh.�
This only Personal Name of God is used over 6000 times in the OT and misused in most Bibles over 6000 times. Some Bibles actually use the name throughout (ASV, Young’s, King James II Version, JB, etc.) and some use it in only a very few places (KJV, NEB, MLB, Living Bible, etc.).
The KJV and NKJV, at least, also use the capitalized ‘LORD’ (‘Jehovah’) in quotes from the OT when found in the NT (such as the one you have quoted which is from Psalm 110:1).
Acts 2:34-36 in the NKJV:
“For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘The LORD [Jehovah] said to my Lord [the Messiah, not the Holy Spirit], “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.� ’
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God [Jehovah] has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.�
So, Jehovah (or Yahweh/Yehowah if you prefer) said to Jesus [David’s Lord], “Sit at my right hand, etc.�
Yes, Jehovah (YHWH) is God the Father alone. But the word rendered “LORD� does not mean “Lord� but improperly replaces God’s only personal name. - see Ps. 83:18 in KJV or Exodus 3:15 in ASV, NEB, MLB, KJII, LB, etc.The LORD of David's Lord (the Holy Spirit) is God the Father.
[/i]
Post #75
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?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.
-
teddy_trueblood
- Apprentice
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:15 pm
Post #76
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shermana wrote:
...................
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.
Shermana wrote:
Jedicri answered: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?
...................
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.
Post #77
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.teddy_trueblood wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shermana wrote:Jedicri answered: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?
...................
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.
Origen, Hippolytus, Fr. John Mackenzie: all their works are always subject to the judgement of the Church: in other words, they do not speak for, nor do they stand in, for the Church. It is noteworthy that even some of Origen's writings were condemned as heretical. Augustine himself saw the errors in Origen's theology.
Now as for the Hippolytus quote, I believe you are misinterpreting what he has written unless you can reconcile what he wrote regarding Jesus' Divinity, ie, the Word is God, and his belief in the Trinity:
"Therefore, this sole and universal God, by reflecting, first brought forth the Word--not a word as in speech, but as a mental word, the reason for everything. . . . The Word was the cause of those things which came into existence, carrying out in himself the will of him by whom he was begotten. . . . Only [God's] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God" ... "For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33,34).
"Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven,... He now, coming forth into the world, was manifested as God in a body, coming forth too as a perfect man.." (Against Noetus, Part 17)
"The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God." (Refutation of all Heresies, Book X, ch 29)
According to Hippolytus, Jesus “was in essential being with His Father� and “is co-eternal with His Father,� just as the doctrine of the Trinity says. And, with regard to the Trinity as a whole, Hippolytus says, “We cannot otherwise think of one God, but by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit,� and, “Whosoever omits any one of these, fails in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested. The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim this truth.�
"Against The Heresy Of One Noetus: Many other passages, or rather all of them, attest the truth. A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one. As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation, as shall be proved afterwards when we give account of the true doctrine. In these things, however, which are thus set forth by us, we are at one. For there is one God in whom we must believe, but unoriginated, impassible, immortal, doing all things as He wills, in the way He wills, and when He wills. What, then, will this Noetus, who knows nothing of the truth, dare to say to these things? And now, as Noetus has been confuted, let us turn to the exhibition of the truth itself, that we may establish the truth, against which all these mighty heresies have arisen without being able to state anything to the purpose. (Against The Heresy Of One Noetus)
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 9939
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1399 times
- Been thanked: 367 times
Re: 70 Non Trinitarian translations of John 1:1
Post #78You are to be commended for researching the issue of "a god" at John 1:1, and realizing that it isn't something that Jehovah's Witnesses dreamed up.Shermana wrote:
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"?
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 9939
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1399 times
- Been thanked: 367 times
Post #79
Rather, it could be said that the translation of John 1:1 by the copiers of the King James translators' theology is "poor and/or theologically biased."jedicri wrote: Are you talking about proper translation because proper interpretation plays a big role...
One must also be infallible to properly do so...
BTW, it could also be argued that the link you posted also has "poor and/or theologically biased Bible translations of John 1:1".
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 9939
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1399 times
- Been thanked: 367 times
Re: 70 Non Trinitarian translations of John 1:1
Post #80It is interesting also that The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, vol III (Oxford Clarendon Press, 1911-1924, pp.2-4), by G. Horner, translates as such:JehovahsWitness wrote:Shermana wrote: 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?
"enough" is a subjective quantifier but there are a a number of respected scholars that make a case for this understanding of John 1:1
BIBLE SCHOLARS:
"the Word [logos] was a god". -Origen's Commentary on John, Book I, ch. 42 - Bk II, ch.3.
"The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself." -- Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian & scholar (the American Standard Version)
"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'" -- And Jesuit John L. McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible
**Interlineary Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott, "In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."
**Edward Harwood, H KAINH DIAQHKH. London, 1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols. 1768,"and was himself a divine person"
**Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"
**Crellius,as quoted in The New Testament in an Improved Version "the Word was God's"
**La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel,1928: “and the Word was a divine being.�
**John Samuel Thompson, The Montessoran; or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore; published by the translator, 1829, "the Logos was a god"
**Goodspeed's An American Translation, 1939, "the Word was divine"
**Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, "the word was a god."
Prof. Felix Just, S.J. - Loyola Marymount University, "and god[-ly/-like] was the Word."
**Moffatt's The Bible, 1972, "the Logos was divine"
**International English Bible-Extreme New Testament, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word]
**Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek, 1694, "and the Word was a god"
**Hermann Heinfetter, A Literal Translation of the New Testament,1863, [A]s a god the Command was"
Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, "The Word was a God"
Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885,
"[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"
Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god�
Leicester Ambrose, The Final Theology, Volume 1, New York, New York; M.B. Sawyer and Company, 1879, "And the logos was a god"
Charles A.L. Totten, The Gospel of History, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]
**J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901, [A]nd was a god"
International Bible Translators N.T. 1981
Samuel Clarke, M.A., D.D., rector of St. James, Westminster, A Paraphrase on the Gospel of John, London
"[A] Divine Person."
Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. [Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37). "a God"
Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156). "a God"
Andrews Norton, D.D. [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). "a god"
Paul Wernle,(in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16). "a God"
"and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." 21st Century Literal
**George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"
Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University Press, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"
James L. Tomanec, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"
Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"
Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"
Johannes Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos"
**Scholar's Version-The Five Gospels, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was"
**J. Madsen, New Testament A Rendering , 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"
**Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1979, "a God/god was the Logos/logos"
**Curt Stage, The New Testament, 1907, "The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being."
Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "the Word was of divine kind"
**Fredrich Pfaefflin, The New Testament, 1949, "was of divine Kind/kind"
Albrecht, 1957, "godlike Being/being had the Word/word"
Smit, 1960, "the word of the world was a divine being"
Menge, 1961, "God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word"
Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"
William Temple, Archbishop of York, Readings in St. John's Gospel, London, Macmillan & Co.,1933,
"And the Word was divine."
John Crellius, Latin form of German, The 2 Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One God the Father, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"
Greek Orthodox /Arabic Calendar, incorporating portions of the 4 Gospels, Greek Orthodox Patriarchy or Beirut, May, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"
Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was Divine"
Robert Harvey, D.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, in The Historic Jesus in the New Testament, London, Student Movement Christian Press1931
"and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"
Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'
All translations
http://web.archive.org/web/200312042125 ... wisdom.htm
"In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with God, and the Word was a god."
(Oops, I missed the fact that you already had this listed.
)
