Kingdom Interlinear - Barryrob

[Krusader]

I've decided, Barryrob, that we should begin a new thread in order to study the Kingdom Interlinear, as we agreed.

We are beginning at the Gospel of John, Chapter 1.

Note that John 1:1 is translated in English with the phrase "and the Word was a god." Note the Greek portion of the same text. The Greek is kai theos.

The Watchtower states that because theos is not preceeded by the definite article (ho) the phrase must be rendered "a god" and not as "God."

However, please note that in vss. 6, 12 and 13, the Greek word for God is also not preceeded by the definite article, yet the Watchtower translates the phrase with God in each case.

Now, turn to John 20, vs. 17. Please note that the Greek construction in this verse is exactly the same as found in the first vs. of John. In order to be consistent with their grammatical rule, the Watchtower should have this verse rendered: "I am ascending to my Father and Your Father and to my God and a god of you."

Why doesn't the Watchtower apply their definite article rule to vs. 17 of John and translate kai theos as "a god?"

Is it reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the Society only applies this incorrect rule when it serves their purpose, i.e., to make Jesus a second minor deity?

Would you say, therefore, that the Christian translations that translate John 1:1 as "the Word was God," can do so freely, since in vs. 17 of John 20,the Watchtower does so using the same Greek construct?

[barryrob]

I've decided, Barryrob, that we should begin a new thread in order to study the Kingdom Interlinear, as we agreed.

We are beginning at the Gospel of John, Chapter 1.

Note that John 1:1 is translated in English with the phrase "and the Word was a god." Note the Greek portion of the same text. The Greek is kai theos.

The Watchtower states that because theos is not preceeded by the definite article (ho) the phrase must be rendered "a god" and not as "God."

However, please note that in vss. 6, 12 and 13, the Greek word for God is also not preceeded by the definite article, yet the Watchtower translates the phrase with God in each case.

Now, turn to John 20, vs. 17. Please note that the Greek construction in this verse is exactly the same as found in the first vs. of John. In order to be consistent with their grammatical rule, the Watchtower should have this verse rendered: "I am ascending to my Father and Your Father and to my God and a god of you."

Why doesn't the Watchtower apply their definite article rule to vs. 17 of John and translate kai theos as "a god?"

Is it reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the Society only applies this incorrect rule when it serves their purpose, i.e., to make Jesus a second minor deity?

Would you say, therefore, that the Christian translations that translate John 1:1 as "the Word was God," can do so freely, since in vs. 17 of John 20,the Watchtower does so using the same Greek construct?

Vss. 6, 12 and 13 are talking about (a) The Father who sent John and (b) produced Children thus God. Jo 1:1 is showing the relative relationship between the being called "ton theos" and "theos" that they have the same nature, divine persons but the article "ton" highlights the idea that the latter is not exactly the same as the former but share the same nature, to whit a spiritual being of which vs. 2 also calls "ton theon" (The God) of who "kai theos" was "pros," ("with") showing two beings one articulated and one not articulated. Vs 18 show that "kai theon" of 1:1 was in "the bosom" which is the custom of reclining at meals, the one in front of the bosom of another was in a position of intimacy with him, generally the favoured position. (Joh 13:23) Jesus employed this well-known custom in illustrating Lazarus as being in "the bosom position of Abraham," signifying favour with God. (Lu 16:22, 23) The apostle John described Jesus as being "in the bosom position with the Father," as the intimate of Jehovah, the one person who could explain God to a fuller and more thorough extent than any other.—Joh 1:18



Showing two persons but so very and intimately related to each some much so the latter is called "god" as 'The Translator's New Testament' published by The British & Foreign Bible Society, London. 1973 p.145, renders the Greek from John 1:1


"o logoV hn proV ton qeon, kai qeoV hn o logoV

"The Word was with God and shared his nature"

The "Transitional note" page 451 reads as follows:-


"Literally the Greek may be translated, 'The word was with God and God was the Word'. There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God'. In the first instance the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is no article and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means 'The Word was divine'. The translation of the whole sentence then is 'what God was, the Word was' (NEB). TT is an attempt to make this a little more explicit."


So "The Word" has exactly the same "nature" as Jehovah, as Jesus said "seen me you have seen the Father" or we could say his spiting image but not the same person.


Jo 20:17 as there is only one subject of the verse, God, then it must have a "G" as it is “The Father” who is being spoken of not a father. So according to context a “G” is required.


Note: Of “Cowell’s Rule” Jason David BeDhun in his book ‘Tuth In Translation’ he says “that rule is wrong” see pages 117-118.


Just a though or two.

Barryrob

[Krusader]

Vss. 6, 12 and 13 are talking about (a) The Father who sent John and (b) produced Children thus God. Jo 1:1 is showing the relative relationship between the being called "ton theos" and "theos" that they have the same nature, divine persons but the article "ton" highlights the idea that the latter is not exactly the same as the former but share the same nature, to whit a spiritual being of which vs. 2 also calls "ton theon" (The God) of who "kai theos" was "pros," ("with") showing two beings one articulated and one not articulated. Vs 18 show that "kai theon" of 1:1 was in "the bosom" which is the custom of reclining at meals, the one in front of the bosom of another was in a position of intimacy with him, generally the favoured position. (Joh 13:23) Jesus employed this well-known custom in illustrating Lazarus as being in "the bosom position of Abraham," signifying favour with God. (Lu 16:22, 23) The apostle John described Jesus as being "in the bosom position with the Father," as the intimate of Jehovah, the one person who could explain God to a fuller and more thorough extent than any other.—Joh 1:18



Showing two persons but so very and intimately related to each some much so the latter is called "god" as 'The Translator's New Testament' published by The British & Foreign Bible Society, London. 1973 p.145, renders the Greek from John 1:1


"o logoV hn proV ton qeon, kai qeoV hn o logoV

"The Word was with God and shared his nature"

The "Transitional note" page 451 reads as follows:-


"Literally the Greek may be translated, 'The word was with God and God was the Word'. There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God'. In the first instance the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is no article and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means 'The Word was divine'. The translation of the whole sentence then is 'what God was, the Word was' (NEB). TT is an attempt to make this a little more explicit."


So "The Word" has exactly the same "nature" as Jehovah, as Jesus said "seen me you have seen the Father" or we could say his spiting image but not the same person.


Jo 20:17 as there is only one subject of the verse, God, then it must have a "G" as it is “The Father” who is being spoken of not a father. So according to context a “G” is required.


Note: Of “Cowell’s Rule” Jason David BeDhun in his book ‘Tuth In Translation’ he says “that rule is wrong” see pages 117-118.


Just a though or two.

Barryrob

Here again you are using stuff right out of the Watchtower. Either you are going to stick to the Interlinear and the English translation - and you can see that the Greek grammar is identical in all phrases cited - or we can just forget it. No more Society apologetics - stick to the text. Read the English corresponding to the Greek in the Interlinear.

By the way, Beduhn's work is highly suspect, to me, as it is promoted by your organization. Could you list any other Greek scholars that agree with him, or support his version? I don't believe so. Interestingly, Beduhn favors the translation of John 1:1 to be: and the word was divine.

See: http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm

The above site gives you a brief rundown on various scholars who have been used in defense of the NWT translation - and whether they really support it.

So, now, let's stick to the text.

[barryrob]

Here again you are using stuff right out of the Watchtower. Either you are going to stick to the Interlinear and the English translation - and you can see that the Greek grammar is identical in all phrases cited - or we can just forget it. No more Society apologetics - stick to the text. Read the English corresponding to the Greek in the Interlinear.

By the way, Beduhn's work is highly suspect, to me, as it is promoted by your organization. Could you list any other Greek scholars that agree with him, or support his version? I don't believe so. Interestingly, Beduhn favors the translation of John 1:1 to be: and the word was divine.

See: http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm (http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm)

The above site gives you a brief rundown on various scholars who have been used in defense of the NWT translation - and whether they really support it.

So, now, let's stick to the text.


As you ask "Could you list any other Greek scholars that agree with him, or support his version?", here we go as you requested:-

VARIOUS OTHER RENDERINGS OF JOHN 1:1 TAKEN OF THE W.W.W. http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wisdom.htm

Edward Harwood, H KAINH DIAQHKH. The New Testament, collated with the most approved manuscripts; with select notes in English, critical and explanatory, and references to those authors who have best illustrated the sacred writings. To which are added, a Catalogue of the principal Editions of the Greek Testament; and a List of the most esteemed Commentators and critics. London, 1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols. 1768, "and was himself a divine person"

Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"

Crellius,as quoted in The New Testament in an Improved Version "the Word was God's"

La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel,1928: "and the Word was a divine being."

John Samuel Thompson, The Montessoran; or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore; published by the translator, 1829, "the Logos was a god

Goodspeed's An American Translation, 1939, "the Word was divine

Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, "the word was a god."

Prof. Felix Just, S.J. - Loyola Marymount University, "and god[-ly/-like] was the Word."

C.C. Torrey, The Four Gospels, Second Edition, 1947, "the Word was god

New English Bible, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"

Moffatt's The Bible, 1972, "the Logos was divine"

International English Bible-Extreme New Testament, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word]

Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek, 1694, "and the Word was a god"

Simple English Bible, "and the Message was Deity"

Hermann Heinfetter, A Literal Translation of the New Testament,1863, [A]s a god the Command was"

Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, "The Word was a God"

Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885, "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"

Belsham N.T. 1809 "the Word was a god"

Leicester Ambrose, The Final Theology, Volume 1, New York, New York; M.B. Sawyer and Company, 1879, "And the logos was a god"

Charles A.L. Totten, The Gospel of History, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]

J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901, [A]nd was a god"

International Bible Translators N.T. 1981 "In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God. The Message was deity."

Samuel Clarke, M.A., D.D., rector of St. James, Westminster, A Paraphrase on the Gospel of John, London "[A] Divine Person."

Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. (in A Familiar Illustration of Certain Passages of Scripture Relating to The Power of Man to do the Will of God, Original Sin, Election and Reprobation, The Divinity of Christ; And, Atonement for Sin by the Death of Christ [Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37). "a God"

Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156). "a God"

Andrews Norton, D.D. (in A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). "a god"

Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church History at the University of Basil (in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16). "a God" "At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mighty spirit, the Marshal, who produced all things in their order."

21st Century NT Free "and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." 21st Century Literal

George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"

Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University Press, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"

James L. Tomanec, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"

Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"

Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"

Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature ...with footnote, "There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God.' In the forst instance, the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is not article, and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrae means 'The Word was divine'."

William Barclay's The New Testament, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"

Johannes Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos

Schonfield's The Original New Testament, 1985, "the Word was divine

Revised English Bible, 1989, "what God was, the Word was

Scholar's Version-The Five Gospels, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was

J. Madsen, New Testament A Rendering , 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"

Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1979, "a God/god was the Logos/logos"

Curt Stage, The New Testament, 1907, "The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being."

Bohmer, 1910, "It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being"

Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1919, "God of Kind/kind was the Word/word"

Baumgarten et al, 1920, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos"

Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]

Friedriche Rittelmeyer, 1938, "itself a God/god was the Word/word"

Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "the Word was of divine kind"

Fredrich Pfaefflin, The New Testament, 1949, "was of divine Kind/kind"

Albrecht, 1957, "godlike Being/being had the Word/word"

Smit, 1960, "the word of the world was a divine being"

Menge, 1961, "God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word"

Haenchen, 1980, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos" [as mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]

Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "He was with God and in all like God"

Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"

Johannes Schulz, 1987, "a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word." [As mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]

William Temple, Archbishop of York, Readings in St. John's Gospel, London, Macmillan & Co.,1933, "And the Word was divine."

John Crellius, Latin form of German, The 2 Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One God the Father, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"

Greek Orthodox /Arabic Calendar, incorporating portions of the 4 Gospels, Greek Orthodox Patriarchy or Beirut, May, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"

Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was Divine"

Robert Harvey, D.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, in The Historic Jesus in the New Testament, London, Student Movement Christian Press1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"

Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'

Dymond, E.C. New Testament, 1962 (original manuscript) "In the beginning was the creative purpose of God. It was with God and was fully expressive of God [just as wisdom was with God before creation]."

Buzzard/Hunting "In the beginning of God’s creative effort, even before he created the heavenly bodies and the earth, the mental power to reason logically already existed, and the Wisdom produced by it was known only to God, for the Wisdom was God’s Wisdom" (Pro. 8:22-30)

Barclay, W. The Daily Study Bible- The Gospel of John vol.1 "III. [Revised Edition ISBN 0-664-21304-9: Finally John says that "The Word was God". There is no doubt that this is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which english speaks. When the greek uses a noun it almost always uses the definite article with it. The greek for God is ‘theos’, and the definite article is ‘ho’. When greek speaks about God it does not simply say ‘theos’; it says ‘ho theos’. Now, when greek does not use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like an adjective; it describes the character, the quality of the person. John did not say that the Word was ‘ho theos’; that would have been to say that the Word was identical with God; he says that the Word was ‘theos’- without the definite article- which means that the Word was, as we might say, of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God. When John said ‘The Word was God’ he was not saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like"



Barryrob

[Sparko]

Just a reminder. If you use quotes from other sources, please make it clear that you are doing so, and do not quote entire articles. If the source is copyrighted, you may only use around 50 to 100 word snippets, not entire pages or articles. I just wanted to make this reminder because this type of thread usually relies heavily on quoting others.

[Krusader]

As you ask "Could you list any other Greek scholars that agree with him, or support his version?", here we go as you requested:-

VARIOUS OTHER RENDERINGS OF JOHN 1:1 TAKEN OF THE W.W.W. http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wisdom.htm

Edward Harwood, H KAINH DIAQHKH. The New Testament, collated with the most approved manuscripts; with select notes in English, critical and explanatory, and references to those authors who have best illustrated the sacred writings. To which are added, a Catalogue of the principal Editions of the Greek Testament; and a List of the most esteemed Commentators and critics. London, 1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols. 1768, "and was himself a divine person"

Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"

Crellius,as quoted in The New Testament in an Improved Version "the Word was God's"

La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel,1928: "and the Word was a divine being."

John Samuel Thompson, The Montessoran; or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore; published by the translator, 1829, "the Logos was a god

Goodspeed's An American Translation, 1939, "the Word was divine

Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, "the word was a god."

Prof. Felix Just, S.J. - Loyola Marymount University, "and god[-ly/-like] was the Word."

C.C. Torrey, The Four Gospels, Second Edition, 1947, "the Word was god

New English Bible, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"

Moffatt's The Bible, 1972, "the Logos was divine"

International English Bible-Extreme New Testament, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word]

Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek, 1694, "and the Word was a god"

Simple English Bible, "and the Message was Deity"

Hermann Heinfetter, A Literal Translation of the New Testament,1863, [A]s a god the Command was"

Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, "The Word was a God"

Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885, "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"

Belsham N.T. 1809 "the Word was a god"

Leicester Ambrose, The Final Theology, Volume 1, New York, New York; M.B. Sawyer and Company, 1879, "And the logos was a god"

Charles A.L. Totten, The Gospel of History, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]

J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901, [A]nd was a god"

International Bible Translators N.T. 1981 "In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God. The Message was deity."

Samuel Clarke, M.A., D.D., rector of St. James, Westminster, A Paraphrase on the Gospel of John, London "[A] Divine Person."

Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. (in A Familiar Illustration of Certain Passages of Scripture Relating to The Power of Man to do the Will of God, Original Sin, Election and Reprobation, The Divinity of Christ; And, Atonement for Sin by the Death of Christ [Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37). "a God"

Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156). "a God"

Andrews Norton, D.D. (in A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). "a god"

Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church History at the University of Basil (in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16). "a God" "At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mighty spirit, the Marshal, who produced all things in their order."

21st Century NT Free "and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." 21st Century Literal

George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"

Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University Press, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"

James L. Tomanec, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"

Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"

Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"

Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature ...with footnote, "There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God.' In the forst instance, the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is not article, and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrae means 'The Word was divine'."

William Barclay's The New Testament, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"

Johannes Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos

Schonfield's The Original New Testament, 1985, "the Word was divine

Revised English Bible, 1989, "what God was, the Word was

Scholar's Version-The Five Gospels, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was

J. Madsen, New Testament A Rendering , 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"

Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1979, "a God/god was the Logos/logos"

Curt Stage, The New Testament, 1907, "The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being."

Bohmer, 1910, "It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being"

Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1919, "God of Kind/kind was the Word/word"

Baumgarten et al, 1920, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos"

Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]

Friedriche Rittelmeyer, 1938, "itself a God/god was the Word/word"

Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "the Word was of divine kind"

Fredrich Pfaefflin, The New Testament, 1949, "was of divine Kind/kind"

Albrecht, 1957, "godlike Being/being had the Word/word"

Smit, 1960, "the word of the world was a divine being"

Menge, 1961, "God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word"

Haenchen, 1980, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos" [as mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]

Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "He was with God and in all like God"

Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"

Johannes Schulz, 1987, "a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word." [As mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]

William Temple, Archbishop of York, Readings in St. John's Gospel, London, Macmillan & Co.,1933, "And the Word was divine."

John Crellius, Latin form of German, The 2 Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One God the Father, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"

Greek Orthodox /Arabic Calendar, incorporating portions of the 4 Gospels, Greek Orthodox Patriarchy or Beirut, May, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"

Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was Divine"

Robert Harvey, D.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, in The Historic Jesus in the New Testament, London, Student Movement Christian Press1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"

Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'

Dymond, E.C. New Testament, 1962 (original manuscript) "In the beginning was the creative purpose of God. It was with God and was fully expressive of God [just as wisdom was with God before creation]."

Buzzard/Hunting "In the beginning of God’s creative effort, even before he created the heavenly bodies and the earth, the mental power to reason logically already existed, and the Wisdom produced by it was known only to God, for the Wisdom was God’s Wisdom" (Pro. 8:22-30)

Barclay, W. The Daily Study Bible- The Gospel of John vol.1 "III. [Revised Edition ISBN 0-664-21304-9: Finally John says that "The Word was God". There is no doubt that this is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which english speaks. When the greek uses a noun it almost always uses the definite article with it. The greek for God is ‘theos’, and the definite article is ‘ho’. When greek speaks about God it does not simply say ‘theos’; it says ‘ho theos’. Now, when greek does not use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like an adjective; it describes the character, the quality of the person. John did not say that the Word was ‘ho theos’; that would have been to say that the Word was identical with God; he says that the Word was ‘theos’- without the definite article- which means that the Word was, as we might say, of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God. When John said ‘The Word was God’ he was not saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like"



Barryrob

Barryrob, please go into a closet with no other books othen than your Kingdom Interlinear bible. You can take a flash light with you. Let me know when we can proceed without Watchtower "helps."


Also, please don't in entirety the post you are responding to, especially humongously long ones and if you are just going to make a one line comment and not respond to any points of the previous post. Thanks.

[barryrob]

Not from the Watchtower see top of post & Points covered!
Barryrob

[barryrob]

Did you tell Crusader about his helps:-
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm (http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm)
or are you comments just onesided as is the norm?

Sheesh! Look you can't just post links by themselves either!

1. No arguments via weblinks by themselves.
2. No posting huge articles that are copyrighted - use snippets of around 100 words.
3. Don't post anything written by someone else without citing the reference.
4. Don't argue with JUST clips from other places, at least put in a little of your own arguments.

Since this thread is pretty much about what Greek scholars and translators think, #4 can be relaxed a bit here.

I am not getting into this thread other than as a moderator to keep it on track.

Next time I will be handing out warning points barryrob, you have been warned on this issue so many times I can't even count them.

I could have edited your post here and above but it would derail the thread, so I am leaving it. I don't want to take away your side of the discussion.


...and just to be fair, Crusader has done this a few times also in some other threads, so that is why I put a general warning on the issue above.

[Tsmith]

Cursader,

Would it be correct to conclude that you have not spent much time in the study of Greek?

The construction at John 1:1 and that found at 20:17 are entirely different. John 20:17 does not contain a predicate nominative, where as John 1:1 does. For comparable constructions, please consider John 6:70 and Acts 28:4.

Daniel Wallace states (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics): "The significance of the S[ubject]-P[redicate]N[ominative] construction affects more than mere translation precisely because S and PN do not normally involve total interchangeability. The usual relationship between the two is that the predicate nominative describes the class to which the subject 'belongs.'"

Following this line of thought, we would be able to say that Steve is a teacher. However, the reverse would not necessarily be true, in that we probably could not say a teacher is Steve, as "teacher" is the class to which Steve belongs, meaning that more than one person could be called a teacher. If we were correct in our statement, it would be by mere chance. Thus, we could not interchange the Word is God and God is the Word, because by the use of the anarthrous predicate nominative we find that more than one person is belonging to the class of QEOS.

[Krusader]

TSmith:

Would it be correct for me to assume that you haven't spent much time reading Walter Martin's "Kingdom of the Cults," which is the authority for my statements? (Martin was a linguist, by the way.)

[Tsmith]

TSmith:

Would it be correct for me to assume that you haven't spent much time reading Walter Martin's "Kingdom of the Cults," which is the authority for my statements? (Martin was a linguist, by the way.)


I own his book and I have to say that he does a very poor job on the treatment of this subject. Mine is from the Thirty-sixth printint (Revised and Expanded Edition)- Apirl, 1985.

For example on page 85 he writes.

"In fact, the late New Testament Greek scholar, Cowell, formulated a rule which clearly states that a definite prdicate nominative (in this case, theos-God) never takes an article when it precedes the verb (was) as we find in John 1:1."

First of all, this is simply false. Colwell does not say that it NEVER takes the article. Cowell actually states "Definite predicate nominatives which precede the verb USUALLY lack the article..." (Cowell, A Definite Rule, pp. 20) [caps added for emphasis]

This is quite the misrepresentation by Martin. Let us keep moving forward with Martin.

He continues.

"It is therefore easy to see that no article is needed for Theos (God) and to translate it "a god" is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek since Theos is the predicate nominative of was in the third sentence-clause of the verse and must refer back to the subject, Word (Logos)"

Now where does Martin draw this conclusion from? Thin air. Colwell's rule simply states that definite predicate nominatives usually lack the article, he does not say that predicate nominatives lacking the article are definite. In fact, John 6:70 and Acts 28:4 are both perfect examples of indefinite predicate nominatives. In fact, if Martin's claim were true, there would be no way to have an indefinite predicate nominative. Martin is actually arguing for the converse of the rule.

Hence we find that Daniel B. Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary writes, in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 258: "Walter Martin goes so far as to say: 'Colwell's rule clearly states that a definite predicate nomninative... never takes ana rticle when it precedes the verb... as in John 2:2.' Although Martin states the rule rather than the converse (though too dogmatically, for Colwell did not say 'never'), he assumes the converse of the rule in the very next breath!"

And of course "the very next breath" is the part we are here discussing.

On page 86, Martin states: "You cannot henestly render theos as 'a god' in John 1:1 and then theou 'of God' (Jehovah), Matthew 5:8, Luke 1:35, 78, John 1:6, etc., when theou is the genitive case of the same noun (second declension), without an article and must be rendered (following Jehovah's Witnesses' argument) "of a god" not "Of God" as both The Emphatic Diaglott and the New World Translation of the Holy scriptures put it."

The problem here is that Martin does not understand the argument. It is not simply that it is indefinite, but it is that it is an anarthrous predicate nominative where the nominative noun is a count noun. Martin does not even address this fact. As a predicate nominative, it is a NOMINATIVE noun, not a genitive. So his comparison is 100% invalid.

As can be seen, Martin raises a strawman argument. He argues that the position is simply that the noun is indefinite and so it must be rendered indefinitely. Yet that is not the position at all. It is much more complex than that.

[Jaltus]

The problem with the above argument is that it ignores all of the times in the NT when such a construct occurs. There are approximately 35 occurrences of articular noun, a form of eimi, and an anarthrous noun. Of these, the overwhelming majority show that the anarthrous noun is indeed definite.

Secondly, the verb eimi does indeed take a predicate nominative, but every single time that PN is a restatement of a previous word in the context, the article is not used as the named noun is already considered definite.

Remember that context defines whether something is definite or not, and John 1:1 shows that qeoV is definite, as the first two thirds of the verse show.

After all, names/titles do not need articles to show definiteness, they only need articles to show case if they are indeclinable.

[Tsmith]

The problem with the above argument is that it ignores all of the times in the NT when such a construct occurs. There are approximately 35 occurrences of articular noun, a form of eimi, and an anarthrous noun. Of these, the overwhelming majority show that the anarthrous noun is indeed definite.

Secondly, the verb eimi does indeed take a predicate nominative, but every single time that PN is a restatement of a previous word in the context, the article is not used as the named noun is already considered definite.

Remember that context defines whether something is definite or not, and John 1:1 shows that qeoV is definite, as the first two thirds of the verse show.

After all, names/titles do not need articles to show definiteness, they only need articles to show case if they are indeclinable.


Jaltus,

There is little basis for concluding QEOS to be definite. With such, the result is modalism, not Trinitarianism.

Were QEOS definite, the author simply could have used the definite article, with little consequence, but he expressly did not. John 1:1c does not use QEOS as a name or a title, but as a predicate nominative it is a class noun. As a count noun, it must be definite or indefinite. If it is definite, we have modalism. If it is indefinite, we translate it as "a god". Thus, Trinitarians argue for the nearly impossible to prove "purely qualitative". construct.

The use of QEOS is the C position has a completely different function than that of the B. B has the semantic force of a proper name, while C is a class noun, but with a different referent.

Having considered these points, your arguments simply carry little weight.

[Krusader]

I own his book and I have to say that he does a very poor job on the treatment of this subject. Mine is from the Thirty-sixth printint (Revised and Expanded Edition)- Apirl, 1985.

For example on page 85 he writes.

"In fact, the late New Testament Greek scholar, Cowell, formulated a rule which clearly states that a definite prdicate nominative (in this case, theos-God) never takes an article when it precedes the verb (was) as we find in John 1:1."

First of all, this is simply false. Colwell does not say that it NEVER takes the article. Cowell actually states "Definite predicate nominatives which precede the verb USUALLY lack the article..." (Cowell, A Definite Rule, pp. 20) [caps added for emphasis]

This is quite the misrepresentation by Martin. Let us keep moving forward with Martin.

He continues.

"It is therefore easy to see that no article is needed for Theos (God) and to translate it "a god" is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek since Theos is the predicate nominative of was in the third sentence-clause of the verse and must refer back to the subject, Word (Logos)"

Now where does Martin draw this conclusion from? Thin air. Colwell's rule simply states that definite predicate nominatives usually lack the article, he does not say that predicate nominatives lacking the article are definite. In fact, John 6:70 and Acts 28:4 are both perfect examples of indefinite predicate nominatives. In fact, if Martin's claim were true, there would be no way to have an indefinite predicate nominative. Martin is actually arguing for the converse of the rule.

Hence we find that Daniel B. Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary writes, in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 258: "Walter Martin goes so far as to say: 'Colwell's rule clearly states that a definite predicate nomninative... never takes ana rticle when it precedes the verb... as in John 2:2.' Although Martin states the rule rather than the converse (though too dogmatically, for Colwell did not say 'never'), he assumes the converse of the rule in the very next breath!"

And of course "the very next breath" is the part we are here discussing.

On page 86, Martin states: "You cannot henestly render theos as 'a god' in John 1:1 and then theou 'of God' (Jehovah), Matthew 5:8, Luke 1:35, 78, John 1:6, etc., when theou is the genitive case of the same noun (second declension), without an article and must be rendered (following Jehovah's Witnesses' argument) "of a god" not "Of God" as both The Emphatic Diaglott and the New World Translation of the Holy scriptures put it."

The problem here is that Martin does not understand the argument. It is not simply that it is indefinite, but it is that it is an anarthrous predicate nominative where the nominative noun is a count noun. Martin does not even address this fact. As a predicate nominative, it is a NOMINATIVE noun, not a genitive. So his comparison is 100% invalid.

As can be seen, Martin raises a strawman argument. He argues that the position is simply that the noun is indefinite and so it must be rendered indefinitely. Yet that is not the position at all. It is much more complex than that.

Check out what Dr. Mantey states about the NWT of John 1:1. Will you argue with this well-known Greek scholar as well?

Crusader, please trim out the uneeded parts of the post you are replying to. To quote an entire lengthy post and respond with a one liner is not cool. Thanks.

[ansbible]

[Jn 1:1]:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

A) AND GOD - THE NATURE, ALL THE QUALITIES AND ESSENCE OF GOD WAS THE WORD IN THE BEGINNING OF ALL TIME AND CREATION

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, (cont.)" =

"Kai Theos en ...o ...Logos"

"And God ..was the Word"

Notice the position of "Theos" = "God" at the beginning of the phrase - an emphatic one - which serves by this position to describe the Word as having the essence of God.

Since there is no article in front of "Theos" = "God", the noun is said to be anarthrous. The verb "was" = "en" is copulative, i.e. joins the two subjects = "Theos" and = "Logos" in meaning where the former describes the latter.

The subject of the sentence is "Word" ("Logos"), the verb is "was". There can be no direct object following "was" since according to grammatical usage intransitive verbs take no objects but take instead predicate nominatives which refer back in meaning to the subject of the clause.

"Theos" is the predicate nominative of "was" in the third clause of the verse. It refers back to the subject, "Word" (Logos). The definite predicate nominative never takes an article when it precedes the verb ("was") as we find in John 1:1. Hence no article is needed for "Theos" ("God"). So to translate it 'a god' is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek. The Word, then, can be no one else except God.

Therefore, in view of the emphatic position and lack of a definite article in Jn 1:1c, we conclude that the qualities of God, i.e., His divine essence, are indicated as qualities which are inherent in "Logos" = "the Word". So "Theos" in this verse being without the definite article means that the Word has the nature, qualities and essences of the One and only Jehovah God, i.e., God is the Word.

I cont.) [Jn 1:1 cont.]:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

B) THE 'WORD' CANNOT BE A GOD IT MUST REFER TO THE GOD

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (cont.) =

1) "THEOS" = GOD IN THE 3RD CLAUSE PRECEDES AND IS THE PREDICATE NOMINATIVE OF THE INTRANSITIVE VERB "WAS" IDENTIFYING "LOGOS". THERE IS NO DEFINITE ARTICLE REQUIRED. IT DOES NOT REFER TO 'A' GOD

"Theos" is the predicate nominative of "was" in the third clause of the verse. The absence of a definite article before "Theos" does not demand an indefinite one.

Secondly, Greek does not possess an indefinite article ('a/an'), but it does have an indefinite pronoun ('a certain one', Greek 'tis') the very word that a Greek reader would expect here if the point was that Christ was somehow a god, but not really 'God.'

The definite predicate nominative never takes an article when it precedes the verb ("was") as we find in John 1:1. Hence no article is needed for "Theos" ("God"). It refers back to and identifies with the subject, "Word" (Logos), emphasizing that the qualities and essence of God have always been the personal qualities and essence of the Word. So to translate it 'a god' as some individuals do is both incorrect grammar, poor Greek and totally out of context. The Word, then, can be no one else except God.

Earlier in the verse, the apostle John used the definite article with the Greek word Theos to refer to the Father according to customary usage ('the [sc. Father] God'), and so to use the identical combination again to refer to the Word would be potentially confusing, making it seem as if 'the Word' was really identical to 'the [sc Father] God', one of the very points that John is disproving here.

So John only had three ways to write this:

1) the Word as 'the God' (but this would mean that there was no real distinction between the Father and Christ)

2) the Word was 'a certain god' (but this would mean that Christ was a lesser sort of divinity, not God on the level of the Father

3) 'God' was the Word - what John actually did write, thus fully and unambiguously attributing deity to the Word as distinct from the Father.

2) THE TWO FORMS OF THE WORD GOD, THEON (2ND CLAUSE) AND THEOS (3RD CLAUSE) REFER TO THE ONE AND ONLY ALMIGHTY GOD, THEY DIFFER BECAUSE OF GRAMMAR NOT DEFINITION. NEITHER REFERS TO 'A GOD'

"God" in the 2nd clause is in the accusative case with the definite article and is thus spelled "Theon". It refers to the one and only Almighty God. "God" in the 3rd clause is in the predicate nominative case without an article and is thus spelled "Theos". Its position at the beginning of the clause refers to the qualities of the one and only Almighty God. The spelling differences are due to the grammatical rules of the koine Greek language, and not to a difference in meaning. That is how this biblical language works!

[Disco-Inferno]

AnsBible;

This reply is in regards to your comments below:

You wrote:
"Theos" is the predicate nominative of "was" in the third clause of the verse. It refers back to the subject, "Word" (Logos). The definite predicate nominative never takes an article when it precedes the verb ("was") as we find in John 1:1. Hence no article is needed for "Theos" ("God"). So to translate it 'a god' is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek. The Word, then, can be no one else except God.
End quotation

I'm sorry, where do you get the concept that the "definite predicate nominative never takes an article when it precedes the verb"? Can you please provide a grammatical reference for this supposed rule in Greek. I suspect you're either misunderstanding E.C. Colwells article, or you're misquoting it (as did Walter Martin).

Secondly, you state, "So to translate it 'a god' is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek." I'm curious, how much Greek have you studied? To claim that "a god" is "incorrect grammar and poor Greek" reveals your lack of understanding regarding the language. You would do well to study the following quotation lifted from the 1951 The Expository Times article entitled "A Note on the Anarthrous Predicate in Hellenistic Greek." (Vol. 62, page 315):

Dr Griffiths writes :

Taken by itself, the sentence KAI THEOS EN HO LOGOS; could admittedly bear either of two meanings : 1) 'and the Word was (the) God' or 2) 'and the Word was (a) God.' It is then possible to argue that translation (2) brings the predicative noun nearer to the position of an adjective.

End quotation

I would also like to add that if you take the translation "and the Word was the God", then you've set up modalism.

What do you think?

Thanks,
AndrewCorban

[Tsmith]

Ansbible,

Is it safe to assume that what you have provided is a copy and paste from another source?

I ask because whoever wrote this significantly lacks an understanding of the Greek language. If this is your writing I will reply, however I prior post already refutes most of this, as it simply is a rehash of the same errors written by Walter Martin.

[Disco-Inferno]

PioneerSDA;

You posted this exact same information under another thread. Please learn to interact with the points that have been presented namely the grammar of a predicate nominative preceeding the verb with respects to it's definite, indefinite, or qualitative rendering.

You have not presented anything positive or meaningful to our discussion at hand. Please pick up the points already on the table before us or keep yourself to your thread.

Thanks,
AndrewCorban

[Sparko]

OK as per PioneerSDA's request, I took her post out of this thread and moved it to a new thread in Unorthodox Theology.

If any one wants to interact with it, it is located at:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49561

[Disco-Inferno]

Crusader, Jaltus, AnsBible, et. alt;

Where are you guys? TSmith and I are waiting for your replies in connection to the arguments we've presented. Initially, I looked forward to interacting with Trinitarians who are familiar with Greek and the arguments/pitfalls of John 1:1. However, it appears as if those mentioned above have "flamed out" and are no where to be found. At the outset of this thread Crusader challenged BarryRob with the following:

Here again you are using stuff right out of the Watchtower. Either you are going to stick to the Interlinear and the English translation - and you can see that the Greek grammar is identical in all phrases cited - or we can just forget it. No more Society apologetics - stick to the text. Read the English corresponding to the Greek in the Interlinear.

END QUOTE

We can, and have demonstrated our ability to work with the Greek text, where is your rebuttal? We dealt with Walter Martin and his outdated/misguided arguments which promote Modalism. Please let us know if you're willing to or able to respond to the arguments we've presented. Otherwise, we will move on.

Thanks,
AndrewCorban

[Krusader]

Crusader, Jaltus, AnsBible, et. alt;

Where are you guys? TSmith and I are waiting for your replies in connection to the arguments we've presented. Initially, I looked forward to interacting with Trinitarians who are familiar with Greek and the arguments/pitfalls of John 1:1. However, it appears as if those mentioned above have "flamed out" and are no where to be found. At the outset of this thread Crusader challenged BarryRob with the following:

Here again you are using stuff right out of the Watchtower. Either you are going to stick to the Interlinear and the English translation - and you can see that the Greek grammar is identical in all phrases cited - or we can just forget it. No more Society apologetics - stick to the text. Read the English corresponding to the Greek in the Interlinear.

END QUOTE

We can, and have demonstrated our ability to work with the Greek text, where is your rebuttal? We dealt with Walter Martin and his outdated/misguided arguments which promote Modalism. Please let us know if you're willing to or able to respond to the arguments we've presented. Otherwise, we will move on.

Thanks,
AndrewCorban


I don't know about the others, but I was in Mexico. I think there's been plenty posted regarding the translation of John 1:1, and if there are those that refuse to submit themselves to Greek scholarship, then so be it. It gets old after a while.

A good site to visit on this subject is found at:

http://www.hcm2.org/studies/essentials/trinity/understand.htm

[Disco-Inferno]

Crusader;

This is it? Please tell me that you have more in the works. TSmith and I are prepared to discuss every PN fronting the verb (same grammatical construction as found in John 1:1c) found in the Gospel of John, Anabasis, or any other Greek text of your choosing.

BEGIN QUOTE
I don't know about the others, but I was in Mexico. I think there's been plenty posted regarding the translation of John 1:1, and if there are those that refuse to submit themselves to Greek scholarship, then so be it. It gets old after a while.
END QUOTE

By the way, I don't want a link to a website. Anyone can do that. I want you to interact with the Greek text. If you cannot do that then tells us, "I do not know Greek and therefore I cannot interact with the both of you." You accused BarryRob of using "WT helps", however, it appears as if you're the one having to rely on "anti-JW helps" inorder to formulate your position. Furthermore, TSmith responded in a detailed fashion to all of your arguments that you've initally presented, where's your response?

Thanks,
AndrewCorban

[Krusader]

Crusader;

This is it? Please tell me that you have more in the works. TSmith and I are prepared to discuss every PN fronting the verb (same grammatical construction as found in John 1:1c) found in the Gospel of John, Anabasis, or any other Greek text of your choosing.

BEGIN QUOTE
I don't know about the others, but I was in Mexico. I think there's been plenty posted regarding the translation of John 1:1, and if there are those that refuse to submit themselves to Greek scholarship, then so be it. It gets old after a while.
END QUOTE

By the way, I don't want a link to a website. Anyone can do that. I want you to interact with the Greek text. If you cannot do that then tells us, "I do not know Greek and therefore I cannot interact with the both of you." You accused BarryRob of using "WT helps", however, it appears as if you're the one having to rely on "anti-JW helps" inorder to formulate your position. Furthermore, TSmith responded in a detailed fashion to all of your arguments that you've initally presented, where's your response?

Thanks,
AndrewCorban

Andrew, from what college of university did you get your degree in ancient biblical languages?

All you do is parrot the Watchtower line - put your time to better use.

[Tsmith]

Andrew, from what college of university did you get your degree in ancient biblical languages?

All you do is parrot the Watchtower line - put your time to better use.


Crusader,

It sounds to me that you are unable to deal with the simply points of grammar presented. Your argument has been completely refuted. Care to present another verse you have trouble with?

[Disco-Inferno]

Crusader;

Once again, can you deal with the text? Please list examples from the Gospel of John which supports your case. Please confront the text and the subject matter at hand. I don't have to hide behind "websites" or the Watchtower, I can read the text for myself.

Please deal with the text!

Thanks,
AndrewCorban

[Krusader]

Crusader;

Once again, can you deal with the text? Please list examples from the Gospel of John which supports your case. Please confront the text and the subject matter at hand. I don't have to hide behind "websites" or the Watchtower, I can read the text for myself.

Please deal with the text!

Thanks,
AndrewCorban

Once again, from which college or university did you earn your doctorate in ancient / Biblical languages?

[Jaltus]

Jaltus,

There is little basis for concluding QEOS to be definite. With such, the result is modalism, not Trinitarianism.

That is an assertion with no argument. I need not reply.

Were QEOS definite, the author simply could have used the definite article, with little consequence, but he expressly did not. John 1:1c does not use QEOS as a name or a title, but as a predicate nominative it is a class noun. As a count noun, it must be definite or indefinite. If it is definite, we have modalism. If it is indefinite, we translate it as "a god". Thus, Trinitarians argue for the nearly impossible to prove "purely qualitative". construct.

This ignores the issue that, in Greek, once a noun is originally stated as definite (e.g. has the article), the subsequent restatements do not need the article in order to maintain definiteness.

I agree that qualitative is ruled out by the structure and the grammar. However, "a god" is ruled out simply by context. If "a god" or "a different god" were meant, other Greek words or phrases would be used (e.g. qeioV or alloV qeoV). Context rules out your argument quite clearly.

The use of QEOS is the C position has a completely different function than that of the B. B has the semantic force of a proper name, while C is a class noun, but with a different referent.

First, you have equivocated in naming a class noun.

Second, you have yet to show that qeoV can ever function as a class noun in the singular (technically, I am not sure if it ever does, especially in Koine, though you might find some occurrences in classical, but that is a different dialect).

Having considered these points, your arguments simply carry little weight.

You have not made an argument yet, all you have done is made assertions. I am waiting for an argument that contains actual data and evidence.

[Jaltus]

Once again, from which college or university did you earn your doctorate in ancient / Biblical languages?

Does being a candidate in NT studies count? How about a degree in Classical Greek and a Master's of Divinity?

What is your educational background?

Oh, and sorry for not replying sooner, I am just really swamped with RL at the moment, including publishing deadlines and working on my dissertation.

[Krusader]

Does being a candidate in NT studies count? How about a degree in Classical Greek and a Master's of Divinity?

What is your educational background?

Oh, and sorry for not replying sooner, I am just really swamped with RL at the moment, including publishing deadlines and working on my dissertation.

Your degree is from what university? Where are you candidating? What is your view on the Trinity?

I'm a Rutgers person, myself.

[Jaltus]

Undergrad is from Calvin College. I got my BS there, with one major being classical Greek.

My PhD will be from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

And your degrees are...?

[Krusader]

Undergrad is from Calvin College. I got my BS there, with one major being classical Greek.

My PhD will be from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

And your degrees are...?

Trinity Evangelical, is that associated with the Evangelical Free Church? I don't claim any degrees in theology, languages, etc. I'm a lowly social worker!

Now, what is the point you are making? Are you saying John 1:1 does not teach the deity of Christ?

And, make that "M'am," not "Sir."

Also, do you think the logo "kick your butt, I will," is something a follower of Jesus would use to identify him or herself?

[ansbible]

AnsBible;

This reply is in regards to your comments below:

You wrote:
"Theos" is the predicate nominative of "was" in the third clause of the verse. It refers back to the subject, "Word" (Logos). The definite predicate nominative never takes an article when it precedes the verb ("was") as we find in John 1:1. Hence no article is needed for "Theos" ("God"). So to translate it 'a god' is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek. The Word, then, can be no one else except God.
End quotation

I'm sorry, where do you get the concept that the "definite predicate nominative never takes an article when it precedes the verb"? Can you please provide a grammatical reference for this supposed rule in Greek. I suspect you're either misunderstanding E.C. Colwells article, or you're misquoting it (as did Walter Martin).

Secondly, you state, "So to translate it 'a god' is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek." I'm curious, how much Greek have you studied? To claim that "a god" is "incorrect grammar and poor Greek" reveals your lack of understanding regarding the language. You would do well to study the following quotation lifted from the 1951 The Expository Times article entitled "A Note on the Anarthrous Predicate in Hellenistic Greek." (Vol. 62, page 315):

Dr Griffiths writes :

Taken by itself, the sentence KAI THEOS EN HO LOGOS; could admittedly bear either of two meanings : 1) 'and the Word was (the) God' or 2) 'and the Word was (a) God.' It is then possible to argue that translation (2) brings the predicative noun nearer to the position of an adjective.

End quotation

I would also like to add that if you take the translation "and the Word was the God", then you've set up modalism.

What do you think?

Thanks,
AndrewCorban

You've avoided considering the position of THEOS which is emphatic and without the article which first reading declares all of which THEOS is - is HO LOGOS. Case closed. This kind of construction occurs over and over and over again in every example of the koine Greek inside and outside of Scripture.

Any entity that has all of who THEOS IS, is THEOS and no other. That's what it plainly says. Hence the Word is God and no other.

To accuse this of potential modalism is to read that into it.

Certainly I as a father can have all of the attributes of I as a brother being two personalities but one entity.

How many degrees would you like me to have in Greek?

I outlaw misdirected personality and credential attacks.

No one should have to have an extensive pedigree of degrees to understand this verse for it was meant for a child to understand.

[Krusader]

You've avoided considering the position of THEOS which is emphatic and without the article which first reading declares all of which THEOS is - is HO LOGOS. Case closed. This kind of construction occurs over and over and over again in every example of the koine Greek inside and outside of Scripture.

Any entity that has all of who THEOS IS, is THEOS and no other. That's what it plainly says. Hence the Word is God and no other.

To accuse this of potential modalism is to read that into it.

Certainly I as a father can have all of the attributes of I as a brother being two personalities but one entity.

How many degrees would you like me to have in Greek?

I outlaw misdirected personality and credential attacks.

No one should have to have an extensive pedigree of degrees to understand this verse for it was meant for a child to understand.

You are very right - a child should be able to comprehend that the Word, Jesus, was God. Dr. Robertson, who is a Greek scholar, in his analysis of this verse states, "by exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos en ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in John 4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 ho theos agape estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God," as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, "The Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God...."

[Tsmith]

That is an assertion with no argument. I need not reply.

Actually, this is something obvious from reading it. If QEOS is definite, this one is thus idenitified as the one who hO LOGOS is with. The LOGOS is thus also the one he is relation to, who is TON QEON, which is who the LOGOS is idenitified as with "hO QEOS". This equates to modalism.


This ignores the issue that, in Greek, once a noun is originally stated as definite (e.g. has the article), the subsequent restatements do not need the article in order to maintain definiteness.

The issue is not whether QEOS *can* be definite, but whether it *is* definite. I don't dispute that it can bem but is it?


I agree that qualitative is ruled out by the structure and the grammar. However, "a god" is ruled out simply by context. If "a god" or "a different god" were meant, other Greek words or phrases would be used (e.g. qeioV or alloV qeoV). Context rules out your argument quite clearly.

This is hardly the case. You do not need to use allos to show it indefinite, and any first semester Greek student knows this.


First, you have equivocated in naming a class noun.

Second, you have yet to show that qeoV can ever function as a class noun in the singular (technically, I am not sure if it ever does, especially in Koine, though you might find some occurrences in classical, but that is a different dialect).


The express function of the predicate nominative is to identify the class to which they belong. I'm naming it a class noun based on the construction. I would not say independantly that QEOS always is a class noun, but that the predicate nominative is indentifying the word as belonging to the class of QEOS.


You have not made an argument yet, all you have done is made assertions. I am waiting for an argument that contains actual data and evidence.

If that is what you want to call it. The text is very obvious though and not complicated at all.

[Jaltus]

Trinity Evangelical, is that associated with the Evangelical Free Church? I don't claim any degrees in theology, languages, etc. I'm a lowly social worker!

Actually, it is associated with the EFCA. There is no such thing as a "lowly" whatever. We do as God calls us.

Now, what is the point you are making? Are you saying John 1:1 does not teach the deity of Christ?

Quite the opposite. I am not sure why you would think that since my argument is directly for the definiteness of the word qeoV, not to mention that you must be Trinitarian in order to be a mod here.

And, make that "M'am," not "Sir."

I did not think I addressed you as either. I could be wrong.

Also, do you think the logo "kick your butt, I will," is something a follower of Jesus would use to identify him or herself?

Yes, because it is funny, at least to most people. The humor is in the juxtaposed grammar, and yet staying within the 25 letter limit.

[Jaltus]

Actually, this is something obvious from reading it. If QEOS is definite, this one is thus idenitified as the one who hO LOGOS is with. The LOGOS is thus also the one he is relation to, who is TON QEON, which is who the LOGOS is idenitified as with "hO QEOS". This equates to modalism.

No, it really does not. Your assumption is that anything labeled "the God" must refer to the Father. However, that is just an assumption on your part, you have yet to make a case for it.


The issue is not whether QEOS *can* be definite, but whether it *is* definite. I don't dispute that it can bem but is it?

Again, it is undisputed that it is definite earlier in the verse. Why does this have to change? Unless there is some reason to see this as indefinite, the context should rule. Context shows it as definite.

This is hardly the case. You do not need to use allos to show it indefinite, and any first semester Greek student knows this.

I did not say you needed to, I was providing alternatives. However, when context shows something as definite, you DO need something to change that to indefinite.

The express function of the predicate nominative is to identify the class to which they belong. I'm naming it a class noun based on the construction. I would not say independantly that QEOS always is a class noun, but that the predicate nominative is indentifying the word as belonging to the class of QEOS.

This is flat out false. One of the most common constructions that has an anrthrous noun with an articular noun is the simple phrase "The Christ is Jesus." Is Jesus "a class?" Obviously not.


If that is what you want to call it. The text is very obvious though and not complicated at all.

Lol, then why do you keep getting it wrong? As for obvious, not it really is not. I do suggest, however, that you look at the construction of an articular noun plus a form of eimi plus an anarthrous noun and tell me what you find.

You'll find that both words are definite over 80% of the time. Now, that does not mean I am correct, it just means I am more likely to be correct. However, NONE of those examples allow for an indefinite understanding of the anarthrous noun.

[Tsmith]

No, it really does not. Your assumption is that anything labeled "the God" must refer to the Father. However, that is just an assumption on your part, you have yet to make a case for it.


No, it is not. In fact, I said nothing about the Father. The fact is that hO QEOS is already referenced in the verse as the object of the verse. To label the subject as hO QEOS would thus equate the two.


Again, it is undisputed that it is definite earlier in the verse. Why does this have to change? Unless there is some reason to see this as indefinite, the context should rule. Context shows it as definite.


Actually, context shows it is indefinite (John 1:18). It cannot be definite without equating the subject with the object, for the object is hO QEOS, so the subject cannot be with such an equation. Hence we get modalism.


I did not say you needed to, I was providing alternatives. However, when context shows something as definite, you DO need something to change that to indefinite.

You've provided nothing from the context to show it definite. But you have a serious problem with it being definite, for if it is definite you've just made the object the subject.


This is flat out false. One of the most common constructions that has an anrthrous noun with an articular noun is the simple phrase "The Christ is Jesus." Is Jesus "a class?" Obviously not.

QEOS is not a proper name, Jesus is.


Lol, then why do you keep getting it wrong? As for obvious, not it really is not. I do suggest, however, that you look at the construction of an articular noun plus a form of eimi plus an anarthrous noun and tell me what you find.

You'll find that both words are definite over 80% of the time. Now, that does not mean I am correct, it just means I am more likely to be correct. However, NONE of those examples allow for an indefinite understanding of the anarthrous noun.

Nice empty claims here. I believe you'll find that predicate nominatives, if we go by the KJV, are actually more often translated as indefinite than definite. As for your construction you reference, when I look at Acts 28:4 I see it is most certainly indefinite. It seems to be universally translated in such a way as well.

[Jaltus]

No, it is not. In fact, I said nothing about the Father. The fact is that hO QEOS is already referenced in the verse as the object of the verse. To label the subject as hO QEOS would thus equate the two.

Actually, context shows it is indefinite (John 1:18). It cannot be definite without equating the subject with the object, for the object is hO QEOS, so the subject cannot be with such an equation. Hence we get modalism.

I still disagree. Saying "Jesus is the Christ" equates the two such that the Christ can only be Jesus, but it does not mean Jesus can only be the Christ, as He is much more than that (e.g. son of Mary, etc.). Also, John 1:1a-b are CLOSER than John 1:18 in terms of context, how can you ignore them?

You've provided nothing from the context to show it definite. But you have a serious problem with it being definite, for if it is definite you've just made the object the subject.

Again, that is false. The context I provide is John 1:1a-b. God is definite there.


QEOS is not a proper name, Jesus is.

Actually, this is quite disputed. Throughout the NT, God is often used as a name (considering it is used as a vocative) or a title. Either way, it equates to essentially the same thing.

Nice empty claims here. I believe you'll find that predicate nominatives, if we go by the KJV, are actually more often translated as indefinite than definite. As for your construction you reference, when I look at Acts 28:4 I see it is most certainly indefinite. It seems to be universally translated in such a way as well.

First off, I never use the KJV.

Second, Acts 28:4 is a case in point with respect to a qualitative reference, not an indefinite one (i.e. Paul fits the characteristics of a murderer, not that Paul is known for being a murderer, this would seemingly be one of your "case nouns").

Third, don't look to translations, look to commentaries. Translators rarely think this indepth about choices like this, whereas commentaries often belabor these points.

[Tsmith]

I still disagree. Saying "Jesus is the Christ" equates the two such that the Christ can only be Jesus, but it does not mean Jesus can only be the Christ, as He is much more than that (e.g. son of Mary, etc.). Also, John 1:1a-b are CLOSER than John 1:18 in terms of context, how can you ignore them?

Again though, you're missing the key point. QEOS cannot be definite because that equates hO LOGOS with being the object of the sentence, which is already identified as hO QEOS, and thus again you have modalism. This is not even a disputed issue amoung the grammars! Interchangability is found in articular predicate nominatives, not anarthrous ones.


Again, that is false. The context I provide is John 1:1a-b. God is definite there.

It is definite for the object, not the subject.


Actually, this is quite disputed. Throughout the NT, God is often used as a name (considering it is used as a vocative) or a title. Either way, it equates to essentially the same thing.


Not actually true. While it may provide the semantic force of a proper name, it is not actually one. Of key interest though, when it does carry that semantic force, it is always a reference to the Father.


First off, I never use the KJV.

Second, Acts 28:4 is a case in point with respect to a qualitative reference, not an indefinite one (i.e. Paul fits the characteristics of a murderer, not that Paul is known for being a murderer, this would seemingly be one of your "case nouns").

Third, don't look to translations, look to commentaries. Translators rarely think this indepth about choices like this, whereas commentaries often belabor these points.

Ahh, but is it Q-I or Q-D? It is qualitative-indefinite. Having the characteristics of a murder, he is "a murderer" and thus we can back in the fact that the anarthrous predicate nominative denotes the class to which the subject belongs. Belonging to the class of murderers, he is "a murderer."

[Jaltus]

The Q-D Q-I distinction is moot.

[Tsmith]

Is that supposed to be your response?

[Jaltus]

Sorry, partial response, it was time for bed. I will try to get back to this tomorrow.

[Krusader]

Jaltrus, actually I attended an EFCA years ago - too many Norwegians for me (the only Dane amongst them).

I am not a mod here, but of course as an evangelical Christian I am Trinitarian.


You did address me as sir, but that's okay.



I just don't see the humor in "kick your butt," but I'm an Independent Baptist, so what do you want.

What do you think of my quote from Robertson, via Alpha and Omega Ministries, Dr. White?

[ansbible]

[Jn 1:1c]:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

1) "THEOS" = GOD IN THE 3RD CLAUSE PRECEDES AND IS THE PREDICATE NOMINATIVE OF THE INTRANSITIVE, COPULATIVE VERB "WAS" IDENTIFYING "LOGOS". THERE IS NO DEFINITE ARTICLE REQUIRED. IT DOES NOT REFER TO 'A' GOD

"Theos" is a predicate nominative of "was" in the emphatic position at the beginning of the third clause without the definite article. The absence of the definite article, however, does not demand that "Theos" be interpreted "a god" with the indefinite article as some suggest.

First of all, New Testament Greek does not possess an indefinite article ('a/an'), but it does have an indefinite pronoun ('a certain one', Greek 'tis') the very word that a Greek reader would expect here if the point was that Christ was somehow a god, but not really 'God.'

Secondly, the verb "was" = "en", (to be), is copulative and intransitive, i.e., it joins two subjects together in meaning as the context permits and takes no object, respectively. Said in another way, there can be no direct object following "was" because intransitive copulative verbs take no objects but take instead predicate nominatives which refer back in meaning to the subject of the clause. Hence, Jn 1:1c joins the two subjects = "Theos" and = "Logos" in meaning where the former being without an article and in view of the previous phrases describes the quality of the latter. Hence "Logos", the Word is described by everything that "Theos", God is.

Mark it down that in every instance where we need to construe one nominative as the predicate nominative, the predicate nominative is anarthrous. Accordingly, if one nominative is articular and the other is anarthrous, the anarthrous nominative is in the predicate, and the articular nominative is the subject.

On the other hand, if both of the nouns in a predicate nominative construction have the article, or if both lack the article, the two nouns become interchangeable. If there had been an article in front of "Theos", then John would have been telling us that "God was the Word" as well as "the Word was God." But there is no article in front of "Theos" so author John is not teaching that Jesus Christ and God [the Father] were both the same person. Hence we avoid the heresy of modalism and a contradiction since the Word cannot be with God if both are one and the same.

Therefore, in view of the emphatic position of "Theos" (God) at the beginning of Jn 1:1c and the lack of a definite article in Jn 1:1c pointing to it as the predicate nominative which describes the subject,"ho Logos", (the Word); we conclude that the qualities of God, i.e., His divine essence which only God can possess, are indicated as qualities which are inherent in "Logos" = "the Word". So "Theos" in this phrase means that the Word has the nature, qualities and essences of the One and only God, i.e., God is the Word.

So to translate it 'a god' as some individuals do is both incorrect grammar, poor Greek and totally out of context. The Word, then, can be no one else except God.

Thirdly, earlier in the verse, the apostle John used the definite article with the Greek word Theos to refer to God [the Father] according to customary usage, and so to use the identical combination again to refer to the Word would be potentially confusing, making it seem as if 'the Word' was really identical to God the Father God', one of the very points that John is disproving here.

So John only had three ways to write this:

1) the Word as 'the God' (but this would mean that there was no real distinction between the Father and the Word)

2) the Word was 'a certain god' (but this would mean that the Word was a lesser sort of divinity, not God on the level of the Father

3) 'God' was the Word - what John actually did write, thus fully and unambiguously attributing the essence of God to the Word as distinct from the Father.

[Krusader]

[Jn 1:1c]:



"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

1) "THEOS" = GOD IN THE 3RD CLAUSE PRECEDES AND IS THE PREDICATE NOMINATIVE OF THE INTRANSITIVE, COPULATIVE VERB "WAS" IDENTIFYING "LOGOS". THERE IS NO DEFINITE ARTICLE REQUIRED. IT DOES NOT REFER TO 'A' GOD

"Theos" is a predicate nominative of "was" in the emphatic position at the beginning of the third clause without the definite article. The absence of the definite article, however, does not demand that "Theos" be interpreted "a god" with the indefinite article as some suggest.

First of all, New Testament Greek does not possess an indefinite article ('a/an'), but it does have an indefinite pronoun ('a certain one', Greek 'tis') the very word that a Greek reader would expect here if the point was that Christ was somehow a god, but not really 'God.'

Secondly, the verb "was" = "en", (to be), is copulative and intransitive, i.e., it joins two subjects together in meaning as the context permits and takes no object, respectively. Said in another way, there can be no direct object following "was" because intransitive copulative verbs take no objects but take instead predicate nominatives which refer back in meaning to the subject of the clause. Hence, Jn 1:1c joins the two subjects = "Theos" and = "Logos" in meaning where the former being without an article and in view of the previous phrases describes the quality of the latter. Hence "Logos", the Word is described by everything that "Theos", God is.

Mark it down that in every instance where we need to construe one nominative as the predicate nominative, the predicate nominative is anarthrous. Accordingly, if one nominative is articular and the other is anarthrous, the anarthrous nominative is in the predicate, and the articular nominative is the subject.

On the other hand, if both of the nouns in a predicate nominative construction have the article, or if both lack the article, the two nouns become interchangeable. If there had been an article in front of "Theos", then John would have been telling us that "God was the Word" as well as "the Word was God." But there is no article in front of "Theos" so author John is not teaching that Jesus Christ and God [the Father] were both the same person. Hence we avoid the heresy of modalism and a contradiction since the Word cannot be with God if both are one and the same.

Therefore, in view of the emphatic position of "Theos" (God) at the beginning of Jn 1:1c and the lack of a definite article in Jn 1:1c pointing to it as the predicate nominative which describes the subject,"ho Logos", (the Word); we conclude that the qualities of God, i.e., His divine essence which only God can possess, are indicated as qualities which are inherent in "Logos" = "the Word". So "Theos" in this phrase means that the Word has the nature, qualities and essences of the One and only God, i.e., God is the Word.

So to translate it 'a god' as some individuals do is both incorrect grammar, poor Greek and totally out of context. The Word, then, can be no one else except God.

Thirdly, earlier in the verse, the apostle John used the definite article with the Greek word Theos to refer to God [the Father] according to customary usage, and so to use the identical combination again to refer to the Word would be potentially confusing, making it seem as if 'the Word' was really identical to God the Father God', one of the very points that John is disproving here.

So John only had three ways to write this:

1) the Word as 'the God' (but this would mean that there was no real distinction between the Father and the Word)

2) the Word was 'a certain god' (but this would mean that the Word was a lesser sort of divinity, not God on the level of the Father

3) 'God' was the Word - what John actually did write, thus fully and unambiguously attributing the essence of God to the Word as distinct from the Father.

John's construction in Greek of John 1:1 refutes Sabellianism and establishes the full Deity of Christ. Quite correct!

[Tsmith]

You've avoided considering the position of THEOS which is emphatic and without the article which first reading declares all of which THEOS is - is HO LOGOS. Case closed. This kind of construction occurs over and over and over again in every example of the koine Greek inside and outside of Scripture.

Any entity that has all of who THEOS IS, is THEOS and no other. That's what it plainly says. Hence the Word is God and no other.

To accuse this of potential modalism is to read that into it.

Certainly I as a father can have all of the attributes of I as a brother being two personalities but one entity.

How many degrees would you like me to have in Greek?

I outlaw misdirected personality and credential attacks.

No one should have to have an extensive pedigree of degrees to understand this verse for it was meant for a child to understand.


Are you arguing that hO QEOS and hO LOGOS are interchangable? This is the exact thing that the anarthrous predicate nominative does not allow for!

QEOS is used to describe the class to which hO LOGOS belongs. It makes hO LOGOS all of what QEOS is than DIABOLOS ESTIN makes Judas all of what Satan the Devil is. Was Judas a demon? A spirit? The father of the lie? Certainly not.

[Arnold]

It is totally unecessary to argue about the Greek to illustrate the error of "a god". Simple logic solves the problem:

In the past JW's claimed that Jesus was made into "a god" by the idolatry of man. This view can easily be disproved from within the verse itself. JN 1:1 starts with "In the beginning..." but according to JW doctrine men did not exist "In the beginning..." so they could not have been there to make Him "a god".

[Tsmith]

It is totally unecessary to argue about the Greek to illustrate the error of "a god". Simple logic solves the problem:

In the past JW's claimed that Jesus was made into "a god" by the idolatry of man. This view can easily be disproved from within the verse itself. JN 1:1 starts with "In the beginning..." but according to JW doctrine men did not exist "In the beginning..." so they could not have been there to make Him "a god".


I have never heard a JW claiming such a position and if any did, they did so falsely.

Jesus is a god because he is appointed as God's agent, his representative. God chose for divinity to dwell in Christ (Col 1:19, c.f. 2:9).

[Arnold]

I have never heard a JW claiming such a position and if any did, they did so falsely.

Jesus is a god because he is appointed as God's agent, his representative. God chose for divinity to dwell in Christ (Col 1:19, c.f. 2:9).

This was the reason JW's used to explain how Christ became "a god" back in the eighties when I was studying cults. But of course the Watchtower Society tends to be rather liquid with their doctrines, massaging them as necessary to avoid contradictions that have been pointed out over the decades. No doubt this is just another example.

[Arnold]

And just to add to my previous post:

Then they must have changed their stand on there being one god also. They were adamant that there was only one god and to differentiate Christ as "a god" they explained that it was only a perception of idolatrous mankind. So now they say there are two gods huh?

[Jaltus]

Jaltrus, actually I attended an EFCA years ago - too many Norwegians for me (the only Dane amongst them).

I have dark hair, which must mean there was some sin in an ancestor's life. :wink:

I am not a mod here, but of course as an evangelical Christian I am Trinitarian.

Good for you!

You did address me as sir, but that's okay.

If I did, I apologize. Can you show me where?


I just don't see the humor in "kick your butt," but I'm an Independent Baptist, so what do you want.

Umm, let me just say I don't think this 10 foot pole will reach.

[Tsmith]

And just to add to my previous post:

Then they must have changed their stand on there being one god also. They were adamant that there was only one god and to differentiate Christ as "a god" they explained that it was only a perception of idolatrous mankind. So now they say there are two gods huh?

Sounds to me that you found the opinion of a person or two and took it as fact. Shame on you and then both.

[Arnold]

Sounds to me that you found the opinion of a person or two and took it as fact. Shame on you and then both.

Sounds to me that you do not wish to deal with reality.

So how many gods are there? One or two?

Using the explanation that Christ is only perceived as "a god" through the idolitry of mankind allows for the claim of one god, but then falls into the trap that I mentioned in my first post.

Using your explanation results in two gods. Is this your answer?

[Krusader]

I have dark hair, which must mean there was some sin in an ancestor's life. :wink:



Good for you!



If I did, I apologize. Can you show me where?




Umm, let me just say I don't think this 10 foot pole will reach.

Jaltus: Oh, if you have dark hair then all is forgiven. You probably have some of those Danish genes!

[Tsmith]

Sounds to me that you do not wish to deal with reality.

So how many gods are there? One or two?

Using the explanation that Christ is only perceived as "a god" through the idolitry of mankind allows for the claim of one god, but then falls into the trap that I mentioned in my first post.

Using your explanation results in two gods. Is this your answer?


You may want to read Psalms 82:6 where "the sons of the most high" are called "gods".

[Arnold]

You may want to read Psalms 82:6 where "the sons of the most high" are called "gods".

So you are saying there are lots of gods who "God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him [them]" (Co.1.19), and in them "all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" (Co.2.9)?!?

[Tsmith]

So you are saying there are lots of gods who "God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him [them]" (Co.1.19), and in them "all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" (Co.2.9)?!?


Not at all, for Psalms is a reference to the judges of Israel. Rather though, those appointed by God are themselves called gods, and hence the angels in Psalms 8:5 are termed such.

Christ is the divine son of God, his from the beginning. Very different than these ones.

[Arnold]

Not at all, for Psalms is a reference to the judges of Israel. Rather though, those appointed by God are themselves called gods, and hence the angels in Psalms 8:5 are termed such.

Christ is the divine son of God, his from the beginning. Very different than these ones.

In those Colossians' passages Paul is referring to Christ "in bodily form". So Christ was in a human body "from the beginning"? So he wasn't born of the virgin Mary then?

[Tsmith]

In those Colossians' passages Paul is referring to Christ "in bodily form". So Christ was in a human body "from the beginning"? So he wasn't born of the virgin Mary then?


I wasn't aware bodily = human. The angel that visited Daniel was said to have a body, yet he was not flesh and not even seen by those with him!

[Arnold]

I wasn't aware bodily = human. The angel that visited Daniel was said to have a body, yet he was not flesh and not even seen by those with him!

So Mary birthed a Jesus that was not flesh? Please pray tell - just exactly what kind of body did Mary birth?

[Tsmith]

So Mary birthed a Jesus that was not flesh? Please pray tell - just exactly what kind of body did Mary birth?


Who says this is about his birth?

[Arnold]

Who says this is about his birth?

You are the one who connected Jn.1.1 with Co.2.9.

If Christ had a body "In the beginning", but was born of the virgin Mary, what body was He born into? And what happened to the body He supposedly had "In the beginning"? Did He just place that one in a storage closet?

Really though - this is getting ridiculous. This is so typical of discussions with JW's. They always descend into the absurd because their doctrines are so twisted and incompatable. This is boring - bye.

[Tsmith]

You are the one who connected Jn.1.1 with Co.2.9.

If Christ had a body "In the beginning", but was born of the virgin Mary, what body was He born into? And what happened to the body He supposedly had "In the beginning"? Did He just place that one in a storage closet?

Really though - this is getting ridiculous. This is so typical of discussions with JW's. They always descend into the absurd because their doctrines are so twisted and incompatable. This is boring - bye.


Seems to be that you can't take scripture very well. It is very plain. Well what did happen to that body. Good question. What happened to the spirit bodies of those angels that visited Jesus in human flesh in Genesis 19? The text doesn't say. Yet, Phil 2:6, speaking of Christ's divine nature, says he "emptied himself" and thus, apparently he disposed of it, taking a new form of existence, "in the form of man".

So he "emptied himself" of it. That is yourt answer.

[ansbible]

One key point that is totally disallowed in any discussion:


You cannot go elsewhere to prove thiswhere.

There may in your view be a passage that contradicts what John 1:1 clearly says, but that cannot change John 1:1 can it?

So I rest my case on John 1:1, if I cannot then let's stop discussing what's in the Bible and go with the Watchtower.

Secondly, every passage you bring up that is elsewhere I've noticed is totally misinterpreted and that misinterpretation imposed upon John 1:1.

No one has been taught to read that way. Besides John did not write his gospel expected the Apostle Paul to make corrections later. The Holy Spirit does not work that way.

Thirdly and by example, Phil 2:5-8 does not say that Jesus Christ gave up being God?????????????? God is immutable and that conclusion is absurd when you read the text honestly.

The main purpose of this passage is to exhort the believer to emulate the humility and servitude of our Lord as exemplified by His humbling Himself by setting aside the exercising of His essence as God in order to function as a Perfect Man so that He could then pay the penalty for the sins of the whole world.

[ansbible]

Please reread this more thoroughly. Do not pick it apart out of context:

[Jn 1:1c]:



"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

1) "THEOS" = GOD IN THE 3RD CLAUSE PRECEDES AND IS THE PREDICATE NOMINATIVE OF THE INTRANSITIVE, COPULATIVE VERB "WAS" IDENTIFYING "LOGOS". THERE IS NO DEFINITE ARTICLE REQUIRED. IT DOES NOT REFER TO 'A' GOD

"Theos" is a predicate nominative of "was" in the emphatic position at the beginning of the third clause without the definite article. The absence of the definite article, however, does not demand that "Theos" be interpreted "a god" with the indefinite article as some suggest.

First of all, New Testament Greek does not possess an indefinite article ('a/an'), but it does have an indefinite pronoun ('a certain one', Greek 'tis') the very word that a Greek reader would expect here if the point was that Christ was somehow a god, but not really 'God.'

Secondly, the verb "was" = "en", (to be), is copulative and intransitive, i.e., it joins two subjects together in meaning as the context permits and takes no object, respectively. Said in another way, there can be no direct object following "was" because intransitive copulative verbs take no objects but take instead predicate nominatives which refer back in meaning to the subject of the clause. Hence, Jn 1:1c joins the two subjects = "Theos" and = "Logos" in meaning where the former being without an article and in view of the previous phrases describes the quality of the latter. Hence "Logos", the Word is described by everything that "Theos", God is.

Mark it down that in every instance where we need to construe one nominative as the predicate nominative, the predicate nominative is anarthrous. Accordingly, if one nominative is articular and the other is anarthrous, the anarthrous nominative is in the predicate, and the articular nominative is the subject.

On the other hand, if both of the nouns in a predicate nominative construction have the article, or if both lack the article, the two nouns become interchangeable. If there had been an article in front of "Theos", then John would have been telling us that "God was the Word" as well as "the Word was God." But there is no article in front of "Theos" so author John is not teaching that Jesus Christ and God [the Father] were both the same person. Hence we avoid the heresy of modalism and a contradiction since the Word cannot be with God if both are one and the same.

Therefore, in view of the emphatic position of "Theos" (God) at the beginning of Jn 1:1c and the lack of a definite article in Jn 1:1c pointing to it as the predicate nominative which describes the subject,"ho Logos", (the Word); we conclude that the qualities of God, i.e., His divine essence which only God can possess, are indicated as qualities which are inherent in "Logos" = "the Word". So "Theos" in this phrase means that the Word has the nature, qualities and essences of the One and only God, i.e., God is the Word.

So to translate it 'a god' as some individuals do is both incorrect grammar, poor Greek and totally out of context. The Word, then, can be no one else except God.

Thirdly, earlier in the verse, the apostle John used the definite article with the Greek word Theos to refer to God [the Father] according to customary usage, and so to use the identical combination again to refer to the Word would be potentially confusing, making it seem as if 'the Word' was really identical to God the Father God', one of the very points that John is disproving here.

So John only had three ways to write this:

1) the Word as 'the God' (but this would mean that there was no real distinction between the Father and the Word)

2) the Word was 'a certain god' (but this would mean that the Word was a lesser sort of divinity, not God on the level of the Father

3) 'God' was the Word - what John actually did write, thus fully and unambiguously attributing the essence of God to the Word as distinct from the Father.

[ansbible]

In those Colossians' passages Paul is referring to Christ "in bodily form". So Christ was in a human body "from the beginning"? So he wasn't born of the virgin Mary then?

Check your context in Col 2:9? Can you find any reference that it refers to the Word in His humanity existing at the beginning of all time and creation.

Suggest you make a habit of reading one passage at a time and not going all over the bible and marrying different contexts and authors together to make up your own theology.

[Tsmith]

One key point that is totally disallowed in any discussion:


You cannot go elsewhere to prove thiswhere.

There may in your view be a passage that contradicts what John 1:1 clearly says, but that cannot change John 1:1 can it?

So I rest my case on John 1:1, if I cannot then let's stop discussing what's in the Bible and go with the Watchtower.

Secondly, every passage you bring up that is elsewhere I've noticed is totally misinterpreted and that misinterpretation imposed upon John 1:1.

No one has been taught to read that way. Besides John did not write his gospel expected the Apostle Paul to make corrections later. The Holy Spirit does not work that way.

Thirdly and by example, Phil 2:5-8 does not say that Jesus Christ gave up being God?????????????? God is immutable and that conclusion is absurd when you read the text honestly.

The main purpose of this passage is to exhort the believer to emulate the humility and servitude of our Lord as exemplified by His humbling Himself by setting aside the exercising of His essence as God in order to function as a Perfect Man so that He could then pay the penalty for the sins of the whole world.


You seriously would rather discuss a human publication over the Bible? How very very sad. The word of God is the most powerful text on earth and yet you'd rather discuss something else? Wow.

As for John 1:1, nobody needs contradict it with another verse. I accept and embrace it.

As for Phil 2:6, it says "he emptied himself" and the only antecedent available to what he emptied himself of is "the form of God". This verse as caused Trinitarians great difficulty in the past, and that is why some have honestly admitted such yet have gone so far as to suggest scribal errors.

[ansbible]

[Tsmith]
You seriously would rather discuss a human publication over the Bible? How very very sad. The word of God is the most powerful text on earth and yet you'd rather discuss something else? Wow.

[Ansbible]
Are you obtuse?????????????
Elsewhere = elsewhere in Scripture. Read my post again before you go on some emotional bented attack.

The point is made that each passage has it's own unique context and it cannot be invaded by the context of another passage IN SCRIPTURE or out of scripture.

[Tsmith]

As for John 1:1, nobody needs contradict it with another verse. I accept and embrace it.


[Ansible]
Suggest you read things several times before you jump to conclusions about what I said.

Repeat: Other verses ARE BEING used to contradict Jn 1:1 by others - NOT ME. So stop shooting at me and turn your weapons on the enemy. That's the trouble with uninformed Christians, they shoot their own.

[Tsmith]
As for Phil 2:6, it says "he emptied himself" and the only antecedent available to what he emptied himself of is "the form of God". This verse as caused Trinitarians great difficulty in the past, and that is why some have honestly admitted such yet have gone so far as to suggest scribal errors.

[Ansbible]

The main purpose of this passage is to exhort the believer to emulate the humility and servitude of our Lord as exemplified by His humbling Himself by setting aside the exercising of His essence as God in order to function as a Perfect Man so that He could then pay the penalty for the sins of the whole world:

A) [Phil 2:5-8 N.A.S.]:

(v. 5) "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

(v. 6) Who, although He subsisted in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

(v. 7) but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men.

(v. 8) And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Objectors to Phil 2:5-8 being a proof text of the diety of Christ maintain that all this passage says is that Christians should not be motivated by self will but to be meek and obedient like Christ; Who although existing in the form of a god like Almighty God was not ambitious to become equal to his Father. Scripture clearly refutes this statement. Let's examine this passage in the light of Who it says Jesus Christ really is.

II) [Phil 2:5-6]:

(v. 5 NAS) "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

(v. 6 NAS) Who, although subsisting in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

(v. 6 K.J.V.) "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

"os ....en .........morphu ....Theou .huparchon"

"Who in [the] form ..........of God subsisting

ouch arpagmon egesato ...to

not ...robbery ...esteemed it

elnai .isa ...TheO

to be equal with God

["Who" = refers to Jesus Christ, (v.5)]

["being" or "subsisting" = "huparchon" = subsisting, existing.

Vines, (op. cit., p. 60), states:

["huparchon" from the verb] "HUPARCHO"......denotes to be, to be in existence, involving an existence or condition both previous to the circumstances mentioned and continuing after it."

This word "huparchon" = subsisting, existing was selected instead of the Greek word "eimi" which means to be, or a status of being. The word "huparchon" is in the present tense participle form which refers to the ongoing continual status of Jesus Christ in the present. And it is in the active voice meaning that our Lord chose to retain this state of subsistence. It is in a participle form indicating that it is a statement of truth. It therefore implies much more than just being, it indicates a continuous existence - one which in the context is a continuous existence of Deity, therefore it is an eternal existence. Finally, "huparchon" indicates that our Lord existed as God when He became a Man and continued to exist as God while He now also exists as a Man. So here is what this verse is saying: 'Jesus Christ had a continuous state of existence in the form of Almighty God in eternity past before He took on the form of a human body. And He continues to exist as God while He exists as a human being.'

II cont.) [Phil 2:5-6 cont.]:

(v. 5 NAS) "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

(v. 6 NAS) Who, although subsisting in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped"

(v. 6 K.J.V.) "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

["form" = "morphu" = while this word does mean form it is more than that. The word form in English is limited to some physical shape - some outside structure in a physical sense. But the Greek word which is translated into the English word "form" = "morphu" is a philosophical word which refers to the essential being of someone - an internal quality as well as an external one - the essential quality that characterizes that person and which is reflected by the external. The English word metaMORPHOsis which contains a transliteration of the Greek word "morphu" refers to, for example, the complete change of form - both external AND internal of a caterpillar to a butterfly.

[The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Joseph Henry Thayer, editor, Hendrickson Pub., Peabody, Ma, 1981, pp. 445, 610)]:

This word "morphu" was chosen by author John as inspired by God over other words such as schema which means "that which strikes the senses, the figure, the bearing, discourse, actions, manner of life, etc., i.e., the external"

or = omoiomati = "external form, shape, figure, likeness, representation."

[C. I. Scoffield states in reference to Phil 2:6, (Oxford NIV Scoffield Study Bible, C. I. Scoffield, Editor, New York, Oxford University Press, 1984, p.1243]:

"This [Phil 2:6] is one of the strongest assertions in the N.T. of the Deity of Jesus Christ. The Greek word....["morphu"]... here translated "very nature," literally means form, and refers to the external appearance by which a person or thing strikes the vision; yet it is an external form truly indicative of the inner nature from which it springs. Nothing in this passage teaches that the eternal Word (Jn. 1:1) emptied Himself of either His divine nature or His attributes, but only of the outward and visible manifestation of the Godhead. God may change form, but He cannot cease to be God. At all times His divine attributes could be exercised according to His will."

[Tsmith]

Ansbible,

Let me know when you want to interact rather than copying and pasting from somebody else. I skimmed that post and found nothing that delt with the fact that Christ "emptied himself" of "the form of God".

[PioneerSDA]

PioneerSDA;

You posted this exact same information under another thread.

You have not presented anything positive or meaningful to our discussion at hand. Please pick up the points already on the table before us or keep yourself to your thread.

Thanks,
AndrewCorban

"You posted this exact same information under another thread."

If I did do that, would that be a crime? Which thread did I post this exact same information at? Maybe you are referring to when a Moderator added my thread to this one to save space without my permission. I don't fault them. If those are the rules, those are the rules, but please don't blame me for doing something I had no control of.

"Please learn to interact with the points that have been presented namely the grammar of a predicate nominative preceeding the verb with respects to it's definite, indefinite, or qualitative rendering."

That is a reasonable request. Maybe one day I will learn Greek but at the moment I don't know the language so I can't interact with those points.

I do know enough about Greek to know that there are no indefinite articles (a's) and that's why I like the K.I.T. navy blue adition alot better than the N.W.T. It is alot less bias because it doesn't call the word a god. When you look in the N.T. there is alot of examples of where the word Theos does not have a 'ho' in front but these times the N.W.T. does not translate it 'a god' like they do with the Word. It's plain favortism if you ask me.

"You have not presented anything positive or meaningful to our discussion at hand. "

I belive I have but presented something possitive and meaningful but you are welcome to your own opinion.

" Please pick up the points already on the table before us or keep yourself to your thread."

I'd rather not continue with these points already on the tabel. I'd rather not keep myself to my thread. Thank you for the suggestions.

[Jaltus]

Again though, you're missing the key point. QEOS cannot be definite because that equates hO LOGOS with being the object of the sentence, which is already identified as hO QEOS, and thus again you have modalism. This is not even a disputed issue amoung the grammars! Interchangability is found in articular predicate nominatives, not anarthrous ones.


I am not sure what you mean here, could you please explain it? You make no specific reference to a part of John 1:1, and we have covered the majority of the verse.


It is definite for the object, not the subject.

Irrelevent. A PN has the same force as a subject.


Not actually true. While it may provide the semantic force of a proper name, it is not actually one. Of key interest though, when it does carry that semantic force, it is always a reference to the Father.


Do you have any evidence upon which this claim is based? This is a flat out assertion with no backing whatsoever.

Ahh, but is it Q-I or Q-D? It is qualitative-indefinite. Having the characteristics of a murder, he is "a murderer" and thus we can back in the fact that the anarthrous predicate nominative denotes the class to which the subject belongs. Belonging to the class of murderers, he is "a murderer."

Once again, this is moot. What matters is that it is qualitative. The fine distinction you are making is 1) not one I have ever seen in a grammar and 2) not what your original point was. I assume your point is conceded as soon as you admitted it was qualitative, since anything from that point on already negates your point. Q-I or Q-D still means your original tag for it was wrong, and thus your objection is overcome.

[Tsmith]

I am not sure what you mean here, could you please explain it? You make no specific reference to a part of John 1:1, and we have covered the majority of the verse.

Within this text the Father is spoken of as hO QEOS. If we identify the Logos then as hO QEOS, which if we take the PN QEOS as definite we effectively do, we equate the LOGOS with who the LOGOS is with, thus resulting in modalism.


Irrelevent. A PN has the same force as a subject.


It is very important though, because the object is definite as hO QEOS, is the subject is definte, we equate the subject with the object.


Do you have any evidence upon which this claim is based? This is a flat out assertion with no backing whatsoever.


Well we could go through and do a simple statistical analysis, however this has already been done before (I believe Ezra Abbott did one of these, off the top of my head). The only texts that are undisputed where Christ is identified as QEOS are John 1:1 and 1:18. Every other one is disputed.


Once again, this is moot. What matters is that it is qualitative. The fine distinction you are making is 1) not one I have ever seen in a grammar and 2) not what your original point was. I assume your point is conceded as soon as you admitted it was qualitative, since anything from that point on already negates your point. Q-I or Q-D still means your original tag for it was wrong, and thus your objection is overcome.

I'm not sure you even know what my point is! The question is whether or not it is *purely* qualitative, and being a count noun I must say no! At most it is Q-I or Q-D. It has qualitative attributes, but it is not purely such. He has the qualities of one who murders (either some or all), and so he is defined as "a murderer". Jesus has the qualitied of QEOS (either some or all), so he defined as "a QEOS".

[Jaltus]

Within this text the Father is spoken of as hO QEOS. If we identify the Logos then as hO QEOS, which if we take the PN QEOS as definite we effectively do, we equate the LOGOS with who the LOGOS is with, thus resulting in modalism.

Now you are confusing articular with definite. THe two are not the same thing in Greek. One can be definite without being articular, just as one can be articular without being definite (Wallace for once has a wonderful discussion of this in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics). Once again, your objection does not make grammatical sense. QEOS is definite, but it is not articular. That is what is important.

It is very important though, because the object is definite as hO QEOS, is the subject is definte, we equate the subject with the object.

Any PN is equated in some respect with its subject. You need to make a finer distinction here.

Well we could go through and do a simple statistical analysis, however this has already been done before (I believe Ezra Abbott did one of these, off the top of my head). The only texts that are undisputed where Christ is identified as QEOS are John 1:1 and 1:18. Every other one is disputed.

This was not my point. As for Jesus being called QEOS, see the book by Murray Harris called Jesus as God, the New Testament Use of QEOS In Reference to Jesus. My point was that QEOS is often used as a name or title (this is especially true in the Psalms and in Pauline literature).

I'm not sure you even know what my point is! The question is whether or not it is *purely* qualitative, and being a count noun I must say no! At most it is Q-I or Q-D. It has qualitative attributes, but it is not purely such. He has the qualities of one who murders (either some or all), and so he is defined as "a murderer". Jesus has the qualitied of QEOS (either some or all), so he defined as "a QEOS".

Again, there is no such thing as the distinction you are making! No grammar I have read (I have read many) has ever used such a distinction. Until you can show me a grammar that backs your use of these catagories, I am not going to believe you. There are no such catagories as Q-I or Q-D. They do not exist! Something is either definite, indefinite, or qualitative, not some bizarre mixture.

[Tsmith]

Now you are confusing articular with definite. THe two are not the same thing in Greek. One can be definite without being articular, just as one can be articular without being definite (Wallace for once has a wonderful discussion of this in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics). Once again, your objection does not make grammatical sense. QEOS is definite, but it is not articular. That is what is important.


It does not matter. To take it as definite results in the same thing. Remember Colwell's rule! Since you bring up Wallace, notice what he says in GGBB page 268: "Further, calling QEOS in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed the verb it would have had the article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition with LOGOS (i.e., "the Word = "God" and "God" = "the Word"). The problem of this argument is that the QEOS in 1:1b is the Father. Thus to say that the QEOS in 1:1c is the same person is to say that "the Word was the Father." This, as the older grammarians and exegetes point out, is embryonic Sabellianism or modalism."


Any PN is equated in some respect with its subject. You need to make a finer distinction here.


Of course the PN is equated with the subject, but I'm speaking of equating the subject with the object, which is what you do if you take the PN as definite, as the object is hO QEOS.


This was not my point. As for Jesus being called QEOS, see the book by Murray Harris called Jesus as God, the New Testament Use of QEOS In Reference to Jesus. My point was that QEOS is often used as a name or title (this is especially true in the Psalms and in Pauline literature).

Yes it is, but in doing such it is to the Father.


Again, there is no such thing as the distinction you are making! No grammar I have read (I have read many) has ever used such a distinction. Until you can show me a grammar that backs your use of these catagories, I am not going to believe you. There are no such catagories as Q-I or Q-D. They do not exist! Something is either definite, indefinite, or qualitative, not some bizarre mixture.

Apparently you have not studied this topic very extensively. See Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass/Count Nouns, Donald E. Hartley. He has a paper on this subject where the catagories are discussed. While I do not agree with all of his conclusions, you will find the information there. As for his conclusions, we can go into those as well, but that is not necessary at this point in time.

[Jaltus]

It does not matter. To take it as definite results in the same thing. Remember Colwell's rule! Since you bring up Wallace, notice what he says in GGBB page 268: "Further, calling QEOS in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed the verb it would have had the article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition with LOGOS (i.e., "the Word = "God" and "God" = "the Word"). The problem of this argument is that the QEOS in 1:1b is the Father. Thus to say that the QEOS in 1:1c is the same person is to say that "the Word was the Father." This, as the older grammarians and exegetes point out, is embryonic Sabellianism or modalism."

And Wallace is wrong on this point. Again, a diversion tactic by you. You can never admit that you are wrong, can you? I can argue against Wallace on this point if I wish, but my point in my above post was that articular does not mean definite just as definite does not mean articular, the concepts are different in Greek.

Do we at least agree on that point?


Of course the PN is equated with the subject, but I'm speaking of equating the subject with the object, which is what you do if you take the PN as definite, as the object is hO QEOS.

The PN is the object! That was the point! Any Pn is equated (to some extent) with the subject. Therefore, the object (positionally speaking) is equated with the subject. You contradict yourself above.


Yes it is, but in doing such it is to the Father.

Assumption. We could go to Hebrews, if need be, and show that this is not necessarily true. Again, not something I want to delve into.


Apparently you have not studied this topic very extensively. See Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass/Count Nouns, Donald E. Hartley. He has a paper on this subject where the catagories are discussed. While I do not agree with all of his conclusions, you will find the information there. As for his conclusions, we can go into those as well, but that is not necessary at this point in time.

And where is this published? I have seen this online, but I have never seen such a distinction 1) in a peer reviewed journal nor 2) in a grammar. As such, I am unlikely to buy whatever is posted on the internet. So again, can you quote a grammar this is in instead of a possibility put forth by a doctoral student?

Also, did you read the last paragraph:

Finally, his whole semantic treatment proceeds on a misunderstanding of Harner that Q = I-Q. Harner, as was shown above, simply noted that qualitativeness was not inimical to indefiniteness thus opening the possibility for a category of I-Q or Q-I. That this is to be understood as all Q = I-Q (Q-I), is absurd, illogical and a misunderstanding and abuse of Harner’s study. Thus all his semantic categories (except 11:38 which he lists as indefinite) are tagged as Q-I (our I-Q). It is not surprising, then, not to see any reference to nor examples of mass nouns in his discussion. It would be quite absurd, for example, to insist on a Q-I category for such cases as John 3:6a, where it reads, to gegennhmenon ek thV sarkoV sarx ejstin, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh.” However, he expresses that his readers might be surprised that sarx estin it is not listed as Q-I! But he is quick to assure his readers that “context” doesn’t support that determination. Thus by omitting any real discussion on mass nouns, he conveniently disregards the issue of a purely qualitative noun (without indefiniteness involved at all) from entering the discussion. And since it doesn’t enter the discussion, the fallacy of Q = Q-I continues to exercise sole influence over his understanding of John 1:1c.

So once again your point is irrelevent.

[exaJeet]

.


:popcorn:



exaJeet.

[Tsmith]

And Wallace is wrong on this point. Again, a diversion tactic by you. You can never admit that you are wrong, can you? I can argue against Wallace on this point if I wish, but my point in my above post was that articular does not mean definite just as definite does not mean articular, the concepts are different in Greek.

Do we at least agree on that point?


I happen to disagree. I believe Wallace hits the nail right on the head actually! Further, I never stated that a definite noun must be articular, and so where am I wrong? The very point of Colwell's rule is that definite predicate nominatives usually are not articular! Yet this was hardly a diversionary tactic as you claim,


The PN is the object! That was the point! Any Pn is equated (to some extent) with the subject. Therefore, the object (positionally speaking) is equated with the subject. You contradict yourself above.

The PN is the predicate, but it identifies what the subject is. The object I speak of is hO QEOS (TON QEON), the Father. If QEOS in 1c is definite, we are equating the two.


Assumption. We could go to Hebrews, if need be, and show that this is not necessarily true. Again, not something I want to delve into.

Again, I clearly stated that it is what is not a disputed text. Hebrews 1:8, which is clearly the reference you are making, is a disputed text.


And where is this published? I have seen this online, but I have never seen such a distinction 1) in a peer reviewed journal nor 2) in a grammar. As such, I am unlikely to buy whatever is posted on the internet. So again, can you quote a grammar this is in instead of a possibility put forth by a doctoral student?

Sure, Wallace, GGBB, p. 266, just over the black arrow.

Also, did you read the last paragraph:



So once again your point is irrelevent.[/QUOTE]

[Jaltus]

I happen to disagree. I believe Wallace hits the nail right on the head actually! Further, I never stated that a definite noun must be articular, and so where am I wrong? The very point of Colwell's rule is that definite predicate nominatives usually are not articular! Yet this was hardly a diversionary tactic as you claim,

You are still unclear.

My question to you is this: does articular mean definite or can something be articular while not definite and definite while not articular.

That is all I am asking. You seem to answer it both yes and no. Please answer without equivocating.


The PN is the predicate, but it identifies what the subject is. The object I speak of is hO QEOS (TON QEON), the Father. If QEOS in 1c is definite, we are equating the two.

Why does definiteness mean exact identification (i.e. one to one correspondance)? I have never seen that elucidated in a grammar.


Again, I clearly stated that it is what is not a disputed text. Hebrews 1:8, which is clearly the reference you are making, is a disputed text.

Your English in the first sentence here is unclear. I am assuming you mean that Hebrews is debated and therefore you do not wish to discuss it either. Basically, every text I would cite as evidence you would dispute, is that not the nature of this disagreement in the first place?


Sure, Wallace, GGBB, p. 266, just over the black arrow.

What are you tlaking about? He describes only I, Q, or D. There is none of this Q-I or anything. Therefore, AGAIN, no grammar makes the distinction you are alleging exists.

[Jaltus]

Ahhh, I found where you are talking about in Wallace. He does indeed mention the possibility of I-Q or Q-I, but disallows such a reading for John 1:1.

Wallace goes on to note that there is significant overlap between indefinite and qualitative, which is what I believe he is referring to. At the same time, I cannot see you holding to his definitions in this case.

266 "the focus of a qualitative noun is on the attributes that the class members share."

269 "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."

My problem with both his take and yours is the assumption that QEOS must refer to the Father. How can one determine that from the context? It must be eisegesis, AFAICT.

[Tsmith]

You are still unclear.

My question to you is this: does articular mean definite or can something be articular while not definite and definite while not articular.

That is all I am asking. You seem to answer it both yes and no. Please answer without equivocating.

How much clearer can I possibly be? As I clearly stated, Colwell's rule clearly states that definite PNs usually lack the article, meaning they are anarthrous, not articular. I am not equivocating. They are definite while not being articular. Lacking an article does not automatically make something indefinite. Based on this I am assuming you can gather my answer to be "yes".


Why does definiteness mean exact identification (i.e. one to one correspondance)? I have never seen that elucidated in a grammar.

Because it equates who the Logos is with who the Logos is with. This is the very reason Wallace states John 1:1c is not definite.

Your English in the first sentence here is unclear. I am assuming you mean that Hebrews is debated and therefore you do not wish to discuss it either. Basically, every text I would cite as evidence you would dispute, is that not the nature of this disagreement in the first place?

You apparently missed what I originally stated. I stated that the only undisputed texts where Jesus is identified as QEOS are John 1:1 and 1:18. The rest are disputed (J 20:28, Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:1; Heb. 1:8). *I* do not dispute all of them, but that does not change the fact that they are indeed disputed. Technically even John 1:1 is disputed, but not as commonly as the others.



What are you tlaking about? He describes only I, Q, or D. There is none of this Q-I or anything. Therefore, AGAIN, no grammar makes the distinction you are alleging exists.

Apparently you did not read where I said to look. I guess I'd better quote it for you. "For other potential indefinite predicate nominatives (many of which might better be classified as indefinite-qualitative or qualitative-indefinite)..." And just to be perfectly clear, when I speak of Q-I that stands for "qualitative-indefinite".

[Tsmith]

Ahhh, I found where you are talking about in Wallace. He does indeed mention the possibility of I-Q or Q-I, but disallows such a reading for John 1:1.

Wallace goes on to note that there is significant overlap between indefinite and qualitative, which is what I believe he is referring to. At the same time, I cannot see you holding to his definitions in this case.

266 "the focus of a qualitative noun is on the attributes that the class members share."

269 "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."

My problem with both his take and yours is the assumption that QEOS must refer to the Father. How can one determine that from the context? It must be eisegesis, AFAICT.

Glad you found it.. I typed my most recent post while this one was being done, so I did not see it prior. Wallace's basis in dismissing an indefinite reading are two-fold and not entirely true. First he states that it is argued for "one the sole basis that the term is anarthrous", which is simply untrue. Second, he argues that "it would be the only anarthrous pre-verbial PN in John's Gospel to be [indefinite]", which is also untrue (c.f John 6:70).

Now, I would certainly agree that God and Jesus do share attributes, and so it functioning as a class noun would be very accurate. However, simply because they share some or even many qualities, it does not mean they share them all (i.e. Judas, though a devil, is not the Father of the lie, a demon, the god of this system, etc, etc).

Now, for the "assumption" that QEOS must refer to the Father, who else would you have it refer to in John 1:1b?

Btw, do you not conceed your point as incorrect when you falsely stated that "no grammar makes the distinction you are alleging exists"?

[Jaltus]

Glad you found it.. I typed my most recent post while this one was being done, so I did not see it prior. Wallace's basis in dismissing an indefinite reading are two-fold and not entirely true. First he states that it is argued for "one the sole basis that the term is anarthrous", which is simply untrue. Second, he argues that "it would be the only anarthrous pre-verbial PN in John's Gospel to be [indefinite]", which is also untrue (c.f John 6:70).

Again, isn't that qualitative rather than indefinite? Do you really think that Judas was some kind of demon?

Now, I would certainly agree that God and Jesus do share attributes, and so it functioning as a class noun would be very accurate. However, simply because they share some or even many qualities, it does not mean they share them all (i.e. Judas, though a devil, is not the Father of the lie, a demon, the god of this system, etc, etc).

Again, I fail to see how QEOS can be a class noun. A class noun is one in which a singular can be used for plural referents, but that is not (AFAIK) the case for QEOS. It is singular when singular is meant and plural when plural is meant (please no red herring about Elohim).

Now, for the "assumption" that QEOS must refer to the Father, who else would you have it refer to in John 1:1b?

God the essence. Backham and others have shown that in Second Temple literature QEOS is an umbrella term under which more than just the Father can fit.

Btw, do you not conceed your point as incorrect when you falsely stated that "no grammar makes the distinction you are alleging exists"?

Other than this being a double negative and thus impossible to respond to, I will say this: I missed the section in Wallace. You were correct that it was there.

Will you now concede that I was correct about the article and definiteness?

[Tsmith]

Again, isn't that qualitative rather than indefinite? Do you really think that Judas was some kind of demon?


I would argue for qualitative-indefinite, and 99.9% of the translation out there do render it indefinitely.


Again, I fail to see how QEOS can be a class noun. A class noun is one in which a singular can be used for plural referents, but that is not (AFAIK) the case for QEOS. It is singular when singular is meant and plural when plural is meant (please no red herring about Elohim).


If one belongs to the class of QEOS, would they not be a QEOS? Even God is at times called "a god". And since you do not want Elohim used, how about Psalms 82:6 LXX. :)


God the essence. Backham and others have shown that in Second Temple literature QEOS is an umbrella term under which more than just the Father can fit.


God has an essence, but you can be a god without having the essence of Jehovah.


Other than this being a double negative and thus impossible to respond to, I will say this: I missed the section in Wallace. You were correct that it was there.

Yeah it was. Guess I should watch my grammar!


Will you now concede that I was correct about the article and definiteness?

That a noun does not require the article to be definite? I never claimed otherwise!

[exaJeet]

Will you now concede that I was correct about the article and definiteness?

Jaltus,
I have read just about the whole thread and I will concede that you are correct on the usage of the article and definiteness. Tsmith has been shown this before... he often confuses anarthrous / arthrous / articular / definiteness and indefiniteness. He uses some terms synomonously when they shouldn't be and he tried to drive a wedge between terms that can be used interchangable. I guess this is what we should expect when he has only memorized a few greek phrases, words and grammatical terms.


anyhow.....
blessings.

exaJeet.

[Jaltus]

I would argue for qualitative-indefinite, and 99.9% of the translation out there do render it indefinitely.

Translators are not to be taken as authorities. Look at grammars and commentaries.

If one belongs to the class of QEOS, would they not be a QEOS? Even God is at times called "a god". And since you do not want Elohim used, how about Psalms 82:6 LXX. :)

Psalm 82:6 in the LXX does not use the word QEOS in it. Psalm 81:6 LXX does, but it is again in the plural and therefore outside the bounds of what we are discussing. I specifically stated that the singular is NEVER used as a class noun, and you have yet to give any evidence against my point.

Thus, QEOS is not a class noun.

God has an essence, but you can be a god without having the essence of Jehovah.

Theological assumption. Psalm 81:6 LXX seemingly states otherwise anyway.


Yeah it was. Guess I should watch my grammar!

No worries. My Greek grammar tends to be better than my English.

That a noun does not require the article to be definite? I never claimed otherwise!

I had a feeling you would say that. What you said was this:

Within this text the Father is spoken of as hO QEOS. If we identify the Logos then as hO QEOS, which if we take the PN QEOS as definite we effectively do, we equate the LOGOS with who the LOGOS is with, thus resulting in modalism.

This is wrong. Your underlying assumption in this post is that definiteness = articularity. That is FALSE, which means your point must be retracted as it is overturned now.

[Tsmith]

Translators are not to be taken as authorities. Look at grammars and commentaries.

I checked a couple of grammatical commentaries. Found the same thing.



Psalm 82:6 in the LXX does not use the word QEOS in it. Psalm 81:6 LXX does, but it is again in the plural and therefore outside the bounds of what we are discussing. I specifically stated that the singular is NEVER used as a class noun, and you have yet to give any evidence against my point.

Thus, QEOS is not a class noun.


Well that is a rather bold assertion to make. Rather similar to stating that no grammar speaks of a Q-I classification? If they are gods, any one of them would be a god, thereby belonging to the class of "god".


Theological assumption. Psalm 81:6 LXX seemingly states otherwise anyway.


You have yet to prove otherwise. Those spoken of in Psalms are human, yet termed gods.


I had a feeling you would say that. What you said was this:

Within this text the Father is spoken of as hO QEOS. If we identify the Logos then as hO QEOS, which if we take the PN QEOS as definite we effectively do, we equate the LOGOS with who the LOGOS is with, thus resulting in modalism.

This is wrong. Your underlying assumption in this post is that definiteness = articularity. That is FALSE, which means your point must be retracted as it is overturned now.

I was not assuming that definiteness = articularity, and I have already clearly stated that I hold no such view. The key word within my text is "effectively", as the effect is there, but the article is lacking. If we take QEOS as definite, we equate the Son with the Father, as Wallace clearly stated.

[Tsmith]

Jaltus,
I have read just about the whole thread and I will concede that you are correct on the usage of the article and definiteness. Tsmith has been shown this before... he often confuses anarthrous / arthrous / articular / definiteness and indefiniteness. He uses some terms synomonously when they shouldn't be and he tried to drive a wedge between terms that can be used interchangable. I guess this is what we should expect when he has only memorized a few greek phrases, words and grammatical terms.


anyhow.....
blessings.

exaJeet.

Your blindness simply amazes me. I have clearly said otherwise, yet you do not pay attention. I make no such confusion.

[exaJeet]

If they are gods, any one of them would be a god, thereby belonging to the class of "god".


So Tsmith is admitting that he is a polytheist?? Good for him.... finally admitting what his Watchtower actually teaches.


I was not assuming that definiteness = articularity, and I have already clearly stated that I hold no such view.


Dave, you have confused definiteness and articularity (arthrous) and anarthrous many many times.

Your lack of understanding of the basics in Greek causes you to confuse yourself when discussing something that you find more difficult.


:popcorn:


exajeet

[exaJeet]

Your blindness simply amazes me. I have clearly said otherwise, yet you do not pay attention. I make no such confusion.


Actually, you HAVE confused these issues.... and others on Tweb have picked up on your confusion also.



exaJeet.

[Jaltus]

I checked a couple of grammatical commentaries. Found the same thing.

Care to name them?


Well that is a rather bold assertion to make. Rather similar to stating that no grammar speaks of a Q-I classification? If they are gods, any one of them would be a god, thereby belonging to the class of "god".

Red herring. The point is AGAIN that the singular is not used in such a way in Greek. I used never to get your attention, mind you. I admit that it could occur in Classical, but you have not given any evidence that it can in Koine. And just because I was wrong about one thing does not mean I am wrong about this. I did notice, however, that Wallace never discusses Q-D, which you said was discussed in grammars. That would seem to be more of a draw than a mark on your side, wouldn't you say?

Then again, if someone is wrong, I try not to rub their nose in it. I believe humans make mistakes, and if they are willing to won up to it, then I let it slide, Obviously you are not willing to won up to mistakes about Greek, only about English as we will see below.


You have yet to prove otherwise. Those spoken of in Psalms are human, yet termed gods.

Did you see why they were termed gods? "Psalm 82:6 sons of the Most High"

They are in some way related to the Most High, which is why they are gods. Thus, there is a connection to Adonai.

I was not assuming that definiteness = articularity, and I have already clearly stated that I hold no such view. The key word within my text is "effectively", as the effect is there, but the article is lacking. If we take QEOS as definite, we equate the Son with the Father, as Wallace clearly stated.

Once again, you are stating one thing, but arguing the exact opposite. Just because the noun could be definite, you see it as meaning total equality. However, as I had shown in a previous post in this thread (page 3, I believe, possibly earlier), definiteness without the article means no such thing. The example I gave was The Christ is Jesus. Obviously Jesus is definite, but He is not limited to only being the Christ (which is what a full equivalence calls for). Thus your point, and consequentally the argument you think Wallace makes, is incorrect.

Of course, you will not admit such a thing. We both know you nuanced your language, but we both know exactly what you meant. You want to say that definiteness means it exactly the same thing as having the article, even though I clearly showed you previously that it is not the case.

Are you willing to admit you are wrong?

[Shadow Phoenix]

Dave tends to go diving in the deep end of the ocean when he hasn't learned how to wade in shallow water yet. That's one reason I'm not touching Granville Sharp yet in my own post on Titus 2:13. One must learn basics before diving deep lest they drown or be eaten by sharks.

[Tsmith]

Care to name them?

I check Robertson's and Vincent's commentaries.


Red herring. The point is AGAIN that the singular is not used in such a way in Greek. I used never to get your attention, mind you. I admit that it could occur in Classical, but you have not given any evidence that it can in Koine. And just because I was wrong about one thing does not mean I am wrong about this. I did notice, however, that Wallace never discusses Q-D, which you said was discussed in grammars. That would seem to be more of a draw than a mark on your side, wouldn't you say?

Do you honestly believe that Wallace believes in a qualitative-indefinite and not a qualitative-definite? Do I need to dig and find a reference to that? Come on!

If in Koine there are "gods", how can you possibly argue that there is not a class of "god" that each individually belong to, thereby making each a god?



Then again, if someone is wrong, I try not to rub their nose in it. I believe humans make mistakes, and if they are willing to won up to it, then I let it slide, Obviously you are not willing to won up to mistakes about Greek, only about English as we will see below.

If I am willing to admit mistakes in English, my native language, why would I not be willing to do as much in Greek? That makes little sense.


Did you see why they were termed gods? "Psalm 82:6 sons of the Most High"

Yet that has nothing to do with nature, that has to do with adoption, when God appointed them to their positions. Solomon was even called God's son.


They are in some way related to the Most High, which is why they are gods. Thus, there is a connection to Adonai.

What does this have to do with essence though? It is purely functional.


Once again, you are stating one thing, but arguing the exact opposite. Just because the noun could be definite, you see it as meaning total equality. However, as I had shown in a previous post in this thread (page 3, I believe, possibly earlier), definiteness without the article means no such thing. The example I gave was The Christ is Jesus. Obviously Jesus is definite, but He is not limited to only being the Christ (which is what a full equivalence calls for). Thus your point, and consequentally the argument you think Wallace makes, is incorrect.

I fail to see how your example does you any good. I am not saying that Jesus is limited to only being something, but that Jesus is equated with something. This does not mean he cannot be beyond what he is equated with, but that he is fully it.


Of course, you will not admit such a thing. We both know you nuanced your language, but we both know exactly what you meant. You want to say that definiteness means it exactly the same thing as having the article, even though I clearly showed you previously that it is not the case.

Are you willing to admit you are wrong?

Why would I myself make a claim as you stated when I myself stated that articularness does not equate to definiteness. Perhaps you should go back and review my posts before you claim what you *think* I was saying. If you read the total sum of all I said, you will note that I am clearly not stating what you think I am, for I would be contradicting myself!

[Shadow Phoenix]

I check Robertson's and Vincent's commentaries.

I will not speak of Vincent but if Robertson was here now, what would he tell you about the deity of Christ?




Do you honestly believe that Wallace believes in a qualitative-indefinite and not a qualitative-definite? Do I need to dig and find a reference to that? Come on!

First off, why should I believe you know what you're talking about? Secondly, if you want to state what Wallace believes, give evidence.

If in Koine there are "gods", how can you possibly argue that there is not a class of "god" that each individually belong to, thereby making each a god?

mmmmm. Let me think about this some.....It's a Jewish work and Jews were monotheists? Finding a defintion of Qeos that would mean functioning as a god would mean one thing. However, when looking up definitions of a word, you don't just apply the definition you like to the word you come across but the definition that the author intended. To do otherwise is reader-response criticism and if you want to go there, then I can just go to your webpage, use the same practice, and walk away saying you teach Trinitarianism by simply defining all words as I see fit.




If I am willing to admit mistakes in English, my native language, why would I not be willing to do as much in Greek? That makes little sense.

Um.....Because you haven't yet? You're too busy trying to maintain the image of a Greek expert and admitting a mistake would be too dangerous to that image. You're not claiming to be an expert in English after all.




Yet that has nothing to do with nature, that has to do with adoption, when God appointed them to their positions. Solomon was even called God's son.

mmmmm.......So we can lower Jesus to the rank of Solomon? Maybe we should accept the adoptionist position that Jesus was chosen by God at his baptism as well? By the way, how does this fit with chapter 12 of "The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived"? (Where the WT again gives a false view of the Trinity, but I suppose misleading is okay.)



What does this have to do with essence though? It is purely functional.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Galatians 4:8



I fail to see how your example does you any good. I am not saying that Jesus is limited to only being something, but that Jesus is equated with something. This does not mean he cannot be beyond what he is equated with, but that he is fully it.

Cool. Then Jesus can go beyond being a functional "god" and be the God of the universe. Got it!



Why would I myself make a claim as you stated when I myself stated that articularness does not equate to definiteness. Perhaps you should go back and review my posts before you claim what you *think* I was saying. If you read the total sum of all I said, you will note that I am clearly not stating what you think I am, for I would be contradicting myself!

And you certainly could. I see atheists do it all the time within the same debate. I've even seen people contradict themselves within the same sentence. If your worldview is not true, there will be contradiction at some point. Also, because you don't realize a contradiction doesn't mean there isn't one.

[Tsmith]

I will not speak of Vincent but if Robertson was here now, what would he tell you about the deity of Christ?






First off, why should I believe you know what you're talking about? Secondly, if you want to state what Wallace believes, give evidence.



mmmmm. Let me think about this some.....It's a Jewish work and Jews were monotheists? Finding a defintion of Qeos that would mean functioning as a god would mean one thing. However, when looking up definitions of a word, you don't just apply the definition you like to the word you come across but the definition that the author intended. To do otherwise is reader-response criticism and if you want to go there, then I can just go to your webpage, use the same practice, and walk away saying you teach Trinitarianism by simply defining all words as I see fit.






Um.....Because you haven't yet? You're too busy trying to maintain the image of a Greek expert and admitting a mistake would be too dangerous to that image. You're not claiming to be an expert in English after all.






mmmmm.......So we can lower Jesus to the rank of Solomon? Maybe we should accept the adoptionist position that Jesus was chosen by God at his baptism as well? By the way, how does this fit with chapter 12 of "The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived"? (Where the WT again gives a false view of the Trinity, but I suppose misleading is okay.)





I couldn't have said it better myself. Galatians 4:8





Cool. Then Jesus can go beyond being a functional "god" and be the God of the universe. Got it!





And you certainly could. I see atheists do it all the time within the same debate. I've even seen people contradict themselves within the same sentence. If your worldview is not true, there will be contradiction at some point. Also, because you don't realize a contradiction doesn't mean there isn't one.


Nick,

Believe what you want. You clearly have not read this thread very careful or you would find the answers to some of the questions you ask (like proof about what I said about Wallace). I've come to expect this though. Most Trinitarians here are just cheerleaders, lacking any real substance.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Nick,

Believe what you want. You clearly have not read this thread very careful or you would find the answers to some of the questions you ask (like proof about what I said about Wallace). I've come to expect this though. Most Trinitarians here are just cheerleaders, lacking any real substance.

hmmm. A brilliant refutation. Considering that's the point of topic now though, the questions are fair to ask.

[barryrob]

Please reread this more thoroughly. Do not pick it apart out of context:


[Jn 1:1c]:



"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

1) "THEOS" = GOD IN THE 3RD CLAUSE PRECEDES AND IS THE PREDICATE NOMINATIVE OF THE INTRANSITIVE, COPULATIVE VERB "WAS" IDENTIFYING "LOGOS". THERE IS NO DEFINITE ARTICLE REQUIRED. IT DOES NOT REFER TO 'A' GOD

"Theos" is a predicate nominative of "was" in the emphatic position at the beginning of the third clause without the definite article. The absence of the definite article, however, does not demand that "Theos" be interpreted "a god" with the indefinite article as some suggest.

First of all, New Testament Greek does not possess an indefinite article ('a/an'), but it does have an indefinite pronoun ('a certain one', Greek 'tis') the very word that a Greek reader would expect here if the point was that Christ was somehow a god, but not really 'God.'

Secondly, the verb "was" = "en", (to be), is copulative and intransitive, i.e., it joins two subjects together in meaning as the context permits and takes no object, respectively. Said in another way, there can be no direct object following "was" because intransitive copulative verbs take no objects but take instead predicate nominatives which refer back in meaning to the subject of the clause. Hence, Jn 1:1c joins the two subjects = "Theos" and = "Logos" in meaning where the former being without an article and in view of the previous phrases describes the quality of the latter. Hence "Logos", the Word is described by everything that "Theos", God is.

Mark it down that in every instance where we need to construe one nominative as the predicate nominative, the predicate nominative is anarthrous. Accordingly, if one nominative is articular and the other is anarthrous, the anarthrous nominative is in the predicate, and the articular nominative is the subject.

On the other hand, if both of the nouns in a predicate nominative construction have the article, or if both lack the article, the two nouns become interchangeable. If there had been an article in front of "Theos", then John would have been telling us that "God was the Word" as well as "the Word was God." But there is no article in front of "Theos" so author John is not teaching that Jesus Christ and God [the Father] were both the same person. Hence we avoid the heresy of modalism and a contradiction since the Word cannot be with God if both are one and the same.

Therefore, in view of the emphatic position of "Theos" (God) at the beginning of Jn 1:1c and the lack of a definite article in Jn 1:1c pointing to it as the predicate nominative which describes the subject,"ho Logos", (the Word); we conclude that the qualities of God, i.e., His divine essence which only God can possess, are indicated as qualities which are inherent in "Logos" = "the Word". So "Theos" in this phrase means that the Word has the nature, qualities and essences of the One and only God, i.e., God is the Word.

So to translate it 'a god' as some individuals do is both incorrect grammar, poor Greek and totally out of context. The Word, then, can be no one else except God.

Thirdly, earlier in the verse, the apostle John used the definite article with the Greek word Theos to refer to God [the Father] according to customary usage, and so to use the identical combination again to refer to the Word would be potentially confusing, making it seem as if 'the Word' was really identical to God the Father God', one of the very points that John is disproving here.

So John only had three ways to write this:

1) the Word as 'the God' (but this would mean that there was no real distinction between the Father and the Word)

2) the Word was 'a certain god' (but this would mean that the Word was a lesser sort of divinity, not God on the level of the Father

3) 'God' was the Word - what John actually did write, thus fully and unambiguously attributing the essence of God to the Word as distinct from the Father.



We see that the noun god can mean various things, but we will look at two points here. First that god is a “generic” term and secondly a ‘specific’ term.

In John 1:1 we see the usage of both with the phrase “the God” (Greek. “ton theon”), this is specific or absolute (an “only one of something”) and is referring to Almighty God, the Father, and “god” (Greek. theos) in a “generic” sense, referring to “the Word,” God’s son. The Greek reads, when translated into English, “and god was the Word” without the article, “god” and here is in the “generic” sense referring to a “class” of beings called “god” and not as with “God” (“the God”) which is in an absolute sense, so to render this correctly in English the indefinite article** (“a” or “an”) is applied, thus reading “a god” as in “The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures’ which reads “and the Word was a god.”

barryrob

[Cal_Minian]

Here again you are using stuff right out of the Watchtower. Either you are going to stick to the Interlinear and the English translation - and you can see that the Greek grammar is identical in all phrases cited - or we can just forget it. No more Society apologetics - stick to the text. Read the English corresponding to the Greek in the Interlinear.

By the way, Beduhn's work is highly suspect, to me, as it is promoted by your organization. Could you list any other Greek scholars that agree with him, or support his version? I don't believe so. Interestingly, Beduhn favors the translation of John 1:1 to be: and the word was divine.

See: http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm

The above site gives you a brief rundown on various scholars who have been used in defense of the NWT translation - and whether they really support it.

So, now, let's stick to the text.

BTW D.A. Carson in his book Exegetical Fallacies also says Colwell misapplied his rule to John 1:1. This is not even debatable.

-Cal