in the beginning was the "word"

[Dirty Penguin]

But my point was if the line clearly said this, we wouldn't have any history of controversy.

I'm not too sure about that. John 8:58 and Isaiah 7:14 come to mind with respect to translation and interpretation.

We do because grammaticaly the line says "and the logos was god." Whether or not theos is "qualitative" rather than definite (which is from an a posteriori probability point of view unlikely) is a good question. Grammar is one thing, but the context of John has to be considered as well.

Which part of John, just the beginning (john 1:1) or John as a whole? To me John as a whole reveals the biblical Yeshua is not "God" nor was it something he taught his followers.

Even if the most likely grammatical view is that theos is definite, there is still the question of how likely it is that the author of John conceptualized a pre-existing "mind" of god, which was god, and which "became flesh" through the person of Jesus.

If it supposed to be definite as it is in the Coptic language then there could be a general shift in how that verse is perceived. But I don't think the Coptic John 1:1 alone is enough to substantiate a change.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I think the Scholars pegg is referring to could be Greber and thompson other than those you have to go really obscure to defend their position.

We'd have to find out what motives prompted the renderings they have verses how it is rendered in mainstream bible versions. It may be trinitarian vs. non trinitarian but I'm not sure.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm not too sure about that. John 8:58 and Isaiah 7:14 come to mind with respect to translation and interpretation.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant (in this case) controversy with respect to the prologue of John. We were bound to have christological conflicts regardless. However, I think the prologue of John was the center of controversy at least as far as the divinity of Jesus was concerned.

Which part of John, just the beginning (john 1:1) or John as a whole? To me John as a whole reveals the biblical Yeshua is not "God" nor was it something he taught his followers.

I'm not familiar enough with studies on Johannine theology in general to say much there. My knowledge of christian theology comes from an interest in history, and thus is indirect. It may be (as I indicated previously), that the purely syntactical/grammatical probability that John 1:1 is definite rather than qualitative is overwhemed by the context of Johannine theology. However, this still does not get us "a god."

If it supposed to be definite as it is in the Coptic language then there could be a general shift in how that verse is perceived. But I don't think the Coptic John 1:1 alone is enough to substantiate a change.

I would agree.

 

[miss interpret]

We'd have to find out what motives prompted the renderings they have verses how it is rendered in mainstream bible versions. It may be trinitarian vs. non trinitarian but I'm not sure.

The scholars who stand against the NWT do so usually on the fact that it's translation is heavily biased on the doctrine of Jesus not being God and there many changes hinge on that very point even to the extent that it makes there changes inconsistant.

 

[Pegg]

The scholars who stand against the NWT do so usually on the fact that it's translation is heavily biased on the doctrine of Jesus not being God and there many changes hinge on that very point even to the extent that it makes there changes inconsistant.

inconsistent as compared to what? And do you have some examples of inconsistency that can be examined?

 

[miss interpret]

inconsistent as compared to what? And do you have some examples of inconsistency that can be examined?

Inconsistency with itself as well as practically every other translation, someone posted earlier concerning how it happily translated one thing correctly so many times then randomly as something else on different times.the changes always revolve around the deity of Jesus.

 

[Thief]

what does that mean "the darkness has not overcome it"?

And thankyou for your response. im really fascinated by this it sticks with me in a huge way. Everyone has something in faith that clicks to them. Or sends up a spark. This clicks with me.

In the beginning...
All things were without form....void.
No light....no darkness.

In speaking...'Let there be light'....the 'darkness' was broken.
The uniform perfection of the 'word' was now a creation.
One 'word' follows another....so here we are.

Funny you would say...'sends up a spark'.

 

[Pegg]

Inconsistency with itself as well as practically every other translation, someone posted earlier concerning how it happily translated one thing correctly so many times then randomly as something else on different times.the changes always revolve around the deity of Jesus.

I hate to tell you this, but what you are accusing the NWT of doing, all translators have done...only in the opposite direction.
They fail to include a definite article at John 1:1, whereas in a multitude of other verses with the same grammar construction, the do insert an 'a'

The grammar construction is that of the singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, that is the construction of the latter part of John 1:1
the Word - was a god. 'god' is the singular anarthrous predicate noun because it is not preceeded by the definite article 'ho the·os′ as it is in the first part of the verse
'kai the·os′ en ho lo′gos

and god was the word'
'ho' is the equivalent of 'the', yet in this section of the verse, 'theos' is not preceded by 'ho' ....so Jesus is not 'The' God who is identified in the beginning of the verse.

the same construction is found in such verses as Mr 6:49 "At catching sight of him walking on the sea they thought: “It is an apparition!” and they cried aloud

Mark 11:32 "But dare we say, ‘From men’?”—They were in fear of the crowd, for these all held that John had really been a prophet"

John 4:19 The woman said to him: “Sir, I perceive you are a prophet.
In these verses translators insert the indefinite article “a” before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject.


Since they readily insert an indefinite article before the predicate noun in these texts, with equal justification the indefinite article “a” should be inserted before the anarthrous 'theos' in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read “a god.”

But they choose not to. Our translation is consistent in this regard whereas most other translations are inconsistent.

 

[bribrius]

I hate to tell you this, but what you are accusing the NWT of doing, all translators have done...only in the opposite direction.
They fail to include a definite article at John 1:1, whereas in a multitude of other verses with the same grammar construction, the do insert an 'a'

The grammar construction is that of the singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, that is the construction of the latter part of John 1:1
the Word - was a god. 'god' is the singular anarthrous predicate noun because it is not preceeded by the definite article 'ho the·os′ as it is in the first part of the verse
'kai the·os′ en ho lo′gos

and god was the word'
'ho' is the equivalent of 'the', yet in this section of the verse, 'theos' is not preceded by 'ho' ....so Jesus is not 'The' God who is identified in the beginning of the verse.

the same construction is found in such verses as Mr 6:49 "At catching sight of him walking on the sea they thought: “It is an apparition!” and they cried aloud

Mark 11:32 "But dare we say, ‘From men’?”—They were in fear of the crowd, for these all held that John had really been a prophet"

John 4:19 The woman said to him: “Sir, I perceive you are a prophet.
In these verses translators insert the indefinite article “a” before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject.


Since they readily insert an indefinite article before the predicate noun in these texts, with equal justification the indefinite article “a” should be inserted before the anarthrous 'theos' in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read “a god.”

But they choose not to. Our translation is consistent in this regard whereas most other translations are inconsistent.

so are you saying they believed in more than one God? Or that the word is comparable to a God?

How does that equate to the tranferrance to jesus following that?

 

[miss interpret]

I hate to tell you this, but what you are accusing the NWT of doing, all translators have done...only in the opposite direction.
They fail to include a definite article at John 1:1, whereas in a multitude of other verses with the same grammar construction, the do insert an 'a'

The grammar construction is that of the singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, that is the construction of the latter part of John 1:1
the Word - was a god. 'god' is the singular anarthrous predicate noun because it is not preceeded by the definite article 'ho the·os′ as it is in the first part of the verse
'kai the·os′ en ho lo′gos

and god was the word'
'ho' is the equivalent of 'the', yet in this section of the verse, 'theos' is not preceded by 'ho' ....so Jesus is not 'The' God who is identified in the beginning of the verse.

the same construction is found in such verses as Mr 6:49 "At catching sight of him walking on the sea they thought: “It is an apparition!” and they cried aloud

Mark 11:32 "But dare we say, ‘From men’?”—They were in fear of the crowd, for these all held that John had really been a prophet"

John 4:19 The woman said to him: “Sir, I perceive you are a prophet.
In these verses translators insert the indefinite article “a” before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject.


Since they readily insert an indefinite article before the predicate noun in these texts, with equal justification the indefinite article “a” should be inserted before the anarthrous 'theos' in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read “a god.”

But they choose not to. Our translation is consistent in this regard whereas most other translations are inconsistent.

you can say this till you are blue in the face the NWT changes are inconsistent and done purely on the basis of its own doctrine, the fact remains it can get it right when it feels like it.The rest it seems to make up as it goes as its constant need for change has proven.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The grammar construction is that of the singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, that is the construction of the latter part of John 1:1
the Word - was a god. 'god' is the singular anarthrous predicate noun because it is not preceeded by the definite article 'ho the·os′ as it is in the first part of the verse
'kai the·os′ en ho lo′gos

and god was the word'
'ho' is the equivalent of 'the',

It isn't. Not just because it does more than make a noun or NP definite, but because "the" has a counterpart: "a".

yet in this section of the verse, 'theos' is not preceded by 'ho' ....so Jesus is not 'The' God who is identified in the beginning of the verse.

The use of ton theon immediately prior is part of a prepositional phrase. It isn't a predicated noun.

the same construction is found in such verses as Mr 6:49 "At catching sight of him walking on the sea they thought: “It is an apparition!” and they cried aloud

This is completely different. The line reads hoi de idontes auton epi tes thalasses peripatounta edoxen hoti phantasma estin. There is no "at" nor "they" nor " "it." Literally, the subject is "the ones having seen." The article plus an aorist participle. The main verb of the clause edoxen (thought) is followed by hoti or "that." Then all we have is phantasma estin. Literally "phantom/apparition is." The predicate corresponds to an implied "something" by the 3rd person estin. This isn't true in John 1:1, where ho logos, a definite nount, is preceded by a predicate noun.

Mark 11:32 "But dare we say, ‘From men’?”—They were in fear of the crowd, for these all held that John had really been a prophet"

Same thing. hoti phrophetes en. "en" here is the imperfect 3rd person copula "to be." Again, we don't have a corresponding definite non. "John" is in the accusative case, while "prophet" is in the nominative. They aren't part of the same clause.

John 4:19 The woman said to him: “Sir, I perceive you are a prophet.
In these verses translators insert the indefinite article “a” before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject.

Here "you" is part of the predicate construction. But it isn't a definite noun. It's a pronoun. It lacks the article we see in John 1:1 (and must, as it is a pronoun).

Since they readily insert an indefinite article before the predicate noun in these texts, with equal justification the indefinite article “a” should be inserted before the anarthrous 'theos' in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read “a god.”

That might be true if you used comparable examples. Two of your examples have nothing except the predicate noun. The other has a pronoun. The question is what happens when we have a definite noun joined by a copula and preceded by a predicate anarthrous noun?

Our translation is consistent in this regard whereas most other translations are inconsistent.

It isn't. Not even in John's prologue. In John 1:1-18 theos appears 8 times. Only twice does it have the article. Only once does the NWT use "the god," but six times translates it as God. The only time it has "a god" is in this one construction. So, for example, despite the fact that para theou in John 1:6 has no definite article, the NWT translates it as "God."

 

[Pegg]

It isn't. Not just because it does more than make a noun or NP definite, but because "the" has a counterpart: "a".


The use of ton theon immediately prior is part of a prepositional phrase. It isn't a predicated noun.

the Word was with God [ton the·on′], and the Word was God [the·os′].”

this is the problem....the first part of the sentence identifies the Word as being with 'ton theon' which means the Word was with The God.

the latter part of the verse simply says that 'and the word was theos'

So there are two forms of the Greek noun the·os′ (god). The first is preceded by ton (the), which refers to Almighty God. But in the second it has no definite article. What does that mean?...

scholar James Allen Hewett says: “In such a construction the subject and predicate are not the same, equal, identical, or anything of the sort.”

He goes onto illustrate this, citing 1 John 1:5, which says: “God is light.” In Greek, “God” is ho the·os′ and therefore has a definite article. But phos for “light” is not preceded by any article. One can always . . . say of God He is characterized by light; one cannot always say of light that it is God.” Similar examples are found at John 4:24, “God is a Spirit,” and at 1 John 4:16, “God is love.” In both of these verses, the subjects have definite articles but the predicates, “Spirit” and “love,” do not. So the subjects and predicates are not interchangeable. These verses cannot mean that “Spirit is God” or “love is God.”

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So there are two forms of the Greek noun the·os′ (god). The first is preceded by ton (the),

ton does not mean "the." When you refer to people by their name, do you say things like "Hello, the John!" or "Good morning, the Paul!" ? I would suspect not. Yet the greek article is used here. As it is in many places we wouldn't say the (and not in many places we would).

which refers to Almighty God. But in the second it has no definite article. What does that mean?...

What does it mean in John 1:6, when there is again no article?

He goes onto illustrate this, citing 1 John 1:5, which says: “God is light.”

Why not "a light"?

 

[Pegg]

ton does not mean "the." When you refer to people by their name, do you say things like "Hello, the John!" or "Good morning, the Paul!" ? I would suspect not. Yet the greek article is used here. As it is in many places we wouldn't say the (and not in many places we would).

'The God' is a reference to a particular God. The Almighty.

theos alone can be a reference to any god, not necessarily the 'Almighty'....thats the difference.

What does it mean in John 1:6, when there is again no article?

no article needs to be used because there is only one theos being mentioned. The theos who sent John the baptizer into the world.

"There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of God: his name was John"

but in John 1:1, the article is used because John was speaking about two separate gods. The Almighty and Jesus. He used the article to differentiate between the two thus indicating that he was not trying to identify Jesus AS God Almighty.

Why not "a light"?

Because God is not 'a light' .... the context here is 'truth' ... not a literal light, but the light of truth. So God is not being called 'a light' therefore no article is needed

Ephesians 5:8 for YOU were once darkness, but YOU are now light in connection with [the] Lord. Go on walking as children of light,

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

'The God' is a reference to a particular God. The Almighty.

theos alone can be a reference to any god, not necessarily the 'Almighty'....thats the difference.

That's a difference. Another is that we don't have a copula with the referent of the predicate noun already definite.

no article needs to be used because there is only one theos being mentioned. The theos who sent John the baptizer into the world.

But there isn't. Your whole point is that we have theos in one place in John 1:1, while we have article + theos both before and after, because we are distinguishing between different theoi. Thus in John 1:2 we need the article. Why don't we need it in John 1:6? How do we know if it refers to the theos which was ho logos or the theos which ho logos was pros ton theon?

but in John 1:1, the article is used because John was speaking about two separate gods. The Almighty and Jesus. He used the article to differentiate between the two thus indicating that he was not trying to identify Jesus AS God Almighty.

If true, then we don't know which theos is referred to in John 1:6. In fact, given that the article is used (according to your argument) to signify THE god as opposed to a god, and John 1:6 occurs in the context of this discussion of two theoi, John 1:6 is not just ambiguous, but more likely refers to ho logos.

Because God is not 'a light' .... the context here is 'truth' ... not a literal light, but the light of truth. So God is not being called 'a light' therefore no article is needed

Then why is God also darkness if light means "truth"? God is truth and falsehood?

Ephesians 5:8 for YOU were once darkness, but YOU are now light in connection with [the] Lord. Go on walking as children of light,[/quote]

 

[Thief]

Did I miss it?...did someone say so....

The 'word'...may be that ability to 'speak'.

When in regression to that moment of creation, the ability to 'speak'....
might be the target this thread is aimed at.

To speak...what?...how?...and yet....'Let there be light.'

There are somethings we cannot explain.
To exist when there is no evidence of it.
To speak when sound and echo mean nothing.
To form anything...from what is formless...

Yet here we are....

 

[idav]

what exactly is the word?

The mind of god, a non-material aspect which became material/flesh.

 

[lunamoth]

Jesus is the Word in John 1. Of all the Gospels, John most shares the view that Jesus is God. The opening of John 1 is meant to invoke Genesis 1, one of the most theologically rich parts of the Bible. We are meant to see that Jesus was there at the beginning of Creation.

 

[Shermana]

Jesus is the Word in John 1. Of all the Gospels, John most shares the view that Jesus is God. The opening of John 1 is meant to invoke Genesis 1, one of the most theologically rich parts of the Bible. We are meant to see that Jesus was there at the beginning of Creation.

John doesn't necessarily show the view that Jesus is G-d, it just happens to be full of somewhat unclear and confusing grammar and passages that Trinitarians exploit using their own presumptions that it was meant to portray Jesus as an incarnation of G-d, and it's easy to see when they translate John 1:1 and 10:33's Theos and Theon with "God" rather than "a god", ignoring the very backdrop of John's gospel in Anatolia where Philo's Logos Theology was predominant. The very notion of what the concept of the Logos was as described by Philo gets swept aside for Trinitarian theological positions that were invented hundreds of years after the scriptures were written.

According to Proverbs and the Wisdom of Solomon, "Wisdom", or what the "Word" is, is a personified, created being which acts as Co-Creator of the world, in which all things are made THROUGH, not by, but through.

 

[bribrius]

John doesn't necessarily show the view that Jesus is G-d, it just happens to be full of somewhat unclear and confusing grammar and passages that Trinitarians exploit using their own presumptions that it was meant to portray Jesus as an incarnation of G-d, and it's easy to see when they translate John 1:1 and 10:33's Theos and Theon with "God" rather than "a god", ignoring the very backdrop of John's gospel in Anatolia where Philo's Logos Theology was predominant. The very notion of what the concept of the Logos was as described by Philo gets swept aside for Trinitarian theological positions that were invented hundreds of years after the scriptures were written.

According to Proverbs and the Wisdom of Solomon, "Wisdom", or what the "Word" is, is a personified, created being which acts as Co-Creator of the world, in which all things are made THROUGH, not by, but through.

1 Corinthians 1:30

New International Version (NIV)

30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption




i see how poeople could conceive the word is christ with the idea of passing through and wisom.