-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Five Lessons explaining the usage/grammar of John for John 1:1c.
- Thread starter tigger2
- Start date
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
I'm saying that your idea of Scriptures being a mess even before being written down, isn't a good argument.
Even non theistic historians don't say that it's all made up, in fact, you probably don't either.
LiveBetterLife
Active Member
Why?
LiveBetterLife
Active Member
You're right; I don't.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Because of the different authors, of the Books. You probably have a better argument concerning how, for instance, something can be 'interpreted', so forth. That goes for both the Old Testament, and New Testament.
LiveBetterLife
Active Member
Both of my arguments are good.
There is a section of the forum called 1 On 1 debates. If you two would prefer you can start a debate there and exclude others from posting in it.
One-on-One Debates
sooda
Veteran Member
They probably spoke both Greek and Aramaic.. Galilee and Decapolis cities were fairly prosperous compared to Judah.
Scheherazade
Member
At least in the case of the DSS, as Wise et. al. notes in their translation, the Qumranites were actually quite libertine with their handling of the text. They weren't afraid to edit the text for their own purposes or to rewrite and paraphrase the texts to elaborate upon what they saw in them or what they thought should be there. Just look at the numerous reworkings of the Biblical books in the DSS collection and the edits made to texts such as the Psalms.
Scheherazade
Member
See John 3:2. There is no article before Θεοῦ although ὁ appears before Θεὸς.
tigger2
Active Member
We are examining only John's uses of theos as used in John 1:1c. It is well-known that the genitive (theou); the dative theo; etc. use the article irregularly and, therefore, cannot be used in an investigation of regular article usage.
John 3:2 is a genitive - probably the most irregular of all the noun cases.
The concordance link I gave you is already set up to show all the uses of theos, the form we are investigating.
What else can you find where I may be mistaken or where you would like further clarification?
Scheherazade
Member
I see no reason why we should disregard all uses of the word in any case other than the nominative, or even why we should disregard other words at all. As I have shown, in Greek the lack of an article does not mean in itself that the noun is indefinite (see ἀρχῇ in John 1:1a and ζωὴ John 1:4a). This is a well-known fact. Both instances of ζωὴ in 1:4 are nom.-fem.-sing., yet ζωὴ in 1:4a lacks an article, while ζωὴ in 1:4b is prefixed by ἡ. This is a similar phenomenon to 1:1. Your intentionally simplifying your analysis to the point that only your conclusion is possible.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
Virtually every scholar on the planet will tell you that you cannot show this “grammatically”. As you just pointed out the oldest Greeks manuscripts we have were written in Uncial style which are all capital letters.
The only way to properly translate John 1:1 is through context, not grammar. Look, you would have a better argument if John 1:1c stood on its own, all by itself, encased in a silo with nothing else surrounding it. You would have a better argument but still fall short of a convincing one.
Secondly, I think it’s important to note that the Watchtower does not endorse or support what it considers “private interpretations” of scripture.
When in "the truth" the inability to cite a WT source only brings suspicion that a sister or brother has been “running ahead of the chariot”, a practice the WT frowns on. For instance, look at this recent post from another forum. Here a sister shared a song “before the appointed time”:
JW: Tosses out private interpretation “A”
C: Disagrees
JW’s: Yes, argument “A” is correct!!
C’s: Shows argument “A” is logically incorrect
JW’s: Well, it was never something we actually believed anyways. For a list of our beliefs, go to JW.ORG!
C: Disagrees
JW’s: Yes, argument “A” is correct!!
C’s: Shows argument “A” is logically incorrect
JW’s: Well, it was never something we actually believed anyways. For a list of our beliefs, go to JW.ORG!
I don't mind discussing anything you've found in scripture, but if you're assertions are also WT backed or supported, please cite them.
First, where does the WT argue “theos” as a count noun? As @Hockeycowboy pointed out on another thread, the WT considers theos as qualitative, not quantitative. How does one pluralize Divinity, and if one does, why bother categorizing into count and non-count nouns? Source
Also, what is your definition of a count noun, and does it differ from the WT's? I have seen JW's use the term but I've never seen it "officially" defined. Different grammarians will define count nouns differently, and the argument loses some sheen and credibility if we must come back to you for what is or isn't a count noun.
Does your definition account for possible language differences? "Homework" is a count noun in Spanish, its indefinite in English.
Secondly, as pointed out on another thread, the “official” WT interpretation (which doesn’t seem to include references or even a definition of “count nouns”) cannot possibly be correct historically. Source
As such, any such argument for “a god”…where “a god” is a distinct, separate god… is simply argumentative…an intellectual exercise that has no basis in actual history and therefore none at John 1:1.
Which gets to my third point…Christians (and this includes many non-Trinitarians) have no problem understanding an interpretation of ho theos to mean “the God” and “theos” to mean “God” even at John 1:1c if by “a God” you mean "all that God was the Word was". The problem is that JW’s preloaded “a god” to mean a distinct, separate deity that is less deity than God. From my perspective it would have been better to have translated this as “…the Word was a God” then “…the Word was a god” (no cap).
Quite frankly, if “a god” was the proper understanding of John 1:1c the early Christians would have never been labelled “atheists” by the Romans. The Watchtower is arguing that the early Christians had it wrong…they should have immediately recognized the emperor, the judges of Israel, Zeus, Odin, Jupiter and every pop up dictator since then as “a god” rather than face lions in the arena. This rather surprising and unsupported revelation is based solely in the belief that WT translators understood Greek grammar better than the early Christians.
This is not surprising. The WT also argues the fall of Jerusalem occurred in 607 BCE despite every encyclopedia, document, book and historian stating differently. In order to arrive at 1914 the WT needs the fall to occur in 607 BCE so our encyclopedias simply have it wrong and will continue to have it wrong until and unless their Governing Board has "new light".
tigger2
Active Member
But I am saying that when all the irregular examples are removed and we have a nominative count noun (theos in this case) without the Greek article, it will be indefinite. At this point we are trying to determine what theos without the article in all of his writings meant to John.
Par. 4 & 5 in the OP mention 'prepositions and preposition-modified nouns. I didn't add other exceptions because this one alone is the one 'overlooked' by most trinitarian scholars when making up rules for John 1:1c.
Yes, John 1:1a uses arche without an article, because it is part of a prepositional phrase and NT Grammarians often point out that such constructions may or may not use the article (irregular). That is why, even though it probably means 'in the beginning,' some have rendered it 'in a beginning.'
One problem here: I have asked for uses of theos (only) which do not use the article in John's writings and still are being used for ;God.' I am not yet ready to get into word order 'rules' (Lesson C.) Have you found any uses of theos in John's writings which disagree with what I have written in Lesson A?
Scheherazade
Member
Why should we disregard all the irregular examples? Why is 1:1c not an irregular usage? That it is irregular is clear in itself from context, and Dodd considers the indefinite reading (although it is more literal) as inadmissible on this basis alone.
Then you're just disregarding, for no apparent reason, the multiple other examples of anarthrous definite nouns in John.
Last edited:
Scheherazade
Member
Also, explain the anarthrous Ἰωάννης in 1:6b, 32a, neither of which are contained in a prep. phrase, while Ἰωάννης in other places is preceded by the def. art (see 1:28, 35), as proper names often are in Greek (see Matt. 1). Yet in certain instances, proper names are anarthrous. Should these read "a John," "an Abraham," etc? Of course not.
LiveBetterLife
Active Member
Yeah, then subsequently came centuries of oral dissemination which totally laid waste to any semantics regarding the issue.
Yes! So read the context. Which interpretation agrees?: "The Word was with God, and the Word was God", or, "the Word was with God, and the Word was god-like"?
And John further said, "No one has ever seen God." Yet, thousands saw Jesus.
I'm really surprised you would bring up context in support of your pov!
tigger2
Active Member
One problem is with non-count nouns (mass nouns, abstract nouns, personal names, etc.). These also may or may not take the article irregularly and therefore should be eliminated from any study which relies on article usage and non-usage. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/grammar/count_and_noncount_nouns/count_noncount_nouns_with_articles_adjectives.html
I am using the phrase 'irregular examples' to describe those usages where it cannot be determined if the use or non-use of the article is valid in English translation.
We can see the irregularity of article usage with such “prepositional” constructions by comparing how they are translated in various trinitarian Bibles:
John 1:13 (WITHOUT article in NT Greek) is translated “the will of...” in the ASV, RSV, and NASB translations. But it is “a will of...” in Young’s.
John 1:23 (WITHOUT article): “the voice of...” - RSV, ASV, NIV, TEV. But “a voice of...” - NASB, NEB, JB, LB.
John 3:10 (WITH the definite article): “the teacher of...” - ASV, NASB, ESV, Young’s, Beck. But “a teacher of...” - KJV, RSV, NRSV, JB, NIV, TEV, MLB, Moffatt.
And there are many more such examples in the rest of John’s Gospel! (Of course there are also many other instances where most Bible writers are able to agree on the significance of article usage - or non-usage - with “prepositional” constructions, but that agreement is attained only from context and obviously not from the actual use - or non-use - of the article!) Such “prepositional” constructions cannot be used as evidence for a rule that depends on article usage (including Colwell’s Rule, the General Rule, the “Qualitative” Rule, Sharp’s Rule, etc.) and yet they and non-count nouns are the most-used examples they use!!
Article uncertainty for “prepositional” constructions may be further illustrated by the phrase “the word of God.” Matthew and Paul obviously had identical meanings in mind for this phrase in the following scriptures. There are no “qualitative,” figurative, abstract, etc. considerations here. Just the clearly understood literal, concrete statement: “The word of God.”
And yet, notice how this same clear statement may be written in NT Greek with various uses (and non-uses) of the definite article simply because of the “prepositional” construction involved:
Matt. 15:6 - - “the word of the God” is translated: “the word of God.”
1 Thess. 2:13 (a) - “_word of the God” is translated: “the word of God.”
1 Thess. 2:13 (b) - “_word of _God” is translated: “the word of God."
If you would rather have a list of recognized trinitarian grammar scholars who admit the same about the irregularity of 'prepositional-modified' nouns, let me know, but I'd rather finish discussing what's actually in lesson A.
There is no irregular article example used in John 1:1c. We have a definite count noun as subject and an indefinite count noun as predicate noun. Neither of them is 'irregular.'
One problem here: I have asked for uses of theos (only)
S: "Then you're just disregarding, for no apparent reason, the multiple other examples of anarthrous definite nouns in John."
We will get to them in a later lesson. How about concentrating on lesson A?
Any uses by John of an anarthrous theos (excepting those applied to Jesus) which are obviously used for God? How many, instead, are arthrous uses of theos which are obviously intended as 'God'?
Oeste
Well-Known Member
I like the former "...and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" better.
Correct. No one has seen God in His pre-incarnate or spiritual state.
Of course I would bring it up!
Context is extremely important if we are to understand John 1:1 correctly. We cannot become myopic and focus on the third clause at the expense of the first two.
Neither can we ignore contextual, literal, theological or historical considerations in our exegesis. These are just as important as the grammar. But simply from a rational, common sense, historical approach, any "...a god" rendering is simply untenable.
Christians were scapegoated and pronounced atheists for a reason. When asked they would specifically refused to acknowledge others as "....a god"...the exact opposite of what the Watchtower preaches today.