Is King James bible THE best bible? Why?

[Mehr Licht]

Arius lived between 256 – 336 AD though. Some of the earlier witness in the writings of the pre-nicene fathers (like Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen among others) quote it as God rather than a god.

 

[Shermana]

Arius lived between 256 – 336 AD though. Some of the earlier witness in the writings of the pre-nicene fathers (like Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen among others) quote it as God rather than a god.

That's incorrect, Justin Martyr and Origen use the Anarthrous and clearly says "a god", where does Clement say such? Some sources will dubiously use English translations to say that JM and Origen say "God" like Bible.ca in hopes that their readers won't check the actual Greek. Origen clearly writes about the difference between an articulated Theos and an indefinite. Justin Martyr flat out called Jesus an angel.

http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/history/origen.html

"We next notice John's use of the article ["the"] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article ["the"], and in some he omits it. He adds the article ["the"] to logos, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article ["the"], when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the logos is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article ["the], and theos without it, prevail also between logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As God who is over all is theos with the article ["the"] not without it, so also "the" logos is the source of that logos (reason} which dwells in every reasonable creature; the logos which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence "the" logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos (gods), and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is autotheos (God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know You the only true God;" but that all beyond the autotheos (God) is made theos by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply "the" theos but rather [just] theos. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos (gods) beside Him, of whom "the" theos (God) is "the" theos (God), as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became (gods), for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made theos gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is ho theos ("the god"), and those who are formed after Him are (gods), images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the ho logos ("the word") of ho theos ("the god") , who was in the beginning, and who by being with "the" theos ("God") is at all times theos ("god"), not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father. (Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II,


2.) While Trinitarian apologists will quote Origen when they find his sayings useful for their own agendas, they tend to avoid this particular quotation for obvious reasons. Origen is very insistent the absence of the definite article in the second instance of the word theos at John 1:1 is indeed extremely significant. And who would comprehend the Greek language of John's gospel better than an expert in the language of the day? Notice that Origen distinguishes between "the god" or "God" as the creator of all things, and his Word which he does not consider to be the creator, and which he does not consider to be "God" but "god" in the sense that the Word is deity by essence but not "God" by identity. This is precisely what was taught by the early Christian writers, Tatian, Athenagoras, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian although Trinitarians will attempt to tell us otherwise. Also take careful note of Origen's interpretation of John 17:3, "that they may now you the only true God" as a reference to the Father alone, and excludes Jesus from that title. Now let us be careful about what Origen is not saying. He is not saying that Jesus is "a God" or "a god" in addition to the Father. Origen is saying, along with all his contemporaries, that the divinity, deity, divine nature (the "what") of the Word is derived from the person "God," but only the Father should be identified as "God" ("who"). Heis not saying that the Word is "the God" that created the universe; in fact he is insisting the opposite is true (the Word is not the Creator but "of" the Creator). Origen is saying that the Word is qualitatively divine ("god") because he is "of God" the quantitative person and derives his deity from "The Deity," the Creator of all things who is the Father. Origen understands that the Word has a God but the Father does not have a God and derives his deity from no one but himself. God Most High, the Father, is "autodeity", or "autogod" which is a fancy way of saying he is independently deity in and of himself. But Origen says that the divinity of the Word is not derived from himself but is dependent on the Father's deity and this is why the definite article is absent in the second occurrence of theos at John 1:1. The Word of God is not "The Divinity" by identity ("GOD"), but divine in essence because the Word is "of The Divinity", that is, "of God" but is not "The God." Put another way, he is saying that the Word is divinity of the Divinity or god of God or deity of the Deity but is not himself "The Deity," the entity we know as the Creator, God Most High. Origen emphasizes his point by quoting John 17:3 where Jesus indicates his Father is the only true "Deity", that is, "The Deity" and "The God" by identity as opposed to simply being "deity" in essence. Essentially, what Origen is getting at is that the definite article is used to indicate identity and is always and only used to refer to the Creator who he understands to be the Father who created alone through (by means of) his Word, and the absence of the article indicates "what" the Word is to distinguish "who" the Word is from God - the Word is deity of The Deity but is not The Deity. The Word is "what" of "the Who."

Even Iraneus made the distinction. The Trinitarian authorities who try to use these Church Fathers to make their point are likely hoping no one actually reads what they said on the issue.

 

[Shermana]

Origen's actual Quotes:

Origen's actual quote, where he distinguishes "The God" and the Logos as "a god".

Book 2, Ch. 2:
"We next notice John's use of the article ["the" ho or o in the NT Greek when used with theos or logos] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it.
"He adds the article to the Logos [ho logos: 'the Word' or 'the Reason'], but to the name [title] of God [theos] he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article [ho or 'the' in English], when the name [title] of God [ho theos] refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named [theos, 'a god']. .... As the [theos] who is over all is [theos] with the article [ho theos] not without it [theos], so "the Logos" is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason [logos] which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. ".... God [ho theos] on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, (7) "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God [Autotheos] is made God [theos ?] by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply [ho theos] (with the article), but rather [theos] (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God [ho theos] is the God, as it is written, (8) "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God [ho theos] in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype." - p. 323, Vol. 10, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, (Bk2, Ch.2, Commentary on John

 

[Mehr Licht]

I guess I can only go by the translations I have accesses to but I've been reading the pre-nicene fathers (in a variety of different translations) and I've seen that specific verse referenced without "a" in front of it in every instance in which it has appeared so far. Origen specifically is one my favorites and I pick up every book by and about him I can get my hands on.

Justin Martyr flat out called Jesus an angel.

That in now way rules out the divinity of the Logos though. Anyone who reveals god fulfills an angelic function. The humanity of Christ fulfilled an angelic function.

Re Origin. I agree that there is a certain "subordinationism" at times in his elaboration of the Trinity but I see no evidence that he doesn't consider the Logos divine. There are also statements that seem almost "nesotrian" in separating that which applies to the man Jesus (or the prexistent nous that became the man Jesus) and the Logos too. I've always been rather partial to "nestorianism" in that regard so that doesn't bother me much. I

Origen notes, contra what Arius would later assert, that there never was a time in which the son was not:

There never can have been a time when He was not. For when was that God, whom John calls the Light, destitute of the radiance of His proper glory, so that a man may dare to ascribe a beginning of existence to the Son... Let a man, who ventures to say there was a time when the Son was not, consider that this is all one with saying there was a time when Wisdom was not, the Word was not, the Life was not.
​

This Word that was always existent he also calls "God":

Wherefore we recognize that God was always the Father of his Only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him and draws His being from Him, but is yet without any beginning, not only of that kind which can be distinguished by periods of time, but even of that other kind which the mind alone is wont to contemplate in itself and to perceive, if I may so say, with the bare intellect and reason...
​

John, however, uses yet more exalted and wonderful language in the beginning of his gospel, when by an appropriate declaration he defines the Word to be God; "And the Word was God, and He was in the beginning with God" John 1:1, 2). Let him who assigns a beginning to the Word of God or the Wisdom of God beware lest he utters impiety against the unbegotten Father Himself, in denying that He was always a Father and that He begets the Word and possessed wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever else they may be called...
​

The School of Alexandria - Origen - Ch 9 - Jesus Christ

Also from his First Principles:

He (Christ) in the last times, divested Himself of His glory and became a man, and was incarnate, although God, and while a man remained the God which He was
​

and

"Nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification."(De Principis, Book I, ch. 3, section 7)
​

and

"The holy Apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, treated with the utmost clarity of certain matters which they believed to be of absolute necessity to all believers...The specific points which are clearly handed down through the Apostolic preaching [are] these: First, that there is one God who created and arranged all things...Secondly, that Jesus Christ himself was born of the Father before all creatures...Although He was God, He took flesh, and having been made man, He remained what He was, God" (De Principis, Preface, sections 3 - 4)
​

 

[Shermana]

Once again, you're using a Trinitarian-based English translation that tries to ignore the anarthrous issue, unless you can prove he used an article before God, he was clearly saying "A god" in those instances. You can see that he clearly made the distinction from the links I provided, so the English translations that say "God" instead of "a god" are hoping their readers don't know what the anarthrous issue is. I have seen the translations as well, they usually ignore the "A" because they are in fact Trinitarian sources

The reader can see with my second post in which Origen specifically discusses the issue of the placement of the article before "Theos".

I believe he is in fact using anarthrous Theos's there so that it should be read as "a god" despite whatever site you're using says, but if you have the actual Greek where it shows he's using an article, as I clearly showed in my quotes he plainly distinguishes with the article, then it's quite clear that your source is hoping the reader doesn't read what he wrote about the articulation issue to begin with, or checks the actual Greek.

The same applies for Justin Martyr who used the anarthrous form for calling Jesus "a god", and also called him an angel, who I agree that angels still have "divinity" since Angels are in fact called "gods" such as in the Septuagint translation of Psalm 8:5.

 

[Mehr Licht]

Once again, you're using a Trinitarian-based English translation, unless you can prove he used an article before God, he was clearly saying "A god".

What translators "did it right" in your opinion? Is nearly every translator in on a conspiracy to misrepresent Origen?

 

[Shermana]

What translators "did it right" in your opinion? Is nearly every translator in on a conspiracy to misrepresent Origen?

I actually do in fact believe there is a "conspiracy" (and I can bring in a few educated RFers to back this if you'd like) to misrepresent not just Origen but the very concept of the "Anarthrous Theos". However, there are actually very few translations of the passages in question to begin with. Do you deny that there was a conspiracy to support the Comma Johannum into the KJV?

Links to the Works of Origen in English, Greek, and Latin

Now you can ignore what Origen himself says about it like in the quotes I provided, but at this moment, there simply hasn't been done a work on Origen that addresses this properly. Now if you can't provide the actual Greek or disprove what I already showed HE HIMSELF SAID, then you're out of luck. Until then, I've shown Origen's OWN QUOTES to show that he recognized the differences, and thus there is in fact a quote "Conspiracy" quote to misrepresent his writings as somehow in support of the Trinity, or what would actually be Modalism in such use of his words.

So we need to see the actual Greek and to determine that he did in fact use an articulated Theos in order to prove your translations right.

 

[Mehr Licht]

Now you can ignore what Origen himself says about it like in the quotes I provided,

If you notice my post was filled with references to the writings of Origen. I don't see how I've been ignoring what he said?

 

[Mehr Licht]

The last two quotes I provided are matched word for word in the translation you linked too. If that's a bad translation where do I go to find a good translation of Origen?

 

[Shermana]

If you notice my post was filled with references to the writings of Origen. I don't see how I've been ignoring what he said?

You're not getting the concept, do you understand at all what Origen was saying in the words I posted? They prove that your translation of what he said is wrong and should be "a god".

 

[Shermana]

The last two quotes I provided are matched word for word in the translation you linked too.

And you didn't understand why I posted that either. The translation sites I linked to is to show how very few English translations there are of the passage in question and they are in fact done by Trinitarians. Do you even know which Translation you got yours from to begin with?

Anyways, go over and read what I posted of Origen saying about what he said, it'll help you understand why the translation of the passage in question regarding "God" or "god" is flat out ignoring his very own words on the concept, it's clear and deliberate mistranslation in the face of what he himself said about the issue of the article. Thus, all those places where you bolded and put red should in fact read "a god". Again, if you wish I can bring in some educated RFers on this subject if you'd like.

 

[Mehr Licht]

I think I understand what you are getting at. Your saying that the Father is called ho theos while the son is simply called theos and that Origen was pointing to this difference ? I don't see how this in anyway shows that Origen is denying the divinity of the the Logos though. If he didn't accept the divinity of the logos there must be a really thorough going mistranslation conspiracy that goes well beyond failing to put an "a" in front of God in his translations too. How should "there never was a time he was not" be properly translated for example? Or his statement that in the "Trinity there is no greater or lesser" or even that those who say there was a time when the Word was not are "uttering impiety?"

Did you copy and paste that from here?:

Origen's Commentary on John 1:1 in Research Forum

I ask because this guy has the same bracketed "stuff" and claims that he was responsible for it.

 

[Mehr Licht]

Certainly if you are saying that he didn't teach the same trinitarian theology as say the Capadocians who were influential regarding how these things are often understood today then I can agree. I think he does make statements that are very subordinationist sounding (though at times he seems to contridict himself and say the opposite). But the idea that the word is divine is so commonly stated in so many numerous ways that I have trouble believing they are all just translation errors. It's not like I've only picked up a book or two on the subject either. I grab up whatever I can get by and on Origen. This week alone I'm reading three books on the subject - Robert E Heines translation of his commentaries on Genesis and Exodus, Hans Urs Van Balthasars anthology of his writtings titled "Spirit and Fire", and Edward Moore's "Origen of Alexandria and Maximus the Confessors." (a book about Origen but it includes a good deal of translations of his statements) I've found some pretty clear references to Christs divinity in all three so far.

Can you point me to an accurate translation his works ? If you are saying that all these various statements I've referenced are mistranslations you must have an accurate translation you are comparing it with I would assume?

 

[Shermana]

I think I understand what you are getting at. Your saying that the Father is called ho theos while the son is simply called theos and that Origen was pointing to this difference ? I don't see how this in anyway shows that Origen is denying the divinity of the the Logos though. If he didn't accept the divinity of the logos there must be a really thorough going mistranslation conspiracy that goes well beyond failing to put an "a" in front of God in his translations too. How should "there never was a time he was not" be properly translated for example? Or his statement that in the "Trinity there is no greater or lesser" or even that those who say there was a time when the Word was not are "uttering impiety?"

Did you copy and paste that from here?:

Yes, the bracket stuff is his emphasis. Regardless though, Origin was making clear that there is a difference between The God and "a god". Thus, the point is clear that he himself was aware of this difference and the translators who write his anarthrous use of Theos as "God" are in fact being a bit dishonest about what he likely meant, unless you can prove with the Greek that he did use the article in those cases, along with Irenaeus and Justin, they were all saying "a god" in those cases, whether you think that has anything to do with his "Divinity". I'm not saying he agreed with the specifics of what I agree with in that the Logos at one point did not exist, but he didn't regard them as the same being but different persons, or anything close resembling the actual Trinity, and we can see that he didn't call Jesus/the Logos "God". As for the word "Divinity", that's a matter of debate because I believe "angels" have "Divinity" in that they are called "gods". The question of what exactly "Divinity" means is in dispute.

 

[Shermana]

Certainly if you are saying that he didn't teach the same trinitarian theology as say the Capadocians who were influential regarding how these things are often understood today then I can agree. I think he does make statements that are very subordinationist sounding (though at times he seems to contridict himself and say the opposite). But the idea that the word is divine is so commonly stated in so many numerous ways that I have trouble believing they are all just translation errors. It's not like I've only picked up a book or two on the subject either. I grab up whatever I can get by and on Origen. This week alone I'm reading three books on the subject - Robert E Heines translation of his commentaries on Genesis and Exodus, Hans Urs Van Balthasars anthology of his writtings titled "Spirit and Fire", and Edward Moore's "Origen of Alexandria and Maximus the Confessors." (a book about Origen but it includes a good deal of translations of his statements) I've found some pretty clear references to Christs divinity in all three so far.

Can you point me to an accurate translation his works ? If you are saying that all these various statements I've referenced are mistranslations you must have an accurate translation you are comparing it with I would assume?

I will look to see if there's any lesser known objective translations, but hopefully you can admit that the scholars you are referring to are all Trinitarians. As others have pointed out, you will often see Trinitarians translating things to a Trinitarian spin very often, if not always, when the issue is at stake. A perfect example being all the "traditional" versions of John 1:1c (and 10:33) that say "word was God", even when Wallace, Goodspeed, and Moffatt have all said that "Divine" would be better.

 

[InChrist]

I will look to see if there's any lesser known objective translations, but hopefully you can admit that the scholars you are referring to are all Trinitarians. As others have pointed out, you will often see Trinitarians translating things to a Trinitarian spin very often, if not always, when the issue is at stake. A perfect example being all the "traditional" versions of John 1:1c (and 10:33) that say "word was God", even when Wallace, Goodspeed, and Moffatt have all said that "Divine" would be better.

Daniel B. Wallace
In his intermediate Greek grammar, Wallace accepts Harner's definition of the qualitative semantic force, and provides a number of examples outside of John 1:1. Wallace, like Harner, advocates qualitativeness as a separate semantic category, either coexisting alongside definite or indefinite semantic forces or existing by itself. Citing Harner and Dixon, Wallace concludes that THEOS in John 1:1 is qualitative, and finds the indefinite semantic force the least likely for preverbal predicate nominatives. Though Wallace says that "the Word was divine" may be an acceptable translation, this is only acceptable if we define "divine" in such a way that it is only applied to true Deity. The import of the qualitative force goes well beyond what we commonly would refer to as "divine" in contemporary usage:

The idea of qualitative qeoV 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 (Wallace, p. 269, emphasis in original).

For an Answer: Christian Apologetics - John 1



[FONT=&quot]James Moffatt[/FONT][FONT=&quot] was an orthodox Trinitarian who supported both the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedon Confession:

"'The Word was God...And the Word became flesh,' simply means "The word was divine...And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man..." Moffatt, Jesus Christ the Same, (Abingdon-Cokesbury), 1945, p.61[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Moffatt apparently did believe that "divine" signified that Jesus was "one and the same God" with ho theos.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Bill Cetnar, who worked at Watchtower Headquarters in New York during the period when the New World Translation was being prepared, was sent to interview Dr. Goodspeed in March, 1954 to seek his comments on the first volume of the New World Translation Of The Hebrew Scriptures. Cetnar writes:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"During the two-hour long visit with him it was obvious that he knew the volume well, because he could cite the pages where the readings he objected to were found. One reading he pointed out as especially awkward and grammatically poor was in Judges 14:3 where Samson is made to say: `Her get for me....' As I left, Dr. Goodspeed was asked if he would recommend the translation for the general public He answered, `No, I'm afraid I could not do that. The grammar is regrettable. Be careful on the grammar. Be sure you have that right" (Cetnar, W.I. & J., Questions For Jehovah's Witnesses Who Love The Truth [Kunkletown, Pennsylvania: W.I. Cetnar, 1983], p. 64). [/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]----------------------------------------- [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Dr. Goodspeed[/FONT][FONT=&quot] was, of course, not speaking here about the Greek (New Testament) Scriptures, but about the Hebrew (Old Testament) Scriptures, while his earlier, favorable comments related to the Greek Scriptures. However, as Robert Bowman notes in his book, Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses (Baker Books, 1991), there is some doubt as to the authenticity of Goodspeed's letter. The letter does not bear a written signature and appears to be a copy of the original, if such ever existed (to date, the Society has not produced a signed original). Second, though the letter was dated 1950, it was not used by the Society as an endorsement of the NWT until 1982. Third, the letter contains several very minor criticisms of the NWT, but none relating to the more controversial translations - which would seem odd, in that Goodspeed's own translation differed dramatically with the NWT in several key texts. Finally, Dr. Walter Martin, whom Bowman knew, reported that Goodspeed forthrightly criticized the NWT rendering of John 1:1 in a personal conversation in 1958. Thus, there is no sure evidence that Goodspeed actually endorsed the NWT; there is solid evidence that he refused to endorse the NWT Hebrews Scriptures, and suggestive circumstantial evidence that he did not approve of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures, either.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The New World Translation[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What the Scholars Really Said[/FONT]
For an Answer: Christian Apologetics - Homepage

 

[Shermana]

Once again, the "a god' rendering was being used for centuries before the NWT, in many smaller, (non-church-sanctioned) versions. I brought up the Trinitarians Wallace, Goodspeed, and Moffatt, who although they still thought Jesus was G-d, (seeing as they were Trinitarians as I've mentioned on numerous threads), they nonetheless did not think it should read "Word was God". Wallace at least admits its POSSIBLE for Theos to say "a god". But the true deception is when people say that the NWT is the first group to use the "a god' rendering, it has been used that way in many versions (especially among German scholars) since the 1600s even. The Trinitarian scholars are still going to be Trinitarian even if they believe "Theos" should mean "Divine", which I think is wrong in the first place.

And this is in relation to the Trinitarian translations of Origen that refuse to acknowledge that the anarthrous Theos he uses means "a god" like its use in Acts 12:22.

(12) A.N. Jannaris Ph D, “[A]nd was a god" A.N. Jannaris Lecturer of Post-Classical and Modern Greek - at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland
“Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft”, (German periodical) 1901

For those who insist on Colwell's rule, it's not really a rule, and it doesn't apply in numerous places where its own criteria should, and most people misapply Colwell's rule to begin with. Colwell even said that its based on "Context" and thus, purely subjective (i.e. whenever Trintiarians want it to apply). It is an unprecedented rule that never appeared until the mid-early 1900s and probably in reaction to the numerous translations coming out in the early 20th century that said "a god".

 

[Protester]

I would suggest Jesus is God! - John 1:1

This article breaks it down a bit more but there is much dispute over this verse in that it was translated "a god" rather than just "God". It completely changes what is being said.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
—New American Standard
“In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
—New World Translation

Anyway, this article is good.

Yes, I'm glad that you did bring up that famous verse, NETBible: John 1:1 The notes for the NET Bible for this verse is quite interesting, and I would suggest that would be read also.