To be sure, I know CARM is not an objective site.
But anyway, this is only Q&A forum, not for debate.
So take care, my cousin.
Another time.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But anyway, this is only Q&A forum, not for debate.
So take care, my cousin.
Another time.
cataway
Well-Known Member
Barclay preached what he wanted to believe . he also fit the description of 2 Tim 4: 3 ''For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. "
he was selling what the people wanted to hear.
was Jesus a god?? sure he is . how ever he is not the most high God.
for even Jesus said “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”
In my Church we believe it was originally,John opens up with: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
I don't quite understand this. Clearly the author of the book is trying to parallel this with the opening of Genesis "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." However, Genesis opens up with stating that first time itself began/came into being - i.e. there was a beginning ("In the beginning"). Next, the verse makes mention of God. Where did God come from? That's not stated, but as God was already there at the beginning and we don't know where He came from, it's inferred that He was there before the beginning.
In John, however, things appear to be different:
First there's a beginning - much like in Genesis ("In the beginning") - but then says "was the Word" - as I understand, "was" is a word that denotes coming into existence - that is, the Word came into being after time began. Yet then we are told "...and the Word was God." - if in Genesis we are made to infer that God was before time began, and here the Word was - came into being - after time began, how then can the Word be God? And how then can it be said in the next verse "He was with God in the beginning."? One entity was pre-time and the other post-time.
I hope this makes sense...
"
1 In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made which was made.
4 In him was the gospel, and the gospel was the life, and the life was the light of men;
5 And the light shineth in the world, and the world perceiveth it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came into the world for a witness, to bear witness of the light, to bear record of the gospel through the Son, unto all, that through him men might believe.
8 He was not that light, but came to bear witness of that light,
9 Which was the true light, which lighteth every man who cometh into the world;
10 Even the Son of God. He who was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God; only to them who believe on his name.
13 He was born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the same word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John bear witness of him, and cried, saying, This is he of whom I spake; He who cometh after me, is preferred before me; for he was before me.
16 For in the beginning was the Word, even the Son, who is made flesh, and sent unto us by the will of the Father. And as many as believe on his name shall receive of his fullness. And of his fullness have all we received, even immortality and eternal life, through his grace.
17 For the law was given through Moses, but life and truth came through Jesus Christ.
18 For the law was after a carnal commandment, to the administration of death; but the gospel was after the power of an endless life, through Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.
19 And no man hath seen God at any time, except he hath borne record of the Son; for except it is through him no man can be saved.
20 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem, to ask him; Who art thou?
21 And he confessed, and denied not that he was Elias; but confessed, saying; I am not the Christ.
22 And they asked him, saying; How then art thou Elias? And he said, I am not that Elias who was to restore all things. And they asked him, saying, Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
23 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
24 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as saith the prophet Esaias.
25 And they who were sent were of the Pharisees.
26 And they asked him, and said unto him; Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not the Christ, nor Elias who was to restore all things, neither that prophet?
27 John answered them, saying; I baptize with water, but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
28 He it is of whom I bear record. He is that prophet, even Elias, who, coming after me, is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose, or whose place I am not able to fill; for he shall baptize, not only with water, but with fire, and with the Holy Ghost.
29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and said; Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world!
30 And John bare record of him unto the people, saying, This is he of whom I said; After me cometh a man who is preferred before me; for he was before me, and I knew him, and that he should be made manifest to Israel; therefore am I come baptizing with water.
31 And John bare record, saying; When he was baptized of me, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
32 And I knew him; for he who sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me; Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he who baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
33 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
34 These things were done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing."
You used a WIKI source which could have been uploaded by JW
Hi @KenS and @Hockeycowboy
Barclay is in error in this statement as it stands quoted by KenS. I would like to see the entire statement Barclay actually made.
The ONLY way one CAN write "and the word was A God" IS the way it is written in John 1:1 "και Θεοσ ην ο λογοσ" (other than changing noun order).
Are there any Koine readers who want to try writing "And the word was A God" any differently than it is written in John 1:1? (other than changing word order) ??
The rendering of this phrase as "and the Word was a God" is perfect correct grammatically. It is only context that can determine in this instance whether "God" or "a God" was intended by the author.
Clear
ειτωτωτζω
Barclay is in error in this statement as it stands quoted by KenS. I would like to see the entire statement Barclay actually made.
The ONLY way one CAN write "and the word was A God" IS the way it is written in John 1:1 "και Θεοσ ην ο λογοσ" (other than changing noun order).
Are there any Koine readers who want to try writing "And the word was A God" any differently than it is written in John 1:1? (other than changing word order) ??
The rendering of this phrase as "and the Word was a God" is perfect correct grammatically. It is only context that can determine in this instance whether "God" or "a God" was intended by the author.
Clear
ειτωτωτζω
Last edited:
How many things does Jesus share with the Father who does not share His glory?
Rev 5:
11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;
12Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, andhonour, and glory, and blessing.
13 And every creature whichis in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such asare in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing,and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth uponthe throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.
14 And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell downand worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.
John Gill who know various languages by the age of 11, which included Greek.
John 1:1 - Commentary & Verse Meaning - Bible
Hi @KenS (and @Hockeycowboy),
How does Gill write "And the Word was A God"?.
He MUST write it "και θεοσ ην ο λογοσ" as it is written in John 1:1 as I mentioned.
There is no other way to write it (other than flipping the noun order.)
It is perfectly correct grammatically to translate John 1:1 as "and the word was a God"
It will not matter how many translate it "a God" vs "the God". Such renderings reflect the theological bias of the translator since, grammatically, it is "a God".
It is only context of the original author that can tell us what the correct translation is.
Clear.
ειτωφισεω
Last edited:
cataway
Well-Known Member
"a God" vs "the God" it cant be the God when referring to Jesus because '' the '' is definite article and it refers to the most high God .
"not made a God, as he is said here after to be made flesh; nor constituted or appointed a God, or a God by office; but truly and properly God,"
Hi @cataway;
You are correct that a definite article would refer to the Lord God inside the earliest Christian literature and the early Christian movement descriptions.
In making this claim, you are referring to context and not grammar.
This is the point that I was trying to make to KenS. Since "A God" is grammatically correct, then the authors context determines the meaning. If the author is speaking from the time period when they are separate beings, then your comment carries the logic. IF, the author is speaking from the context of a later Christian movement where it is theorized that the
Father and son are the same being, then "The God" is correct. Like you, I think the earliest version is correct. Still, it is context and not grammar which determines the correct translation.
Good journey Cataway.
Clear
ειτωακσιω
Hi @Ken.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. It looks like you are offering some sort of quote. Can you clarify?
Clear
That is a quote from John Gill on the site that I gave.
Good points regarding context, @Clear .
Let’s look at it....
Twice, in vss.1&2, John says the Word is “with God”.
Then, after stating “the Word became flesh” and people saw Jesus in vs.14, in vs.18 John declares, “No one has ever seen God.”
If John was trying to say ‘Jesus was The God,’ why did he keep implying otherwise?
Let’s look at it....
Twice, in vss.1&2, John says the Word is “with God”.
Then, after stating “the Word became flesh” and people saw Jesus in vs.14, in vs.18 John declares, “No one has ever seen God.”
If John was trying to say ‘Jesus was The God,’ why did he keep implying otherwise?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
please repost in the debate section
Hi @KenS , @cataway and @Hockeycowboy
Context (theological position or bias) determines meaning in translation
An example of bias in translation
KenS quoted Gills own personal theological position. (Gills own personal context or bias.) In explaining his Bias, Gill reveals why he translates the sentence contrary to base grammar. A machine that has no bias will use ONLY grammar (without religious bias) and will translate "And the word was A God" exactly as it is written in John 1:1 as I have said.
An example of non-biased translation from google translator
As an objective example, use google translator. It won't give you Koine, but it will give you modern greek and the grammar is identical for this example.
The phrase in John is Και Θεοσ ην ο λογοσ which, grammatically is how one (including Gill) will write "And the Word was A God".
Ask Google to translate "And the book was THE GOD".
It will translate this phrase as "Το βιβλιο ηταν ο Θεος" (Same as Το θεοσ ηταν ο βιβλιο since greek doesn't care if the noun comes first like english requires - "ηταν" is a modern "ην" "was")
Now, Ask Google to translate "And the book was A GOD" (I switched "The book" for "The word" to avoid confusing google - You can put ANY noun in this place and the example works)
Google translator will translate this phrase as "Το βιβλιο ηταν Θεος" (Same as θεοσ ηταν To βιβλιο since greek doesn't care if the noun comes first like english requires)
Notice that THE GOD uses an article, and to translate into A GOD simply leaves the article out of the phrase just as John writes it. The point is that it is perfectly accurate to translate "Το βιβλιο ηταν Θεος" as "The Book was A God" and it is perfectly accurate to translate Θεοσ ην ο λογοσ from John 1:1 as "The Word was A God."
That is the point. Grammatically, the sentence in John reads "The word was A God", BUT, if the author meant "The word was 'the" God, then it can mean that instead and it is only the original context that can tell us. Now, John did not leave out the article in the first 15 or so examples of sentences in this chapter, and one cannot tell if he did so in this phrase by accident or not. One can make the case that he simply did so accidentally. However, John was a member of the early Christian movement long before the later "three is really one" theology started to appear in Judeo-Christian literature so one has to explain that problem as well if one is arguing that it means "the God".
At any rate, the point is that context trumps grammar and that, grammatically, it is perfectly fine to translate the sentence as it stands, "...and the Word was a God", rather than to add an implied article.
I hope that explanation with it's example translation from google makes sense to you three (and other readers as well). So, while I am not Jehovahs Witness and disagree with their theology, they are perfectly correct in their grammatical translation of John 1:1.
I hope your journeys are wonderful.
Clear
ειδρσιειω
Context (theological position or bias) determines meaning in translation
An example of bias in translation
KenS quoted Gills own personal theological position. (Gills own personal context or bias.) In explaining his Bias, Gill reveals why he translates the sentence contrary to base grammar. A machine that has no bias will use ONLY grammar (without religious bias) and will translate "And the word was A God" exactly as it is written in John 1:1 as I have said.
An example of non-biased translation from google translator
As an objective example, use google translator. It won't give you Koine, but it will give you modern greek and the grammar is identical for this example.
The phrase in John is Και Θεοσ ην ο λογοσ which, grammatically is how one (including Gill) will write "And the Word was A God".
Ask Google to translate "And the book was THE GOD".
It will translate this phrase as "Το βιβλιο ηταν ο Θεος" (Same as Το θεοσ ηταν ο βιβλιο since greek doesn't care if the noun comes first like english requires - "ηταν" is a modern "ην" "was")
Now, Ask Google to translate "And the book was A GOD" (I switched "The book" for "The word" to avoid confusing google - You can put ANY noun in this place and the example works)
Google translator will translate this phrase as "Το βιβλιο ηταν Θεος" (Same as θεοσ ηταν To βιβλιο since greek doesn't care if the noun comes first like english requires)
Notice that THE GOD uses an article, and to translate into A GOD simply leaves the article out of the phrase just as John writes it. The point is that it is perfectly accurate to translate "Το βιβλιο ηταν Θεος" as "The Book was A God" and it is perfectly accurate to translate Θεοσ ην ο λογοσ from John 1:1 as "The Word was A God."
That is the point. Grammatically, the sentence in John reads "The word was A God", BUT, if the author meant "The word was 'the" God, then it can mean that instead and it is only the original context that can tell us. Now, John did not leave out the article in the first 15 or so examples of sentences in this chapter, and one cannot tell if he did so in this phrase by accident or not. One can make the case that he simply did so accidentally. However, John was a member of the early Christian movement long before the later "three is really one" theology started to appear in Judeo-Christian literature so one has to explain that problem as well if one is arguing that it means "the God".
At any rate, the point is that context trumps grammar and that, grammatically, it is perfectly fine to translate the sentence as it stands, "...and the Word was a God", rather than to add an implied article.
I hope that explanation with it's example translation from google makes sense to you three (and other readers as well). So, while I am not Jehovahs Witness and disagree with their theology, they are perfectly correct in their grammatical translation of John 1:1.
I hope your journeys are wonderful.
Clear
ειδρσιειω
Last edited:
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
John isn't saying Jesus was created by the Father. Where John says Jesus "was" God, he is clearly referring to Jesus being God at the time of the universe's creation. The point isn't that Jesus was created but that the eternal (before our spacetime) Jesus was God long before He appeared to Israel.