The Facts on John 1:1

[iris89]

Hi Everyone

For those who like to know the technical facts behind the translation, correct, of John 1:1, here they are:

But, first a definition, Jesus (Yeshua)-A Godlike One; Divine

Some salient Bible editions on the subject,

1808 ; "and the word was a god" , --- TheNew Testament, in An ImprQved Version, Upon , the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation:
With a Corrected Text; London,

1829, , "and the I,.ogos was a,gqd" -- The Monotessaron; or,The Gospel History, ,According to the Four Evangelists, , by John S. Thompson,
Baltimore. ,

1864 -- "and a god wasth~,Word" -- TheEmphaticDiagiott (.)'2\ lrlteriinear r.eading), by Benjamin V{ilsorl, New York an<;lLondon.
'
1935 "q,nd the ,Word was divine" -- 'l'he Bible-An American .Translation" by " J. M. P. Smith andE. 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, GOttingen, 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, Jurgen Becker,
Wirzburg, Germany.*
* Translated from German.

These translations use such words 'as "a god," "divine," or "godlike" because the Greek word eEO<; (the.os') is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is 'riot preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous “the-os’”. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, .was originally is designated here by the Greek expression Qedz, that is, “the-os’”. ,proceded by the definite article ho. .This'is an articular,the’os. . The articular construction of the noun 'points' to an identity, a personality,; wher,eas a singular ,anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb pqints to,a quality about someone., Therefore, John's statement that the Word, or Logos,--was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify his as one and the
same as God himself..

In the Greek text there,are many cases of a singular antarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as those listed in the accompanying chart. In these places translators insert the indefinite article “a” before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite aarticle "a"'is. inserted before the anarthrous the’os, in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read “a” god. The Sacred Scriptures Confirm the correctness of this rendering.
In his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15: 39 and John 1:1," published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, on p. 85 Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John l:1, "with an arthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate the’os. as definite." On p. 87 of ,. his article, Harner concluded: "In
John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."

Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring. before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns, check the following Bibles for the following scriptures:

Scriptures, Mark 6:49, Mark 11:32, John 4:19, John 6:70, John 8:44, John 9:17,John 10:1, John 10:13, John 10:33, John 12:6, John 18:37 in the following translations, New World Translation (NWT), Authorized King James Bible (AV), New International Version (NIV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), and Today’s English Version (TEV).

To learn more, go to:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=207 and read Let's Have Truth in Translation

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[HelpMe]

ho theos

 

[iris89]

Hi Help Me

I am not sure what your message is and/or question, but I think you do not understand the false God (YHWH) dishonoring doctrine of the Trinity and/or who Jesus (Yeshua) is. So I am recommending that you go to the following:

Documentary on the Book of John Being Anti-Trinitarian-In Multiple Parts:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=97

and;

Trinity = Absurd to the Extreme:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=61

and;

Colossians 2:8-12 & John 1:1 - Learn The Facts

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=93

and;

Scourge of Christendom, The Pagan Trinity:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=58

and;

The Holy Spirit, Person or Force?

The Holy Spirit, Person or Force?

and;

Trinity = Absurd God (YHWH) Dishonoring Doctrine:

http://p078.ezboard.com/fyahwehstruthinchristfrm2.showMessage?topicID=58.topic

and;

Discourse on John 8:58:

http://p078.ezboard.com/fyahwehstruthinchristfrm2.showMessage?topicID=83.topic

and;

Learn - Documentary on Our Savior Jesus (Yeshua):

http://p078.ezboard.com/fyahwehstruthinchristfrm2.showMessage?topicID=74.topic

and;

When God's (YHWH's) Kingdom Starts Rulling:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=204

and,

Discourse on the Bible:

http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org:/viewtopic.php?p=46520#46520

and,

Muslims Do Not Comprehend The Bible:

http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org:/viewtopic.php?t=5096

and,

Civilization and the Bible

http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org:/viewtopic.php?t=5075

and,

STANDARDS ARE PROMULGATED NOT PROVEN BUT USED:

http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org:/viewtopic.php?t=5076

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[HelpMe]

you think i believe the trinity?

 

[iris89]

Hi HelpMe

You say nothing intelligable so how would anyone know what you believe if you know yourself. Now if you want to learn more on the Trinity, go to my articles as follows:

Documentary on the Book of John Being Anti-Trinitarian-In Multiple Parts:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=97

and;

Trinity = Absurd to the Extreme:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=61

and;

Colossians 2:8-12 & John 1:1 - Learn The Facts

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=93

and;

Scourge of Christendom, The Pagan Trinity:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=58

and;

The Holy Spirit, Person or Force?

The Holy Spirit, Person or Force?

and;

Trinity = Absurd God (YHWH) Dishonoring Doctrine:

http://p078.ezboard.com/fyahwehstruthinchristfrm2.showMessage?topicID=58.topic

and;

Discourse on John 8:58:

http://p078.ezboard.com/fyahwehstruthinchristfrm2.showMessage?topicID=83.topic

and;

Learn - Documentary on Our Savior Jesus (Yeshua):

http://p078.ezboard.com/fyahwehstruthinchristfrm2.showMessage?topicID=74.topic

and;

When God's (YHWH's) Kingdom Starts Rulling:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=204

and,

Discourse on the Bible:

http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org:/viewtopic.php?p=46520#46520

and,

Muslims Do Not Comprehend The Bible:

http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org:/viewtopic.php?t=5096

and,

Let's Have Reality in Translation:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=207

and,

Discourse on the Whether Christ is Divine:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=190

and,

DISCOURSE ON THE MISCONCEPTION WITH RESPECT 'I AM'
http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=185

And,

Discourse On The Holy Spirit:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=184

and,

Discourse on Trinitarians Being Blinded to The Truth:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=178

and,

Rebuke To A Trinitarian, Trinity is God Dishonoring False Doctrine

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=176

and,

Discourse On The Trinity of Reasons That Prove The Trinity a Myth:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=148

and,

Does the Apostle Thomas' exclamation at John 20:28 prove that Jesus is truly God (YHWH)?
http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=145

And,

Discourse on Jeremiah 23:5-6 and the Confusion on YHWH Tsidqenu and Its Equivalents:
http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=127

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[Scuba Pete]

II Peter 1:5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
You know, somehow Peter missed the part about twisting scriptures and Greek to try and prove a point. I guess that I will continue to major in my major: being a humble servant, and will leave the Godless controversy to those who think it far more important.

 

[No*s]

Iris,

First I have a request. When you post Greek, could you do it in transliteration, betacode, or the like? Not everyone can display odd fonts, and it makes understanding what your saying rather difficult. Methods such as that aren't dependent on a special font and display just as fine on anyone's computer.

I was only able to read your post, because I'm familiar with the text in question. I, for one, will be using betacode (though I fudge on caps and the final sigma), because it is exact, easily readable, and is completely cross-platform.

Betacode:
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/OM/Beta-codes.html

Second, if you want to be taken seriously when you write about grammar, use good grammar. If you don't, then nobody is going to take you seriously. It's akin to someone writing extensively on mathematics, but they cannot seem to get basics right. While I don't normally like being a grammar gnome, it does look very bad. Trust me.

Lastly, the page you cite doesn't properly cite its sources. It is heavily dependent on the John 1:1 section of the Watchtower's Should We Believe in the Trinity tract. It has mostly the same citations, with some that are not present. Including the same wording quite often. That sort of thing would get you banned from a university...especially when it is reworded to a degree.

Lest anyone doubt my word, let them compare your full article at:
http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=207
With:
http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_08.htm

Since the general direction of the flow is one of adding information to the JW publication, rather than missing information from it, then it is pretty safe to say the article you cited is dependent on the JW article.

This isn't saying the author is a liar or dishonest but needs to be aware of that standard for honesty. Everybody slips here and there and quotes someone without even realizing it.

Now setting aside such things as the plethora of solecisms and whatnot, I shall address the details of your post.

Personally, I think a good way of putting it would be "The Logos was what God was," but that is far more interpretive than I would put in a translation.

Now, I object to the translation "divine." It is an attempt at representing the force of the statement in Greek, but cannot convey it in English. Further, "divine" is anything but standard for qeo/s. However, qei=os is regularly translated as "divine." Translating it "divine" opens up more degrees of classification than the text allows.

Now, on "a god." That is a very accurate translation. However, such terminology has long fell into disfavor, since it began to be employed by the Arians to deny that the Son was the "same substance" as the Father. In fact, the terms homoousia and heteroousia only came into popular use in response to the Arian controversy.

As a result, "a god" is then taken to mean something that it certainly did not originally. It didn't say just "God," because that does largely require an article. However, if John had written o( qeo\s h(=n o( lo/gos, he would have been saying "The Son was that God" in reference to the Father, which is Who qeo/s refers to in the context of John 1.

For a good idea of how to understand it, I reccomend you read Justin Martyr's dialogues. He unequivocally called Christ "a god," but he also taught just as blatantly that Christ was God of the exact same nature as the Father, "as fire from fire," as he would put it. The languge in question was fairly common in early Christianity.

In a monotheistic religion what qeo/s cannot mean in John 1 is that the Son was simply some lesser deity. Christianity in the Early Centuries had a view of salvation, God, and man that is not shared by most Christians today. I expounded on this in my salvation thread in the same-faithes debate board.

This is all I really feel compelled to explain in light of your post. It really didn't offer anything substantive to reply to, and i don't feel like sparring with a webpage with just a little more.

 

[iris89]

Hi No*s

FIRST, I went to the web page, http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_08.htm , and found it an excellently done work that I had not previously known about. I would highly recommend it to all. I wish I had known about this page before, it would have saved me a lot of digging to find many of the same sources.

SECOND, I will use the type faces in my word processor and not those I have not.

THIRD, You should be interested in learning, but you appear not to be.

FOURTH, iF you want to learn, go to my articles:

Discourse On Apparent Bible Contradictions and Divine Inspir

http://p197.ezboard.com/ffreedomofspeechfrm5.showMessage?topicID=793.topic

and,

"Pure' Sola Scriptura" Discourse on FAITH By Trans

http://p197.ezboard.com/fabnafrm10.showMessage?topicID=118.topic

FIFTH, With respect Salvation, go to my article:

Document on Salvation. [Second post on the Salvation thread]

http://p213.ezboard.com/fthewayofyhvhfrm1.showEditScreen?topicID=175.topic&index=1

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[No*s]

Hi No*s

FIRST, I went to the web page, http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_08.htm, and found it an excellently done work that I had not previously known about. I would highly recommend it to all. I wish I had known about this page before, it would have saved me a lot of digging to find many of the same sources.

The similarities are striking, but I'll take you at your word.

SECOND, I will use the type faces in my word processor and not those I have not.

Then many, many other people cannot read them. It kind of defeats the purpose of publicising.

THIRD, You should be interested in learning, but you appear not to be.

I think you should be careful where you apply that. Setting aside the number of times I've changed my opinion, Greek is something I am formally trained in. I've been studying it since 97. Not only did I take the classes, but I worked with my professors outside of class on that subject. I may not have been a good student in every area, but I was in this. I was a very diligent student when it came to Greek.

How much have you studied, and why should I listen to you when you talk about what it really refers to in Greek? Have you read the whole NT in Greek? I have, several times. Have you read the LXX? I have read a large portion of it. Have you read Homer in Greek? I have. I could go on, but I think the point is made.

If it wasn't for the fact that you use that exclusive font, I would suggest that we continue discussing in Greek. Then you could see how much I really understood, and I could see how much you really understood.

I'm going to be frank. I don't believe you understand much about the language. You could, of course, prove me wrong by discussing this in Koini Greek and using some display that uses ASCII characters. I am incapable, not unwilling, of viewing anything else. Of course, SPIonic would be a nice compromise, because I can read it in ASCII and it displays nice Greek characters for those unaccustomed to reading something like betacode. I'm ready and willing to discuss this subject in Greek. You are the only person who needs to say "yes" to make it happen.

FOURTH, iF you want to learn, go to my articles:

Put them on the board and we can discuss them. I'm not going to go join another board to do that, and I'm not going to read another board so that I can copy and paste it here to discuss it.

FIFTH, With respect Salvation, go to my article

We have a thread on this board devoted to that. By all means, go there. Notice, though, that I cited the argument on this forum as an backup explanation for what I was saying about the word qeo/s.

 

[iris89]

Hi No*s

FIRST, I am not myself a translator of Greek, but have access to Greek translators. One does not have to be a translator to see obvious errors as those I was referring to. You should read "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament" by Dr. Jason Beduhn. He sees what I have been saying exactly as I do and he is a well known Bible scholar and translator.

What you are saying is plain foolishness, same as saying in order to use a word processor, you should know the source code, the compiled code, and the executable code. Stop being ridicules.

SECOND, I am not interested in your 'build-up' of your self, but in assisting others who want to know with regard to learning the facts. I have no interest in argueing with anyone who wants to agrandise himself/herself any more than did my leader and savior Jesus (Yeshua) Christ. You care not to know the truth. Remember Romans 1:18, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness;" (American Standard Version; ASV).

THIRD, All should go learn the truth at :

http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_08.htm

It even gives broader coverage of the subject than what I wrote.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[No*s]

FIRST, I am not myself a translator of Greek, but have access to Greek translators. One does not have to be a translator to see obvious errors as those I was referring to. You should read "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament" by Dr. Jason Beduhn. He sees what I have been saying exactly as I do and he is a well known Bible scholar and translator.

Actually, I didn't say anything about being a "translator." I talked about knowing the language. I wouldn't be a translator for the Bible, because there are already many that have been done and have been done by people far better than I, and I have very few places where I'll just try and pick apart their translations.

What I am referring to is actually knowing the language. There are people who talk about things, don't have a clue about what they're talking about, and then expect everyone to just accept their teachings (you call it "learning"), and there are those who do know what they're talking about. I listen to those people more than I do those who don't know what they're talking about.

So, here's my questions again. They are very relevant to your claims.

Can you read Koini Greek? That is, can you actually pick up a Koini Greek book and begin reading it.

Have you read the Greek New Testament?

What about the Septuagint?

Have you read Homer?

Have you read any other books in Greek?

Are you willing to discuss in Koini Greek? What about Attic Greek, which is basically a more complicated and ancient Koini?

Lastly, since you said it was easy to criticize John 1's translation, then you wouldn't mind explaining the grammar error(s) in the following sentance. I bet there are lots of people who can on this board.

ego legeis soi kata tou theou.

The same in betacode with the accents:

e)gw\ le/geis soi kata\ tou= theou/.

Please be concise. The error(s) are very simple.

If you haven't done the work, then you shouldn't be preaching about it and should begin learning. If I find it insulting after almost a decade's study on the subject, I can't imagine what one of the elderly scholars would think after having studied it their whole lives.

What you are saying is plain foolishness, same as saying in order to use a word processor, you should know the source code, the compiled code, and the executable code. Stop being ridicules.

No, it's very wise. Going with the source code analogy, it's much more like somebody who is claiming to be a programmer, but they can't even begin to look at their word processor's source code.

Taking the same analogy in another direction, it's like the average user of a word processor, who doesn't even have a smattering of programming knowledge, trying to say they understand the guts of the word processor simply because they can scan the source.

It is insulting to those who have spent the hard time to do it right.

SECOND, I am not interested in your 'build-up' of your self, but in assisting others who want to know with regard to learning the facts. I have no interest in argueing with anyone who wants to agrandise himself/herself any more than did my leader and savior Jesus (Yeshua) Christ. You care not to know the truth. Remember Romans 1:18, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness;" (American Standard Version; ASV).

When I "built" myself up, I was doing so for one reason: to establish that I have done the work in this subject. I'm not the one who hasn't done the work and am trying to exalt myself as a teacher that everyone should listen to.

Lots of people fancy themselves knowledgable about things they aren't, and it is always an ego-boost for them.

If you haven't done the work with the Greek language, you are not competent to assist others in it. It's that plain and simple.

 

[iris89]

Hi No*s

Obviously you have never heard of Interlinear Translations of documents as shown by your ego trip questions. Get real and start learning.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[No*s]

Obviously you have never heard of Interlinear Translations of documents as shown by your ego trip questions. Get real and start learning.

I don't think that this discussion can go further, and I've verified my point now.

One last note from me, I have heard of interlinears, and I, like my professor before me, hold them in derision just as I have no stomach Strong's Concordance. After all, nobody who knows the language really has need of them, and those who don't know tend to think they are magic wands that accomodate for a lack of study.

You may now continue to teach about things you don't understand, because I'm going to be quiet. My point in this thread is already made...

 

[iris89]

Hi No*s

Obviously you are still on an ego trip and your high blown nonsense statement proves it,

I don't think that this discussion can go further, and I've verified my point now.

One last note from me, I have heard of interlinears, and I, like my professor before me, hold them in derision just as I have no stomach Strong's Concordance. After all, nobody who knows the language really has need of them, and those who don't know tend to think they are magic wands that accomodate for a lack of study.

All reputable Bible scholars and translators always check these sources and Strong's Concordance is found in every seminary, so get real. Also, you have strayed far from the subject as I am in no way the subject of this thread in case you forgot.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[Scott1]

** MOD POST **
Don't seem to be getting anywhere here..... and I'm tired of the name calling Iris.... so the thread is closed.