John 1:1 “Anarthrous Theos”: The big lie

[Mark2020]

Originally Posted by Pegg

Well you are wrong. And the sad thing is you dont even see it.

Why don't you show me, my friend?

[Mark2020]

Originally Posted by Pegg

The noun 'theos' is John 1:1 is also qualitative. It means the Word is divine, or 'godlike' in nature....its not identifying the Word as God himself.
.

By the way, I think you were going for the indefinite in your last post.

Anyway, for meaning of the qualitative, I had to cut out part of the quote since it was too long.
Here's the full one about that part:

c. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Qualitative?
The most likely candidate for θεός is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word’s deity, which was already present in the beginning (ἐν ἀρχῇ … θεὸς ἦν [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later (σὰρξ ἐγένετο [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two statements mirrors each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity. But θεός was his nature from eternity (hence, εἰμὶ is used), while σάρξ was added at the incarnation (hence, γίνομαι is used).

Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus “divine” could be misleading in an English translation. The idea of a qualitative θεός here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.

[Pegg]

Originally Posted by Mark2020

Why don't you show me, my friend?

I will only do this once because your mind seems set on the alternative which I can respect, even though i completely disagree with.... so please take this with a grain of salt.

A qualitative noun describes the nature or status of the subject.
Its for that reason that some translators render John 1:1:
“The Logos was divine,” (Moffatt);
“the Word was divine,” (Goodspeed);
“the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God,” (Barclay);
“the Word was with God and shared his nature,” (The Translator’s New Testament).
“the Word was divine.” (An American Translation, Schonfield)
“The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was.” (New English Bible)


The qualitative noun does not Identify Jesus as a specific person.....it only identifies his nature as the following scholars point out.

Greek scholar Westcott states: “It is necessarily without the article [the‧ós not ho the‧ós] inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person.”—Quoted from page 116 of An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, by Professor C. F. D. Moule, 1963 reprint.


If something is qualitative, it means the subject has a 'quality' of something else, ie Jesus has the quality of God, Jesus is like God, Jesus is similar to God

thats what it mean.

[Mark2020]

Originally Posted by Pegg

I will only do this once because your mind seems set on the alternative which I can respect, even though i completely disagree with.... so please take this with a grain of salt.

Well, first note that you tried to use the coptic for its indefinite article, and now you are saying qualitative.

“The Logos was divine,” (Moffatt); ...

OK, I don't disagree with that. But only as explained here:

Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus “divine” could be misleading in an English translation. The idea of a qualitative θεός here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.

Greek scholar Westcott states: “It is necessarily without the article [the‧ós not ho the‧ós] inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person.”—Quoted from page 116 of An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, by Professor C. F. D. Moule, 1963 reprint.

"it describes the nature of " exactly, I agree. So do all the examples that I gave.

If something is qualitative, it means the subject has a 'quality' of something else, ie Jesus has the quality of God, Jesus is like God, Jesus is similar to God

Here I disagree.
Compare your own words:
" subject has a 'quality' of something"
"it describes the nature of "
Where did you get "a 'quality' of something else" from? I disagree with that. So does the definition that you gave.

[Pegg]

Originally Posted by Mark2020

OK, I don't disagree with that. But only as explained here:
"it describes the nature of " exactly, I agree. So do all the examples that I gave.

you are equating the 'nature' of Jesus with the 'person' of God.

Think about this for a moment, You are a child of your father and mother. You likely have inherited some of each of their 'natures'. You are neither your mother nor your father, but you may look like them, you may have a similar temperament as them, you may have the same colour hair as them, you most certainly have the same body type as them (ie, you dont have hooves and a tail, but you would have their same arms and legs)

Your nature is the same as their nature. Jesus has the same nature as his Father God. He has the same body type (spirit), he has the same purpose, he has the same desire, he has the same standards of morality, he has the same standards or righteousness

He is like his father in every respect....but he is his own separate person just as you are an individual from your parents.

[Mark2020]

Originally Posted by Pegg

you are equating the 'nature' of Jesus with the 'person' of God.
Think about this for a moment, You are a child...

I disagree. And this not the goal of this topic.
Anyway, I think we both know that the term "Son" doesn't refer to human birth or anything of that sort.
It is like light from light, or like ideas coming out of the mind (while still being in there)

(Philippians 2:6 [KJV]) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Gill:

Who being in the form of God,.... The Father; being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person. This form is to be understood, not of any shape or figure of him; for as such is not to be seen, it is not to be supposed of him; or any accidental form, for there are no accidents in God, whatever is in God, is God; he is nothing but nature and essence, he is the το ον, the Jehovah, I am what I am; and so is his Son, which is, and was, and is to come, the fountain of all created beings nor does it intend any outward representation and resemblance of him, such as in kings; who, because of the honour and dignity they are raised unto, the authority and power they have, and because of the glory and majesty they are arrayed with, are called gods: nor does it design the state and condition Christ appeared in here on earth, having a power to work miracles, heal diseases, and dispossess devils, for the manifestation of his glory; and so might be said to be in the form of God, as Moses for doing less miracles is said to be a God unto Pharaoh; since this account does not regard Christ; as he was on earth in human nature, but what he was antecedent to the assumption of it; or otherwise his humility and condescension in becoming man, and so mean, will not appear: but this phrase, "the form of God", is to be understood of the nature and essence of God, and describes Christ as he was from all eternity; just as the form of a servant signifies that he was really a servant, and the fashion of a man in which he was found means that he was truly and really man; so his being in the form of God intends that he was really and truly God; that he partook of the same nature with the Father, and was possessed of the same glory: from whence it appears, that he was in being before his incarnation; that he existed as a distinct person from God his Father, in whose form he was, and that as a divine person, or as truly God, being in the glorious form, nature, and essence of God; and that there is but one form of God, or divine nature and essence, common to the Father and the Son, and also to the Spirit; so that they are not three Gods, but one God: what the form of God is, the Heathens themselves say cannot be comprehended nor seen, and so not to be inquired after; and they use the same word the apostle does here : and now Christ being in this glorious form, or having the same divine nature with the Father, with all the infinite and unspeakable glories of it,

thought it no robbery to be equal with God; the Father; for if he was in the same form, nature, and essence, he must be equal to him, as he is; for he has the same perfections, as eternity, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immutability, and self-existence: hence he has the same glorious names, as God, the mighty God, the true God, the living God, God over all, Jehovah, the Lord of glory, c. the same works of creation and providence are ascribed to him, and the same worship, homage, and honour given him: to be "in the form of God", and to be "equal with God", signify the same thing, the one is explanative of the other: and this divine form and equality, or true and proper deity, he did not obtain by force and rapine, by robbery and usurpation, as Satan attempted to do, and as Adam by his instigation also affected and so the mind of a wicked man, as Philo the Jew says, being a lover of itself and impious, οιομενος ισος
ειναι θεω, "thinks itself to be equal with God", a like phrase with this here used; but Christ enjoyed this equality by nature; he thought, he accounted, he knew he had it this way; and he held it hereby, and of right, and not by any unlawful means; and he reckoned that by declaring and showing forth his proper deity, and perfect equality with the Father, he robbed him of no perfection; the same being in him as in the Father, and the same in the Father as in him; that he did him no injury, nor deprived him of any glory, or assumed that to himself which did not belong to him: as for the sense which some put upon the words, that he did not "affect", or "greedily catch" at deity; as the phrase will not admit of it, so it is not true in fact; he did affect deity, and asserted it strongly, and took every proper opportunity of declaring it, and in express terms affirmed he was the Son of God; and in terms easy to be understood declared his proper deity, and his unity and equality with the Father; required the same faith in himself as in the Father, and signified that he that saw the one, saw the other, Mr 14:61 Joh 5:17. Others give this as the sense of them, that he did not in an ostentatious way show forth the glory of his divine nature, but rather hid it; it is true, indeed, that Christ did not seek, but carefully shunned vain glory and popular applause; and therefore often after having wrought a miracle, would charge the persons on whom it was wrought, or the company, or his disciples, not to speak of it; this he did at certain times, and for certain reasons; yet at other times we find, that he wrought miracles to manifest forth his glory, and frequently appeals to them as proofs of his deity and Messiahship: and besides, the apostle is speaking not of what he was, or did in his incarnate state, but of what he was and thought himself to be, before he became man; wherefore the above sense is to be preferred as the genuine one.

[Mark2020]

I posted this in another topic, and I thought I'd post it here too:

Coptic John 1:1

Bohairic dialect:
(John 1:1)
ϧⲉⲛ `ⲧⲁⲣⲭⲏ ⲛⲉ ⲡⲓⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲡⲓⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲛⲁϥⲭⲏ ϧⲁⲧⲉⲛ ⲫϯ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲛⲉ ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲓⲥⲁϫⲓ

Sahidic dialect:
(John 1:1)
ϨΝ ΤΕϨΟΥΕΙΤΕ ΝΕϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙ ΠϢΑϪΕ ΑΥШ ΠϢΑϪΕ ΝΕϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤΕ ΑΥШ ΝΕΥΝΟΥΤΕ ΠΕ ΠϢΑϪΕ.

Unlike Greek, Coptic has an indefinite article. However, this indefinite article doesn't correspond to the 'a' in English, as will be seen here.
Both Bohairic and Sahidic have the indefinite article ⲟⲩ, though in Sahidic it is contracted with ΝΕ into ΝΕΥ.

Actually this strengthens our understanding of the Qualitative [as in Greek].
We will see why:

One of the uses of the indefinite article in Coptic language is to denote a qualitative noun.

Qualitative, as in Greek, points to nature, essence or quality, not identity.

Examples:
1-
(1 John 1:5 [NIV]) God is light
(1 John 1:5 [coptic]) ⲫϯ ⲟⲩⲟⲩⲱⲓⲛⲓ ⲡⲉ (efnouti ou'ou'oini pe)
(1 John 1:5 [TR]) ο θεος φως εστιν

We see that the Greek word for light (φως) is anarthrous (without article). It is qualitative.
We don't translate it "God is a light", but simply "God is light".

In Coptic, the word ⲟⲩⲟⲩⲱⲓⲛⲓ has an indefinite article ⲟⲩ.
We can see that the noun here is qualitative not indefinite, despite the use of the indefinite article.

2-
(1 John 4:8 [NIV]) God is love.
(1 John 4:8 [coptic]) ⲫϯ ⲟⲩⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏ ⲡⲉ (efnouti ouaghapi pe)
(1 John 4:8 [TR]) ο θεος αγαπη εστιν

Again Greek αγαπη is anarthrous (no article).
Coptic ⲟⲩⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏ has the indefinite article ⲟⲩ.

God is love (not "a love")
The nouns αγαπη/ⲟⲩⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏ here are qualitative too.

So we've seen that the Coptic language strengthens our understanding that θεοςin John 1:1c is qualitative.



The Coptic indefinite article can be used with "God":

(Deuteronomy 4:31 [NIV]) For the LORD your God is a merciful God;
(Deuteronomy 4:31 [coptic]) ϫⲉ ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ `ⲛⲣⲉϥϣⲉⲛϩⲏⲧ ⲡⲉ ⲡϭⲟⲓⲥ ⲡⲉⲕⲛⲟⲩϯ

(Malachi 2:10[NIV]) Did not one God create us?
(Malachi 2:10[coptic]) ⲙⲏ ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ `ⲛⲟⲩⲱⲧ ⲁⲛ ⲡⲉ `ⲉⲧⲉⲛⲧⲱⲧⲉⲛ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ

In the previous two verses ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ (with the indefinite article) refers to “God”.



The Coptic definite article can be used with "gods":

(Isaiah 36:19 [NIV]) Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad?
(Isaiah 36:19 [coptic]) ⲁϥⲑⲱⲛ ⲫϯ `ⲛ`ⲉⲙⲁⲣ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲁⲣⲫⲁⲑ
Here we see ⲫϯ (efnouti) refers to “the gods”, ⲫ is the definite article.


I think thus far we have destroyed the Coptic Anarthrous issue.

But let's go one step further:
It is noted from the link supplied a previous post to the Coptic version, that the author of the website stopped at verse 14.

Anyone wonders why?

Here's why:
If we proceed to verse 18, we will find:

Bohairic:
(John 1:18) ⲫϯ `ⲙⲡⲉ `ϩⲗⲓ ⲛⲁⲩ `ⲉⲣⲟϥ `ⲉⲛⲉϩ ⲡⲓⲙⲟⲛⲟⲅⲉⲛⲏⲥ `ⲛⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲫⲏ ⲉⲧⲭⲏ ϧⲉⲛ ⲕⲉⲛϥ `ⲙⲡⲉϥⲓⲱⲧ `ⲛⲑⲟϥ ⲡⲉⲧⲁϥⲥⲁϫⲓ
ⲡⲓⲙⲟⲛⲟⲅⲉⲛⲏⲥ `ⲛⲛⲟⲩϯ : The only begotten God
Yes, there is a definite article ⲡⲓ.
It's basically like the Greek μονογενης θεος but with a definite article.

Sahidic:
(John 1:18) ΠΝΟΥΤΕ ΜΠΕΛΑΑΥ ΝΑΥ ΕΡΟϤ ΕΝΕϨ. ΠΝΟΥΤΕ ΠϢΗΡΕ ΝΟΥШΤ ΠΕΤϢΟΟΠ ϨΝ ΚΟΥΝϤ ΜΠΕϤΕΙШΤ Π ΕΤΜΜΑΥ ΠΕ ΝΤΑϤϢΑϪΕ ΕΡΟϤ.

ΠΝΟΥΤΕ ΠϢΗΡΕ ΝΟΥШΤ: God the Son the One and Only
ΠΝΟΥΤΕ: God with the definite article Π.

So we can see that both the Bohairic and Sahidic versions show the Divinity of the Son.


(John 1:1 [NIV])
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

And if this wasn't enough, let's see what G. Horner really wrote:

Bohairic:
In (the) beginning was the Word, and the Word was (imperf.) with God, and God (indef. art.) was the Word.

Sahidic:
In the beginning was being the word, and the word was being with God, and [a] God was the word.



[I guess the author of the website previously given didn't like/see these brackets]

From http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm :

Horner's critical apparatus defines the use of square brackets as follows: "Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not required by the English"(p. 376).



Horner translates John 1:16 as:
"Because out of fulness we all of us took [a] life and [a] grace in place of [a] grace."

He also renders John 1:26 as
"I am baptizing you in [a] water"

So I guess, early Christians understood this too:


(John 1:1 [NIV])
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[Pegg]

Originally Posted by Mark2020

Sahidic dialect:
(John 1:1)
ϨΝ ΤΕϨΟΥΕΙΤΕ ΝΕϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙ ΠϢΑϪΕ ΑΥШ ΠϢΑϪΕ ΝΕϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤΕ ΑΥШ ΝΕΥΝΟΥΤΕ ΠΕ ΠϢΑϪΕ.

Unlike Greek, Coptic has an indefinite article. However, this indefinite article doesn't correspond to the 'a' in English, as will be seen here.
Both Bohairic and Sahidic have the indefinite article ⲟⲩ, though in Sahidic it is contracted with ΝΕ into ΝΕΥ.

Actually this strengthens our understanding of the Qualitative [as in Greek].
We will see why:

One of the uses of the indefinite article in Coptic language is to denote a qualitative noun.

Qualitative, as in Greek, points to nature, essence or quality, not identity.

Right, so whats the problem then.

The qualitative noun in John 1:1 points to Jesus nature/essence/quality, not his identity.


Do you still not seriously see that the information you are posting is saying exactly the same thing that I am saying????

[Mark2020]

Originally Posted by Pegg

Right, so whats the problem then.

The qualitative noun in John 1:1 points to Jesus nature/essence/quality, not his identity.


Do you still not seriously see that the information you are posting is saying exactly the same thing that I am saying????
[/left]
[/center]

The goal of this topic is to refute the anarthrous argument, which I think has been satisfied.

For your question, I have already explained the difference. Check this:
John 1:1 “Anarthrous Theos”: The big lie
Besides, my second article about Coptic John 1:1 has some new additions, you might want to check them.

[Pegg]

Originally Posted by Mark2020

The goal of this topic is to refute the anarthrous argument, which I think has been satisfied.

For your question, I have already explained the difference. Check this:
John 1:1 “Anarthrous Theos”: The big lie
Besides, my second article about Coptic John 1:1 has some new additions, you might want to check them.

wow

I cant do this anymore with you Mark2020, sorry mate. But i like your tenacity.