Dogknox20
Well-Known Member
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Nothing about "A God"!
-
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!
Evidence for “a god” at John 10:33
- Thread starter Hockeycowboy
- Start date
- Status
Nothing about "A God"!
Dogknox20
Well-Known Member
Hockeycowboy clearly there is no "A" about it!
No translators have the letter "A" first before the word "God"! ! NO "a god"! Fact is all use a large case letter "G" for God!
KJ21
The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy and because thou, being a man, makest thyself God.”
ASV
The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
AMP
The Jews answered Him, “We are not going to stone You for a good work, but for blasphemy, because You, a mere man, make Yourself out to be God.”
AMPC
The Jews replied, We are not going to stone You for a good act, but for blasphemy, because You, a mere Man, make Yourself [out to be] God.
BRG
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
CSB
“We aren’t stoning you for a good work,” the Jews answered, “but for blasphemy, because you—being a man—make yourself God.”
CEB
The Jewish opposition answered, “We don’t stone you for a good work but for insulting God. You are human, yet you make yourself out to be God.”
CJB
The Judeans replied, “We are not stoning you for any good deed, but for blasphemy — because you, who are only a man, are making yourself out to be God .”
CEV
They answered, “We are not stoning you because of any good thing you did. We are stoning you because you did a terrible thing. You are just a man, and here you are claiming to be God!”
DARBY
The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
DLNT
The Jews answered Him, “We do not stone You for a good work, but for blasphemy— even because You, being a human, are making Yourself God”.
DRA
The Jews answered him: For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, maketh thyself God.
ERV
They answered, “We are not killing you for any good thing you did. But you say things that insult God. You are only a man, but you say you are the same as God! That is why we are trying to kill you!”
EHV
“We are not going to stone you for a good work,” the Jews answered, “but for blasphemy, because although you are a man, you make yourself out to be God.”
ESV
The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
ESVUK
The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
etc
etc
etc
All scripture translators rightly translate John 10:33 to say "They the Jews say; Jesus is claiming to be THE GOD"!
tigger2
Active Member
...............................
John 10:33 "a god" or "God"?
John is the only Gospel writer who used the word theos in all its meanings. It should not be surprising, then, that he is also the only Gospel writer who clearly applies the title theos directly to Jesus! John, like some of those ancient Hebrew Scripture writers of the Old Testament who used elohim in all its various meanings, used it to mean the only true God over 90% of the time. But in a few scriptures he used it to mean "a god" in its positive, subordinate, secondary sense. A clear instance of this is found at John 10:33-36 where Jesus quotes from and comments on Psalm 82:6.
It is certainly better to use the trinitarian-translated New English Bible (NEB) here because it obviously translates theos correctly at John 10:33 ("a god") whereas the King James Version and many other trinitarian translations do not.
The context of John 10:33-36 (and of Psalm 82:6 which is quoted there) and NT Greek grammar show "a god" to be the correct rendering. Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, p. 62, by the respected trinitarian, Dr. Robert Young, confirms this:
"`makest thyself a god,' not `God' as in C.V. [King James Version or `Common Version'], otherwise the definite article would not have been omitted, as it is here, and in the next two verses, -- `gods .. gods,' where the title is applied to magistrates, and others ...."
It is also admitted that this is the meaning of Jn 10:33 by noted trinitarian NT scholar C. H. Dodd:
"making himself a god." - The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 205, Cambridge University Press, 1995 reprint.
A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John by trinitarians Newman and Nida insists that "a god" would not be "in keeping with the theology of John" and the charge of blasphemy by the Jews, but, nevertheless, also admits:
"Purely on the basis of the Greek text, therefore, it is possible to translate [John 10:33] 'a god,' as NEB does, rather than to translate God, as TEV and several other translations do. One might argue on the basis of both the Greek and the context, that the Jews were accusing Jesus of claiming to be `a god' rather than 'God.' "- p. 344, United Bible Societies, 1980.
The highly respected (and highly trinitarian) W. E. Vine indicates the proper rendering here:
"The word [theos] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34" - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
So, in the NEB it reads:
" 'We are not going to stone you for any good deed, but for your blasphemy. You, a mere man, claim to be a god.' Jesus answered, 'Is it not written in your own Law, "I said: You are gods"? Those are called gods to whom the word of God was delivered - and Scripture cannot be set aside. Then why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, "I am God's SON"?' "
Not only do we see John using theos in its positive alternate meaning here, but we also see Jesus clarifying it. When some of the Jews were ready to stone him because they said he was claiming to be a god (Jesus' reply about men being called gods in the scriptures would have been nonsensical if he were replying to an accusation of being God), Jesus first pointed out that God himself had called judges of Israel gods (Ps. 82:6)!
Also see: Examining the Trinity: THEON - 'RDB's Rule' (Jn 1:18; 10:33)
tigger2
Active Member
Jesus’ response (John 10:34) also shows that he understood the Jews to be using the word in its secondary sense (not “God” but “a god” - probably meant here in the negative sense of a false god), and he reminded them, by quoting Ps. 82:6, that God himself had called certain Israelites “gods” (John 10:34). With this reply Jesus showed them he could have called himself “a god” in that very same positive sense, and it would have been proper. (His reply, however, would have been nonsensical if the Jews had really said, “you make yourself God”!)
But, as Jesus pointed out, he had never applied the word (theos/theon), even in its positive secondary sense, to himself, but he had merely called himself “God’s Son”! (Incidentally, God, who called those Israelites “gods,” also called them his sons in Ps. 82:6.)
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, tells us:
“The reason why judges are called ‘gods’ in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God’s judgment as ‘sons of the Most High’. In context of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this.... In trying to arrest him ([John] v. 39) and in disregarding the testimony of his works (vv.32,38), they were judging unjustly like the judges in Ps. 82:2. .... On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’.” - Vol. 3, p. 187.
Although bearing in mind the problems of comparing one writer’s usage with another’s, it is interesting to note the similarity of Acts 28:6 and John 10:33. Both use a non-“prepositional” anarthrous theon that comes after the verb. But all Bible translators translate Acts 28:6 to show that its anarthrous theon was intended in its secondary sense: “he was a god.” Clearly the translation “God” at John 10:33 by the majority of trinitarian Bibles is incorrect. It has no grammatical evidence to support it and much to deny it.
Jesus never claimed to be God, and the Jews speaking at John 10:33 didn’t understand him to be making that claim either.
Plainly, a non-“prepositional” theos or theon without a definite article may be applied to Jesus, and others, with no intention of identifying him as the only true God. - see the DEF study.
It is also obvious (when we actually examine John’s writings to see what “rules” he does or does not use) that John consistently used theos and theon with the article to mean the only true God. And John consistently used theos and theon without the article to mean someone who is not the only true God (compare John 17:1, 3).
But, as Jesus pointed out, he had never applied the word (theos/theon), even in its positive secondary sense, to himself, but he had merely called himself “God’s Son”! (Incidentally, God, who called those Israelites “gods,” also called them his sons in Ps. 82:6.)
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, tells us:
“The reason why judges are called ‘gods’ in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God’s judgment as ‘sons of the Most High’. In context of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this.... In trying to arrest him ([John] v. 39) and in disregarding the testimony of his works (vv.32,38), they were judging unjustly like the judges in Ps. 82:2. .... On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’.” - Vol. 3, p. 187.
Although bearing in mind the problems of comparing one writer’s usage with another’s, it is interesting to note the similarity of Acts 28:6 and John 10:33. Both use a non-“prepositional” anarthrous theon that comes after the verb. But all Bible translators translate Acts 28:6 to show that its anarthrous theon was intended in its secondary sense: “he was a god.” Clearly the translation “God” at John 10:33 by the majority of trinitarian Bibles is incorrect. It has no grammatical evidence to support it and much to deny it.
Jesus never claimed to be God, and the Jews speaking at John 10:33 didn’t understand him to be making that claim either.
Plainly, a non-“prepositional” theos or theon without a definite article may be applied to Jesus, and others, with no intention of identifying him as the only true God. - see the DEF study.
It is also obvious (when we actually examine John’s writings to see what “rules” he does or does not use) that John consistently used theos and theon with the article to mean the only true God. And John consistently used theos and theon without the article to mean someone who is not the only true God (compare John 17:1, 3).
Dogknox20
Well-Known Member
Scriptures... “In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.”
Note NOT was "A" god!
Genesis 1:1 tells us, “In the beginning God created . . .”
Thomas answered, and said to [Jesus]: John 20:28 “My Lord and My God” . The Greek text reads “the Lord of me and the God of me.” The definite article before Lord and God leaves no doubt that Thomas—directly addressing our Lord—calls Jesus both the Lord and the God.
Revelation 22:16 ”I Jesus have sent my angel, to testify to you these things in the churches.” Jesus is clearly “the Lord God of the spirits of the prophets!” (Rev. 22:6)
Revelation 21:6-7, Almighty God reveals himself to us in plain terms: “And he said to me, ‘It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the fountain of the water of life without payment. He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son.’”
But then, in Revelation 22:6, 13, 16, Jesus revealing himself to be “the Alpha and the Omega . . . the beginning and the end”:
tigger2
Active Member
Even the very trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Word”. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.
Equally trinitarian Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:
“A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.
The reason Prof. Dodd rejected “a god” as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it didn't fit his trinitarian interpretations of John’s Gospel! .
Rev. J. W. Wenham wrote in a footnote in his The Elements of New Testament Greek: “Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god [God]’.” - p. 35, Cambridge University Press, 1965.
(Of course if you carefully examine the 'Five Lessons' above, you will find that the grammar really shows that ‘The Word is [or “was” in John 1:1c] a god’ is what John intended.) .
Trinitarian NT scholar Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that “John’s monotheism” will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992. However, his acknowledgment of the use of “god” for men at John 10:34-36 and the use of “god/gods” for angels, judges, and other men in the Hebrew OT Scriptures contradicts his above excuse for not accepting the literal translation. - p. 202, Jesus as God. .
And Dr. J. D. BeDuhn in his Truth in Translation states about John 1:1c:
“ ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar… supports this translation.” - p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003. .
Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is “and a God[2] (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word” - p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing. .
And respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay wrote: “You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a God’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong.” - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.
You see, in ancient times many of God’s servants had no qualms about using the word “god” or “gods” for godly men, kings, judges, and even angels. .
Yes, as trinitarian scholar Dr. Robert Young tells us in the preface to Young’s Analytical Concordance in the section entitled “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”:
“65. God—is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, Magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. Ex. 7:1; ... John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28 ....” - Eerdmans Publ., 1978.
Notice how John 1:1 has been listed as an example of “God” (or “god”) being applied to someone other than the true God (as in the case of “judges, angels, prophets, etc.”). Dr. Young also specifically tells us that John 1:1 is literally “and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word.” p. 54, Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary. Certainly a trinitarian scholar such as Dr. Young would interpret John 1:1c to mean “the Word was the true God” if he could honestly do so! Obviously he felt there was something wrong with that interpretation.
New Testament Greek expert Joseph H. Thayer also defined theos:
“theon is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically, i.q. God’s representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges.” - p. 288, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.
...............................
A careful examination of John's grammar and usage shows that a more probable translation of John 1:1c is "and the word was a god." - one of my studies on John 1:1c: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-11c-primer_21.html
My original (and lengthiest) study of John 1:1c: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/definite-john-11c.html
Equally trinitarian Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:
“A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.
The reason Prof. Dodd rejected “a god” as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it didn't fit his trinitarian interpretations of John’s Gospel! .
Rev. J. W. Wenham wrote in a footnote in his The Elements of New Testament Greek: “Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god [God]’.” - p. 35, Cambridge University Press, 1965.
(Of course if you carefully examine the 'Five Lessons' above, you will find that the grammar really shows that ‘The Word is [or “was” in John 1:1c] a god’ is what John intended.) .
Trinitarian NT scholar Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that “John’s monotheism” will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992. However, his acknowledgment of the use of “god” for men at John 10:34-36 and the use of “god/gods” for angels, judges, and other men in the Hebrew OT Scriptures contradicts his above excuse for not accepting the literal translation. - p. 202, Jesus as God. .
And Dr. J. D. BeDuhn in his Truth in Translation states about John 1:1c:
“ ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar… supports this translation.” - p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003. .
Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is “and a God[2] (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word” - p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing. .
And respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay wrote: “You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a God’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong.” - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.
You see, in ancient times many of God’s servants had no qualms about using the word “god” or “gods” for godly men, kings, judges, and even angels. .
Yes, as trinitarian scholar Dr. Robert Young tells us in the preface to Young’s Analytical Concordance in the section entitled “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”:
“65. God—is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, Magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. Ex. 7:1; ... John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28 ....” - Eerdmans Publ., 1978.
Notice how John 1:1 has been listed as an example of “God” (or “god”) being applied to someone other than the true God (as in the case of “judges, angels, prophets, etc.”). Dr. Young also specifically tells us that John 1:1 is literally “and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word.” p. 54, Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary. Certainly a trinitarian scholar such as Dr. Young would interpret John 1:1c to mean “the Word was the true God” if he could honestly do so! Obviously he felt there was something wrong with that interpretation.
New Testament Greek expert Joseph H. Thayer also defined theos:
“theon is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically, i.q. God’s representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges.” - p. 288, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.
...............................
A careful examination of John's grammar and usage shows that a more probable translation of John 1:1c is "and the word was a god." - one of my studies on John 1:1c: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-11c-primer_21.html
My original (and lengthiest) study of John 1:1c: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/definite-john-11c.html
Dogknox20
Well-Known Member
tigger2 You quote “In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . .
The predicate nominative in Greek normally does not take the definite article. In this verse, then, the lack of the definite article is grammatically consistent. According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, we see another example of this convention in John 8:54, where the predicate nominative is “Father”—again without the definite article preceding (3:105).
tigger2, Your JW explanation is inconsistent.. They translate the word theos as “Jehovah,” or the God numerous times in your New World Translation of the Bible when it does not have the article preceding it (see NWT: Matt. 5:9, 6:24; Luke 1:35, 2:40; John 1:6,12,13,18; Rom. 1:7,17,18; and Titus 1:1, just to name a few).
Jesus is referred to as theos with the definite article multiple times elsewhere in Scripture. For example: Hebrews 1:8 “But of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God (ho theos, the definite article plus theos), is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom’”. Jesus is not a god here. He is the God: Titus 2:13 “Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ ” definite article appears in apposition to “great God”. Not only do we see the definite article before theos, but we see the article plus the adjective great. Jesus is not only the God, Jesus is the great God and our Savior. The Bible is very clear that only Yahweh is both the great God and our Savior. (See Isaiah 41:4, 43:3,11, 44:6,8, 45:21; Hos. 13:4; and Luke 1:47.) Consider too: Thomas answered, and said to [Jesus]:John 20:28 “My Lord and My God”.
tigger2 The Greek text reads “the Lord of me and the God of me.” The definite article before Lord and God leaves no doubt that Thomas—directly addressing our Lord—calls Jesus both the Lord and the God.
tigger2 Thomas is directly addressing our Lord—He calls Jesus both the Lord and the God.
Rev. J. W. Wenham wrote in a footnote in his The Elements of New Testament Greek: “Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god [God]’.” - p. 35, Cambridge University Press, 1965.
tigger2 The word is THE GOD!
tigger2
Active Member
Obviously you didn’t even attempt to skim through my study listed first (in my first link). If you truly wish to criticize my study, you must read it! For example, the word theos in John 1:1c is an unmodified, anarthrous nominative case noun. When a nominative noun is modified by prepositions or genitives (‘god of him’; ‘cloud in the sky’; etc.) the use or non-use of the article is irregular. So, since your example of John 8:54 is theos modified by a genitive (‘of you’), it may mean either ‘the god of him’ or ‘a god of him.’ Context, not John’s grammar, shows that it should be translated ‘the god of him’ (‘his God’).
If you should actually study my study, you will see that all the 18 truly parallel examples to John 1:1c found in John’s writings are translated in the major Bible translations as indefinite: ‘a prophet’; ‘a man’; ‘a ‘manslayer’; ‘a thief’; etc.
Predicate nouns are most often without the definite article because they are normally indefinite (even in English). For example: ‘the nurse was a man’; or ‘the dog was a mongrel’; etc. We don’t normally reverse it in English: ‘a man was the nurse’ or ‘a mongrel was the dog.’
If you should decide to examine my study, I would be overjoyed to discuss it with you, and maybe you would learn something about those anti-JW sites that populate the internet with a little truth and a lot of error.
If you don't want to learn some factual information concerning this scripture and a little NT Greek to boot, I understand, but don't bother replying to any other posts I may make.
If you should actually study my study, you will see that all the 18 truly parallel examples to John 1:1c found in John’s writings are translated in the major Bible translations as indefinite: ‘a prophet’; ‘a man’; ‘a ‘manslayer’; ‘a thief’; etc.
Predicate nouns are most often without the definite article because they are normally indefinite (even in English). For example: ‘the nurse was a man’; or ‘the dog was a mongrel’; etc. We don’t normally reverse it in English: ‘a man was the nurse’ or ‘a mongrel was the dog.’
If you should decide to examine my study, I would be overjoyed to discuss it with you, and maybe you would learn something about those anti-JW sites that populate the internet with a little truth and a lot of error.
If you don't want to learn some factual information concerning this scripture and a little NT Greek to boot, I understand, but don't bother replying to any other posts I may make.
Last edited:
Dogknox20
Well-Known Member
tigger2 thank you for your post... I reply: You have all of this so called evidence (above) in the use of Greek! My question to you is How Come.....
tigger2 how come all the interpreters of scripture tell you in John 1: Jesus WAS GOD! ??
How come all of these Professional Scripture Interpreters (below) in your eyes are wrong when the weight of the evidence is overwhelming against you!?
NOTE The Capital letter "G" also in the word "God"! (below)
tigger2 You are WRONG! Your argument is moot.... You have been deceived and lied to by the Watch Tower....
KJ21 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
ASV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
AMP In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.
AMPC In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.
BRG In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
CSB In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
CEB In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
CJB In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
CEV In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.
DARBY In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
DLNT In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
DRA In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
ERV Before the world began, the Word was there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
EHV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
ESV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
ESVUK In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
EXB In the beginning [Gen. 1:1] ·there was the Word [the Word already existed; C the Word refers to Christ, God’s revelation of himself]. The Word was ·with [in the presence of; in intimate relationship with] God [C the Father], and the Word was [fully] God.
GNV That Word begotten of God before all worlds, 2 and which was ever with the Father, 14 is made man. 6, 7 For what end John was sent from God. 15 His preaching of Christ’s office. 19, 20 The record that he bare given out unto the Priests. 40 The calling of Andrew, 42 of Peter, 43 Philip, 45 and Nathanael. In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.
GW In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
GNT In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
HCSB In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
ICB Before the world began, there was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
ISV In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
PHILLIPS At the beginning God expressed himself. That personal expression, that word, was with God, and was God, and he existed with God from the beginning. All creation took place through him, and none took place without him. In him appeared life and this life was the light of mankind. The light still shines in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out.
JUB ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God.
KJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
AKJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
LEB In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
TLB Before anything else existed, there was Christ,* with God. He has always been alive and is himself God.
MSG The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one.
MEV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
MOUNCE In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with · God, and the Word was God.
NOG In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NABRE In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NASB In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NCV In the beginning there was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NET In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.
NIRV In the beginning, the Word was already there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NIV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NIVUK In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NKJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NLV The Word (Christ) was in the beginning. The Word was with God. The Word was God.
NLT In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NMB nIn the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.
NRSV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Dogknox20
Well-Known Member
Continue from the last post
NRSVA In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NRSVACE In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NRSVCE In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NTE In the beginning was the Word. The Word was close beside God, and the Word was God.
OJB Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:3], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with, etzel, Mishle 8:30;30:4) Hashem, and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13 i.e., the Ma’amar Memra]
TPT In the very beginning the Living Expression was already there. And the Living Expression was with God, yet fully God.
RGT In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God.
RSV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
RSVCE In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
TLV In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
VOICE Before time itself was measured, the Voice was speaking. The Voice was and is God.
WEB In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
WE The Word already was, way back before anything began to be. The Word and God were together. The Word was God.
WYC In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word. [In the beginning was the word, that is, God's Son, and the word was at God, and God was the word.]
YLT In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
tigger2
Active Member
If you should decide to examine my study (click on the link above), I would be overjoyed to discuss it with you, and maybe you would learn something about those anti-JW sites that populate the internet with a little truth and a lot of error.
If you don't want to learn some factual information concerning this scripture and a little NT Greek to boot, I understand, but don't bother replying to any other posts I may make.
Proverbs 18:13.
If you don't want to learn some factual information concerning this scripture and a little NT Greek to boot, I understand, but don't bother replying to any other posts I may make.
Proverbs 18:13.
Dogknox20
Well-Known Member
tigger2 I understand your study..... Do you understand all the many Professional Scriptural Scholars (above) do NOT interpret John 1 as the NWT "a god"! Logic alone should tell you to reconsider your study! You MUST be missing something!
Logic should make you consider Thomas's "My Lord and My God" as interpreted correctly using your study!
Logic should make you see; Jesus would be blaspheming by not correcting Thomas.. Jesus does the opposite he does NOT correct Thomas Fact is: he told Thomas; blessed are Christians that believe Jesus God without seeing as he did!
You have a study, you want to share it, I can't understand how your work can be so blatantly opposite to the professionals!
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It means the beginning of ... something. So the Word was with God in the -- beginning. And the Word was, some Bibles say, God. So, according to some translations, God was the Word, the Word was with God -- in the beginning. So something started "in the beginning." Anyway, it speaks of two. God, and the Word which was God (according to some) WITH God. That's two. Now you can make of it what you will, but nevertheless, it says God (the Word) WITH God. (That's two.)
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Do you remember the plagues that happened to the Egyptians as recorded in Exodus? Do you remember the plagues of the frogs? There were many professional mystery men (magicians) in Pharaoh's court. Do you remember what these professionals could do? But nobody -- nobody is going to beat the Almighty God and his son. Nobody.
Hi @Dogknox20 and @tigger2 and @Hockeycowboy
I just wanted to make a very specific point regarding Greek GRAMMAR.
KOINE GRAMMAR VS HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Tigger2 is correct that, Grammatically, Greek John 10:33 reads "you [are] making yourself A God". (I can check the GN-4 critical version to see if there are any variants later, but I do not think there are variants on "A God".)
Thus, the argument is not whether GRAMMATICALLY, the sentence say "A God". The non-contexted greek obviously does say "A God" GRAMMATICALLY.
If the debate is based on greek GRAMMAR, then Dogknox20 has already lost the argument.
The correct translation of this specific phrase will always depend upon historical CONTEXT and not upon greek grammar (Just as with John 1:1c). IF the Jews meant to say "A God", then the grammar agrees with indefiniteness (i.e. "A God"). IF the Jews meant to say "The God", then koine allows for this as well IF the context supports definiteness (i.e. "THE God").
The reason translators, in the main, translated the phrase "thou makest thyself out to be God" (with indefiniteness) is due to their own assumptions and context and beliefs, rather than due to a grammatical rule of Greek. If firm historical information is discovered that shows the Jews meant "A God" and the discovery becomes popular among translators, then the corrected biblical text may well read "you [are] making yourself A God." (indefinite).
Clear
φυεισιφιω
I just wanted to make a very specific point regarding Greek GRAMMAR.
KOINE GRAMMAR VS HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Tigger2 is correct that, Grammatically, Greek John 10:33 reads "you [are] making yourself A God". (I can check the GN-4 critical version to see if there are any variants later, but I do not think there are variants on "A God".)
Thus, the argument is not whether GRAMMATICALLY, the sentence say "A God". The non-contexted greek obviously does say "A God" GRAMMATICALLY.
If the debate is based on greek GRAMMAR, then Dogknox20 has already lost the argument.
The correct translation of this specific phrase will always depend upon historical CONTEXT and not upon greek grammar (Just as with John 1:1c). IF the Jews meant to say "A God", then the grammar agrees with indefiniteness (i.e. "A God"). IF the Jews meant to say "The God", then koine allows for this as well IF the context supports definiteness (i.e. "THE God").
The reason translators, in the main, translated the phrase "thou makest thyself out to be God" (with indefiniteness) is due to their own assumptions and context and beliefs, rather than due to a grammatical rule of Greek. If firm historical information is discovered that shows the Jews meant "A God" and the discovery becomes popular among translators, then the corrected biblical text may well read "you [are] making yourself A God." (indefinite).
Clear
φυεισιφιω
Last edited:
Oeste
Well-Known Member
Hi @Clear, @Dogknox20 , @tigger2 ,@Hockeycowboy
I want to thank @Clear for bring up the issue of historical context as I believe this sways the translation properly towards "God" rather than "a god".
The event discussed occurs in the 1st century of the common era when Israel was no more than a vassal or client state of Rome.
As I see it, a mob attempting to stone someone for "making themselves 'a god'" would not only have garnered the attention of the Jewish client-state authorities, but of their Roman occupiers as well. Let's remember, Rome at this time is pagan, and the law of land. Roman emperors often saw themselves as "gods" and many in Rome considered them deity.
Stoning somebody for making themselves "a god" would have sent a rather powerful political message to Rome (look what we do to "gods" around here). It's not something Pilate would have ignored and it's something the Sanhedrin would have wanted to sweep under the rug. In fact, had the crowd been able to seize Jesus at that time I see little chance of his case ever being referred to Pilate by the Sanhedrin, lest the Prefect hear that Jesus was nearly stoned for simply making himself "a god".
Thus "making yourself 'God'" sound much more likely than "making yourself 'a god'" and this without considering the effects of Greek Hellenization.
But there is more, stronger evidence for 'God' in the scripture itself.
_________________________________
Scripture explicitly tells us why the Jews picked up stones:
"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy;..."
In Leviticus 24:16 the punishment for blasphemy is death. In Jewish law the only form of blasphemy which is punishable by death is blaspheming the name of the Lord. (source)
Blaspheming anyone or anything else, like "a god" was never considered blasphemy by the Jews. In other words, you could claim you were Baal or "a god" all you want and you would not be stoned (although asking people to follow Baal would get you stoned, just not for blasphemy). As the Jewish Encyclopedia states:
BLASPHEMY:
Evil or profane speaking of God. The essence of the crime consists in the impious purpose in using the words, and does not necessarily include the performance of any desecrating act.
The only way I can see the Temple crowd stoning Jesus for the blasphemy of making himself "a god" in pagan occupied Israel is if the Jews thought the Father was also "a god". That would certainly tick off the crowd that a desecration of the Divine Name had taken place. Yet I don't see anyone here arguing the Father is "a god"...an argument pretty much necessary if we are to believe a stoning for blasphemy was about to take place.
As such, John 10:33 has been properly translated "God".
I want to thank @Clear for bring up the issue of historical context as I believe this sways the translation properly towards "God" rather than "a god".
The event discussed occurs in the 1st century of the common era when Israel was no more than a vassal or client state of Rome.
As I see it, a mob attempting to stone someone for "making themselves 'a god'" would not only have garnered the attention of the Jewish client-state authorities, but of their Roman occupiers as well. Let's remember, Rome at this time is pagan, and the law of land. Roman emperors often saw themselves as "gods" and many in Rome considered them deity.
Stoning somebody for making themselves "a god" would have sent a rather powerful political message to Rome (look what we do to "gods" around here). It's not something Pilate would have ignored and it's something the Sanhedrin would have wanted to sweep under the rug. In fact, had the crowd been able to seize Jesus at that time I see little chance of his case ever being referred to Pilate by the Sanhedrin, lest the Prefect hear that Jesus was nearly stoned for simply making himself "a god".
Thus "making yourself 'God'" sound much more likely than "making yourself 'a god'" and this without considering the effects of Greek Hellenization.
But there is more, stronger evidence for 'God' in the scripture itself.
_________________________________
Scripture explicitly tells us why the Jews picked up stones:
"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy;..."
In Leviticus 24:16 the punishment for blasphemy is death. In Jewish law the only form of blasphemy which is punishable by death is blaspheming the name of the Lord. (source)
Blaspheming anyone or anything else, like "a god" was never considered blasphemy by the Jews. In other words, you could claim you were Baal or "a god" all you want and you would not be stoned (although asking people to follow Baal would get you stoned, just not for blasphemy). As the Jewish Encyclopedia states:
BLASPHEMY:
Evil or profane speaking of God. The essence of the crime consists in the impious purpose in using the words, and does not necessarily include the performance of any desecrating act.
The text of the law in Leviticus provides that the stranger, as well as the native born, is liable to punishment for blasphemy. Talmudic tradition states that blasphemy was one of the seven crimes prohibited to the Noahides (Sanh. 56a), i.e., according to natural law. Although, according to Jewish law, a Jew who blasphemed a heathen deity was not guilty of the crime of blasphemy, Josephus ("Ant." iv. 8, § 10, after Philo, "Vita Mosis," 26; ed. Mangey, ii. 166) to the contrary notwithstanding, yet a heathen might be guilty if he blasphemed the name of the Lord (Baraita Sanh. 56a).
The only way I can see the Temple crowd stoning Jesus for the blasphemy of making himself "a god" in pagan occupied Israel is if the Jews thought the Father was also "a god". That would certainly tick off the crowd that a desecration of the Divine Name had taken place. Yet I don't see anyone here arguing the Father is "a god"...an argument pretty much necessary if we are to believe a stoning for blasphemy was about to take place.
As such, John 10:33 has been properly translated "God".
Last edited:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Very interesting point about both the grammar and the fact that a Jewish follower of Christ wrote this. So he would know what the term God (in this case, "a God") means. Thank you!
“Professionals”?
How about highly-acclaimed scholar and Catholic priest
John L. McKenzie, S.J.? In his Dictionary of the Bible, he writes: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Bold type and italics are mine. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.
And these translators.....
1808
““and the word was a god””
The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
1864
““and a god was the Word””
The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
1935
““and the Word was divine””
The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
1950
““and the Word was a god””
New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.
1975
““and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word””
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany.
1978
““and godlike sort was the Logos””
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.
1979
““and a god was the Logos””
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany.
2001
“and the Word was a powerful one.”
2001 Translation: An American English Bible
Online @ 2001 Translation an American English Bible
Thank you for the comment Oeste. I think the logic of your post seems perfectly fair.
I honestly don't know whether the Jews who said these words meant "a" God or "the" God. (It doesn't change my own theology about the divinity of Jesus either way.)
My only point is that I see endless debates about grammar but the grammar itself is very clear (the greek is indefinite as it is written), but USAGE allows the Jews who said this to mean definite. The only way to tell the difference is to define the context (which in this case is easily debatable).
Good luck coming to your own models as to what was meant.
Clear
φυτωτωακω
Last edited:
Dogknox20
Well-Known Member
I reply:
- McKenzie's comment on page 899, makes his meaning crystal clear: "He knows the Father and reveals Him. He therefore belongs to the divine level of being; and there is no question at all about the Spirit belonging to the divine level of being." (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, Trinity, p899) When McKenzie says Jn 1:1 should be translated "and the word was a divine being", he is classing Jesus with the Father as uncreated God. Its just that simple!
- Jehovah's Witnesses satanically redefine the meaning of the phrase, "divine being" into something different than what McKenzie meant.
- JW's will grasp at anything they can to promote their inconsistent and unscholarly translation of John 1:1. We have dealt with this in another place.
- Status