Trinity - Bible Teaching or Doctrine of Man

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
421

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]wimpuskhan wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]wimpuskhan wrote:
<<< Thanks for your response, but I think you misunderstood me. I was simply asking for you to cite a scripture regarding your claim of Lucifer being the highest of the angels. I am also not a JW, I am merely curious as to where in the Bible this fact is made clear.[/quote]

Isaiah 14:12-17 (King James Version)
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

In my opinion this passage is not NECESSARILY referring to Satan himself for a bunch of reasons I’ll let somebody else get into if they are so inclined. It may be and it isn’t ridiculous to think that it does. I’ve gone back and forth. It also doesn’t imperil the soul one way or another so honest people can disagree here.[/quote]

Thank you. If this is indeed a duel-meaning scripture that is directed at Satan as well as the king of Babylon, I still am not sure I see the connection to Satan being the highest of the angels.[/quote]

There’s no doubt that Satan had a lot of responsibility in heaven; he must have had some sort of authority to have been able to get angels to follow him (and become demons). Also, he must have had some sort of “high ranking” to have had the nerve to challenge Jesus. You could say that the “power went to his head”.

In my opinion, no one can say conclusively one way or the other since the bible isn’t very specific about heavenly life.[/quote]

Your last sentence is at least honest and I agree with.

Now back to your first paragraph. I have to clarify, because when you guys use the name Jesus, I have to substitute the name arch-angel Michael. That is not putting words in your mouth just stating your side. Satan temps Jesus in the New Testament, and challenges God in Job.

This paragraph I am only speculating on this, trying to read between the lines. If Satan has the ability to approach the throne of God directly why would he not be considered more powerful than all the angels? If he was not more powerful wouldn’t all the angels been able to throw him out before he got to God’s throne? I have no clue and again only speculating.

422

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Where was I arguing that John 1:1 should state “the word is a god”?

I specifically admitted that this is misleading

Where do those scholars (the majority of whom are trinitarians) cover anything that I said in my post? Other than to say it shouldn’t be “a god”?

Do you have your own opinion based on your own findings/common sense/actually study, or do you just prefer to cut and paste?

As regards the scriptures you took out of context - they are referring to FALSE gods, not Jesus. Obviously, God was trying to hammer into the ancient nation of Israel that it is futile and pointless to worship other gods - because the other FALSE gods are not like Him (they couldn’t tell the future, do powerful works etc)…FALSE gods don’t even compare to God.

“John 1:1 is so simple, it is impossible to get wrong.”

Completely agree, hence my illustration of heat and hot, which fits and makes sense, unlike:

[quote]Let’s substitute some other names in place for illustrative purposes:

"In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with MAN, and EVE was MAN.[/quote][/quote]

Starting from the top:

You’re just going to ignore the testimony of the best of the best Greek Scholars - a number of whom are not even Christian, let alone trinitarian? If you would ignore the experts, then why would my opinion matter? My opinion would be even easier to discount than that of the absolute best experts on the language itself. Your issue is not with me, but with the text itself.

I did not take the scriptures out of context, I merely quoted what the Bible plainly says. God was explicit that there is NO ONE LIKE HIM. end of story, no twist, no spin, no hype.

there’s no point in addressing your passage misinterpretation of John1:1, since you will not heed the testimnoy of the experts, there’s simply nothing left to say on that matter.[/quote]

Sorry, I don’t mean to sound arrogant :slight_smile:

And I’m sorry if that sounded insulting.

I just mean that there’s no mention of what I was saying about the definite article. In other words, we’ve got to be on the same page in order to discuss something.

As regards the “I’ve got loads of scholars on my side statement”; It’s like the Evolution vs Creation debate, there may be scientists on both sides, but one will look at the evidence and see something, and the other will look at it and see something else. Other scholars say the same thing about the definite article…it’s not just what me or the Watchtower says.

No offence, but the scriptures you quoted (about there not being other gods like God) have been taken out of context…especially since they are from the old Testament - BEFORE the Messiah came. They are talking about false worship (don’t worship them, because I’m greater sort of thing). No-one is saying that Jesus is another god to be worshipped.

Even without all that; there is nothing wrong with saying that someone is godly…the bible refers to people as godly.

423

[quote]haney1 wrote:
<<< It is one in essence Three in person. 3 manifestations is not the correct term. >>>[/quote]
3 “manifestations” would be the Sabellian godhead which Christians have also always viewed as a heretical doctrine even in the 3rd century when he lived. This is most closely represented today by the “oneness” folks, whose books, pamphlets actually, I also once owned. Dealing with them is a blast too.

424

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

This paragraph I am only speculating on this, trying to read between the lines. If Satan has the ability to approach the throne of God directly why would he not be considered more powerful than all the angels? If he was not more powerful wouldn’t all the angels been able to throw him out before he got to God’s throne? I have no clue and again only speculating.[/quote]

I agree.

But then again, just like God, angels and Jesus don’t like to simply stamp on something that is out of line…they tend to wait and see and allow events to unravel in order prove them wrong by fact (or at least, let the “Big Boss” sort them out). It’s like when Satan challenged God about Job, God could have just said “away with you…you shall die!” but He gave him chance to “state his case”. Just like God has allowed Satan to exist until now, he allows him to “try and prove his point”, even if it means “collateral damage” to mankind…rather than just “obliterate” him

425

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

As regards the “I’ve got loads of scholars on my side statement”; It’s like the Evolution vs Creation debate, there may be scientists on both sides, but one will look at the evidence and see something, and the other will look at it and see something else. Other scholars say the same thing about the definite article…it’s not just what me or the Watchtower says.

[/quote]

I have yet to see any scholars to back up your side of the story. So this is not the same argument at the Evolution vs Creation debate. We have all the scholars, you do not even have one. We have asked but you guys but you all have not provided. You guys just keep bringing up the indefinite article with no scholarly backing.

426

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Sorry, I don’t mean to sound arrogant :slight_smile:

And I’m sorry if that sounded insulting.

I just mean that there’s no mention of what I was saying about the definite article. In other words, we’ve got to be on the same page in order to discuss something.

As regards the “I’ve got loads of scholars on my side statement”; It’s like the Evolution vs Creation debate, there may be scientists on both sides, but one will look at the evidence and see something, and the other will look at it and see something else. Other scholars say the same thing about the definite article…it’s not just what me or the Watchtower says.

No offence, but the scriptures you quoted (about there not being other gods like God) have been taken out of context…especially since they are from the old Testament - BEFORE the Messiah came. That’s all besides the point anyway; there is nothing wrong with saying that someone is godly…the bible refers to people as godly.[/quote]

The lack of a definite article and the JW interpretation was specifically what those Greek Scholars were addressing. I do not know how to make that any plainer for you. If you have scholars that support your position, let’s hear from them.

Are you really that blind to the text of the Bible? - context? - I Samuel 2:2 is Hannah’s prayer unto God - a simple declaration of His Nature - no reference to other “gods” - just praise and worship directed at the Most High.

"1And Hannah prayed, and said, My heart rejoiceth in the LORD, mine horn is exalted in the LORD: my mouth is enlarged over mine enemies; because I rejoice in thy salvation.

2There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.

3Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

4The bows of the mighty men are broken, and they that stumbled are girded with strength.

5They that were full have hired out themselves for bread; and they that were hungry ceased: so that the barren hath born seven; and she that hath many children is waxed feeble.

6The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.

7The LORD maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up.

8He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and he hath set the world upon them.

9He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail.

10The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the LORD shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed."

NO ONE/NONE is inclusive of all beings now and forever - it is an eternal declaration of the uniqueness and ONENESS of God. If just one characteristics of God can change (that there is none like Him) then He and His Word are not immutable and we cannot depend on any declaration of the Scriptures, because any trait of God could change . . .

427

More Context for you: II samuel 7? - That was David’s prayer to God - again, direct praise and worship of God’s nature and character:

18Then went king David in, and sat before the LORD, and he said, Who am I, O Lord GOD? and what is my house, that thou hast brought me hitherto?

19And this was yet a small thing in thy sight, O Lord GOD; but thou hast spoken also of thy servant’s house for a great while to come. And is this the manner of man, O Lord GOD?

20And what can David say more unto thee? for thou, Lord GOD, knowest thy servant.

21For thy word’s sake, and according to thine own heart, hast thou done all these great things, to make thy servant know them.

22Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.

23And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to himself, and to make him a name, and to do for you great things and terrible, for thy land, before thy people, which thou redeemedst to thee from Egypt, from the nations and their gods?

24For thou hast confirmed to thyself thy people Israel to be a people unto thee for ever: and thou, LORD, art become their God.

25And now, O LORD God, the word that thou hast spoken concerning thy servant, and concerning his house, establish it for ever, and do as thou hast said.

26And let thy name be magnified for ever, saying, The LORD of hosts is the God over Israel: and let the house of thy servant David be established before thee.

27For thou, O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, hast revealed to thy servant, saying, I will build thee an house: therefore hath thy servant found in his heart to pray this prayer unto thee.

28And now, O Lord GOD, thou art that God, and thy words be true, and thou hast promised this goodness unto thy servant:

29Therefore now let it please thee to bless the house of thy servant, that it may continue for ever before thee: for thou, O Lord GOD, hast spoken it: and with thy blessing let the house of thy servant be blessed for ever.

Again - it cannot be any plainer . . . .

428

Where is the proof, what do you have to say that disproves the definitive article/grammar?

Don’t you find it funny how translations have missed out “the” before God in John 1:1?

It should be:

“In the beginning was the word, and the word was with THE (ton) Theos (God), and the word was theos (godly).”

Look it up, and ask yourself why that word “ton” (a vital part of the grammar) has been ignored…

http://biblos.com/john/1-1.htm

429

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Where is the proof, what do you have to say that disproves the definitive article/grammar?

Don’t you find it funny how translations have missed out “the” before God in John 1:1?

It should be:

“In the beginning was the word, and the word was with THE (ton) Theos (God), and the word was theos (godly).”

Look it up, and ask yourself why that word “ton” (a vital part of the grammar) has been ignored…

http://biblos.com/john/1-1.htm[/quote]

Do you have a Greek scholar to back this up? Ancient Greek Scholars say you are wrong, whether Christian or Atheist. You guys have never understood (I would say studied, but I think you all read up on it, but just do not understand it) ancient Greek, but continue to say you are right. I wonder who we should go with, Ancient Greek Scholars, or JW?

I would equate your misunderstanding of the Ancient Greek texts to your misunderstanding of the Bible.

430

As regards the old testament scriptures you’re quoting, they’re “bigging up God” and saying no-one is like Him because the surrounding nations worshipped false gods who didn’t do even half of what God Almighty did (who ones like David worshipped).

But like I said, that’s beside the point, the John 1:1 scripture is saying that Jesus is godly…there is no blaspheme here.

The scriptures state that Jesus wanted his disciples to be just like him (one with him)…is that blasphemy?

No.

431

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Where is the proof, what do you have to say that disproves the definitive article/grammar?

Don’t you find it funny how translations have missed out “the” before God in John 1:1?

It should be:

“In the beginning was the word, and the word was with THE (ton) Theos (God), and the word was theos (godly).”

Look it up, and ask yourself why that word “ton” (a vital part of the grammar) has been ignored…

http://biblos.com/john/1-1.htm[/quote]

Do you have a Greek scholar to back this up? Ancient Greek Scholars say you are wrong, whether Christian or Atheist. You guys have never understood (I would say studied, but I think you all read up on it, but just do not understand it) ancient Greek, but continue to say you are right. I wonder who we should go with, Ancient Greek Scholars, or JW?

I would equate your misunderstanding of the Ancient Greek texts to your misunderstanding of the Bible.
[/quote]

This is just running around in circles…why not answer the question?

Well, right now this thread is giving me a headache (I know, it’s my own fault), and I need to lay a carpet and then go to “Church” (LOL), so I’ll be back to answer your other questions at a later time (e.g. about scholars) :slight_smile:

432

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
As regards the old testament scriptures you’re quoting, they’re “bigging up God” and saying no-one is like Him because the surrounding nations worshipped false gods who didn’t do even half of what God Almighty did (who ones like David worshipped).

But like I said, that’s beside the point, the John 1:1 scripture is saying that Jesus is godly…there is no blaspheme here.

The scriptures state that Jesus wanted his disciples to be just like him (one with him)…is that blasphemy?

No.[/quote]

But when Jesus claims to be God, and the people want to stone him for it, they are only confused? You all use arguments only when it fits your doctrine, but when we call you on it, it is us that are confused. You have a head-ache. I am a glutton for punishment because I have been dealing with this for 3 entire threads.

433

A quote from Wiki:

“Some scholars staunchly oppose the translation …a god, while other scholars believe it is possible or even preferable.”

Scholars on “our side” include:

Dr. Jason BeDuhn
In regard to the Kingdom Interlinear’s (from Jehovah’s Witnesses) appendix that gives the reason why the NWT favoured a translation of John 1:1 as saying the Word was not “God” but “a god” said: “In fact the KIT [Appendix 2A, p.1139] explanation is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject…”

Murray J. Harris
He has written: "Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,…”

C. H. Dodd
He says: “If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”

Now do you see that I’m not just speaking my own mind?

Interesting what Beduhn in Truth in Translation says:

"Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament chapter 11 states: “Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, AB, Good News Bible and LB all approached the text at John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word…and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs… Ironically, some of these same scholars are quick to charge the NW translation with “doctrinal bias” for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following the sense of the Greek. It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek.”

That came from Wiki not me…and the search for scholars was just scratching the surface.

PS - I threw the carpet down - this was far more exciting LOL

434

Stated,

“…I was simply asking for you to cite a scripture regarding your claim of Lucifer being the highest of the angels. I am also not a JW, I am merely curious as to where in the Bible this fact is made clear…”

There is no Scripture to support the claim of Lucifer being the highest ranked angel. The only Scripture that alludes to the highest ranked angel is “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil…” (Jude 9).

“Archangel” (Gk. archangelos) is a compound word formed from arche, “beginning, first, chief,” and angelos, “angel, messenger”; thus the compound means “chief angel, archangel.”

There is only two times that an archangel is mentioned in the Bible, I Thessalonians 4:16 and as mentioned above, Jude 9. The N.T. explicitly refers to only one “archangel”-Michael (Jude 9). Gabriel is also mentioned and some suppose he is an archangel (Luke 1:19,26; cf. Daniel 8:16; 9:21), but Michael is the archangel, the one chief angel.

435

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
As regards the old testament scriptures you’re quoting, they’re “bigging up God” and saying no-one is like Him because the surrounding nations worshipped false gods who didn’t do even half of what God Almighty did (who ones like David worshipped).

But like I said, that’s beside the point, the John 1:1 scripture is saying that Jesus is godly…there is no blaspheme here.

The scriptures state that Jesus wanted his disciples to be just like him (one with him)…is that blasphemy?

No.[/quote]

But when Jesus claims to be God, and the people want to stone him for it, they are only confused? You all use arguments only when it fits your doctrine, but when we call you on it, it is us that are confused. You have a head-ache. I am a glutton for punishment because I have been dealing with this for 3 entire threads.[/quote]

You believe that indirectly Jesus called himself God and as I explained earlier, this is how it would have looked word for word:

Jews: You don’t even look 50, how come you’ve seen Abraham?
Jesus: Even before Abraham was born, I am God!

Make sense?

No, because the original Greek simply says:

Jesus: Even before Abraham was born, I existed.

THAT is what angered the Jews (aside from Jesus “claiming” to be so powerful that he could save people from dying)…they thought he was claiming to be some powerful being close to God. But he never said that he was God. That is the key, he never said that.

This is the whole reason why the Jews were angry all the time with Jesus:

John 19:7
“We have a Law, and by our Law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.”

436

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
A quote from Wiki:

“Some scholars staunchly oppose the translation …a god, while other scholars believe it is possible or even preferable.”

Scholars on “our side” include:

Dr. Jason BeDuhn
In regard to the Kingdom Interlinear’s (from Jehovah’s Witnesses) appendix that gives the reason why the NWT favoured a translation of John 1:1 as saying the Word was not “God” but “a god” said: “In fact the KIT [Appendix 2A, p.1139] explanation is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject…”

Murray J. Harris
He has written: "Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,…”

C. H. Dodd
He says: “If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”

Now do you see that I’m not just speaking my own mind?

Interesting what Beduhn in Truth in Translation says:

"Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament chapter 11 states: “Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, AB, Good News Bible and LB all approached the text at John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word…and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs… Ironically, some of these same scholars are quick to charge the NW translation with “doctrinal bias” for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following the sense of the Greek. It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek.”

That came from Wiki not me…and the search for scholars was just scratching the surface.

PS - I threw the carpet down - this was far more exciting LOL[/quote]

Great that is from Wiki. Who are these people? Irish’s scholars state where they are and their background on the Subject.

Are they greek linguists, or just JWs pulled off the street? We need more than just wiki. We all know that can be changed.

437

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
As regards the old testament scriptures you’re quoting, they’re “bigging up God” and saying no-one is like Him because the surrounding nations worshipped false gods who didn’t do even half of what God Almighty did (who ones like David worshipped).

But like I said, that’s beside the point, the John 1:1 scripture is saying that Jesus is godly…there is no blaspheme here.

The scriptures state that Jesus wanted his disciples to be just like him (one with him)…is that blasphemy?

No.[/quote]

But when Jesus claims to be God, and the people want to stone him for it, they are only confused? You all use arguments only when it fits your doctrine, but when we call you on it, it is us that are confused. You have a head-ache. I am a glutton for punishment because I have been dealing with this for 3 entire threads.[/quote]

You believe that indirectly Jesus called himself God and as I explained earlier, this is how it would have looked word for word:

Jews: You don’t even look 50, how come you’ve seen Abraham?
Jesus: Even before Abraham was born, I am God!

Make sense?

No, because the original Greek simply says:

Jesus: Even before Abraham was born, I existed.

THAT is what angered the Jews (aside from Jesus “claiming” to be so powerful that he could save people from dying)…they thought he was claiming to be some powerful being close to God. But he never said that. That is the key, he never said that.

This is the whole reason why the Jews were angry all the time with Jesus:

John 19:7
“We have a Law, and by our Law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.”[/quote]

First, he did not indirectly call himself God. Jesus directly called himself God. Second, until we get the greek translation thing settled I will not agree with your translations of the Bible, so your interpretations are mute until then.

438

[quote]blacksheep wrote:
Stated,

“…I was simply asking for you to cite a scripture regarding your claim of Lucifer being the highest of the angels. I am also not a JW, I am merely curious as to where in the Bible this fact is made clear…”

There is no Scripture to support the claim of Lucifer being the highest ranked angel. The only Scripture that alludes to the highest ranked angel is “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil…” (Jude 9).

“Archangel” (Gk. archangelos) is a compound word formed from arche, “beginning, first, chief,” and angelos, “angel, messenger”; thus the compound means “chief angel, archangel.”

There is only two times that an archangel is mentioned in the Bible, I Thessalonians 4:16 and as mentioned above, Jude 9. The N.T. explicitly refers to only one “archangel”-Michael (Jude 9). Gabriel is also mentioned and some suppose he is an archangel (Luke 1:19,26; cf. Daniel 8:16; 9:21), but Michael is the archangel, the one chief angel. [/quote]

I just looked up Jude. What a revelation? Easy to skip over since it is only one chapter.

Verse 14 The Lord came with thousands of his holy ones. The Jews did not have a concept of Jesus or the Arch-Angel at this point in time, so the Lord is referring to God. God has his holy ones also. God has his angels, Jesus has his angels, and the Arch-Angel Michael has his angels. I guess by using JW logic the Arch-Angel Michael is God.

Verse 17 remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. Christians have strict ties directly to the apostles as Irish has shown us from the founding father statements. What do the JWs have? Here is my answer, Nothing.

Verse 7 just as (Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. Sounds like eternal fire is in the Bible. What is eternal fire - fire that lasts forever. Looks like humans that are against God are going to undergo the punishment of eternal fire.

One little book but so much information that refutes what we are being thought.

[Edit] Verse 14 refers to Enoch which was the 7th generation from Adam. This is the time frame I am referring to.

439

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Where is the proof, what do you have to say that disproves the definitive article/grammar?

Don’t you find it funny how translations have missed out “the” before God in John 1:1?

It should be:

“In the beginning was the word, and the word was with THE (ton) Theos (God), and the word was theos (godly).”

Look it up, and ask yourself why that word “ton” (a vital part of the grammar) has been ignored…

http://biblos.com/john/1-1.htm[/quote]

Fine, I’ll deal with your question, and at the same time demonstrate that your problems with John 1:1 involve more that just an indefinite article.

Actual Greek Text:

en arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos

literal transalation:

in Beginning was the Word, and the Word was face to face (with) (the) God, and God was the Word

The words themselves:

First Clause:

ARCHE: absolute beginning, the beginning before all beginnings

EN: “was” is the indicative imperfect active form of the verb EIMI, signifying continuous or linear existence in past time. The contextual contrast is between Ã?N and EGENETO (“to become”), the continuous preexistence of the LOGOS (v. 1) and the LOGOS becoming flesh at a specific point in time (v. 14). “In the beginning, the LOGOS already was.”

HO LOGOS: The Word - no question among us that this is Jesus, so I will spend no time here.

SO the clause “In the Beginning Was the Word” actually translates into

“In Eternity before the beginning of creation the Jesus was continually existing”

Second Clause:

KAI: and

HO LOGOS: The Word - no question among us that this is Jesus, so I will spend no time here.

EN: “was” is the indicative imperfect active form of the verb EIMI, signifying continuous or linear existence in past time.

PROS: this is an idomatic shorthand for PROSOPON PROS PROSOPON (face to face)and was used to show intimacy in personal relationships. This speaks of the Son’ intimate relationship with the Father prior to creation, prior to everything.

TON THEON: The God - this is in the assusative case, which makes this the direct object of the second clause, while HO LOGOS is in the nominative case and is thus the subject. The article TON is the accusative form of HO and indicates a personal distinction. This form is most often translated as God the Father.

So the clause "And the Word was With God, actually translates into:

“and Jesus was continually face to face with God the Father”

Third Clause

THEOS: God, here God is in the qualitative form, and indiciates the whole essence and substance of God

EN: “was” is the indicative imperfect active form of the verb EIMI, signifying continuous or linear existence in past time.

HO LOGOS: HO LOGOS: The Word - no question among us that this is Jesus, so I will spend no time here.

Warning techical jargon ahead:

The first thing you have to do is to determine the subject for this clause. As we saw above, most of the time the noun in the nominative case is the subject and the noun in the accusative case is the direct object. However, in Greek, “copulative” verbs (generally a form of “to be” or “to become”) take the nominative case, not the accusative. Technically, a copulative verb does not ascribe an action, but predicates something about the subject Therefore, the objext of a copulative verb is called the Predicate Nominative, not the direct object. EN is a form of “to be”, therefore THEOS and LOGOS are in the nominative state - one is the subject and one is the predicate nominative. In such cases, if one noun has the article and the other does not, the one with with the article is the subject. So LOGOS is the subject and THEOS is the predicate nominative and the clause corectly reads “the Word was God”.

Now the heart of the debate is over what to do with THEOS without the definite article (technically described as Anarthrous). JW’s would have you believe that there are only two options, definite or indefinite, but this just highlights bad Greek grammar.

There are actually three options: Definite, Indefinite and Qualitative.

What is Qualitative? Consider the sentence: “Homo Erectus was Man.” Here “Man” is neither definite (“the Man”) nor indefinite (“a man”), but rather qualitative. If I made this statement to an evolutionist, I would be asserting that our ancient ancestor possessed all the qualities or attributes of humanity. I am saying he is truly human.

So the clause “and the Word was God” actually translates:

“and Jesus was continually fully God.”

In whole the verse reads:

“In Eternity before the beginning of creation Jesus was continually existing, and Jesus was continually face to face with God the Father, and Jesus was continually fully God.”

As I said, your problems with this verse go far beyond just the lack of an indefinite article.

440

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
A quote from Wiki:

“Some scholars staunchly oppose the translation …a god, while other scholars believe it is possible or even preferable.”

Scholars on “our side” include:

Dr. Jason BeDuhn
In regard to the Kingdom Interlinear’s (from Jehovah’s Witnesses) appendix that gives the reason why the NWT favoured a translation of John 1:1 as saying the Word was not “God” but “a god” said: “In fact the KIT [Appendix 2A, p.1139] explanation is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject…”

Murray J. Harris
He has written: "Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,…”

C. H. Dodd
He says: “If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”

Now do you see that I’m not just speaking my own mind?

Interesting what Beduhn in Truth in Translation says:

"Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament chapter 11 states: “Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, AB, Good News Bible and LB all approached the text at John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word…and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs… Ironically, some of these same scholars are quick to charge the NW translation with “doctrinal bias” for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following the sense of the Greek. It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek.”

That came from Wiki not me…and the search for scholars was just scratching the surface.

PS - I threw the carpet down - this was far more exciting LOL[/quote]

Great that is from Wiki. Who are these people? Irish’s scholars state where they are and their background on the Subject.

Are they greek linguists, or just JWs pulled off the street? We need more than just wiki. We all know that can be changed.[/quote]

You really want me to do everything for you and give you background info on these guys? Do a bit of research, they are not “bums” from the street or Jehovah’s Witnesses. Besides, even if one were a JW, that means that every scholar you’ve quoted would have to have no previous belief of the trinity before they studied.

Dr. Jason BeDuhn is an historian of religion and culture, currently Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University. He wrote the book “Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament”.

Murray J. Harris is Professor emeritus of New Testament exegesis and theology

C. H. Dodd was a Welsh New Testament scholar and influential Protestant theologian.