Understanding John 1:1

[Yahcubs777]

The life, death and resurrection of Jesus revealed that God has a Son who is divine.

No,it revealed what Father Adam went through. HIS Son, Adam is "the vine" (Divine) of the Mankind Race, we are the branches. Adam is the root of david, the Father of the Mankind Race, Jesus His Pre-Eminence is the GOD and Father of Adam.

That is why it is only HIS Father, the GOD of Adam, that could stand in the shoes of Adam, because HE is greater than Adam. No Man is greater than Adam.

Of all born of a woman, there is none greater than John the Baptist. Father Adam wasn't born of a woman. That is what proves HE is the Son of GOD.

It is beyond Gainsay, that the Son of GOD is the Procreator of the human race; the Mankind Race and therefore should not have died being childless, without having matrimonial family and giving birth to children; both super bio and biological; and this is the Proof that Jesus His Pre-Eminence is not the Son of GOD, but the GOD in HIS incarnate Manifestation who came in the shoes of the Son of GOD to bail Mankind, Adam His Eminence.

 

[Colt]

No,it revealed what Father Adam went through. HIS Son, Adam is "the vine" (Divine) of the Mankind Race, we are the branches. Adam is the root of david, the Father of the Mankind Race, Jesus His Pre-Eminence is the GOD and Father of Adam.

That is why it is only HIS Father, the GOD of Adam, that could stand in the shoes of Adam, because HE is greater than Adam. No Man is greater than Adam.

Of all born of a woman, there is none greater than John the Baptist. Father Adam wasn't born of a woman. That is what proves HE is the Son of GOD.

It is beyond Gainsay, that the Son of GOD is the Procreator of the Mankind Race; the human race, and therefore should not have died childless, without having matrimonial family and giving birth to children; both super bio and biological; and this is the Proof that Jesus His Pre-Eminence is not the Son of GOD, but the GOD in HIS incarnate Manifestation who came in the shoes of the Son of GOD to bail Mankind, Adam His Eminence.

That's all word salad and in no way connects with the portrayal of events in the scriptures.

 

[Yahcubs777]

That's all word salad and in no way connects with the portrayal of events in the scriptures.

The Son of GOD is who fathered the Mankind Race. It is only the Son of GOD who can father an entire race. Cherubim and Seraphim do not have elders, or fathers or a principal Ancestor neither do Angels; for none of these are the Son of GOD. It is only the Son of GOD, who inherited from HIS Father, that could Father an entire race, and represent that entire race in HIMSELF. Else, No man would have a physical body except him and Mother Eve.

GOD is the creator, Adam is the Procreator. Father Adam could have chosen to remain in Eden, perfect and not fall which was needed to kick start procreation; but he didnt. He Willingly sacrificed His Celestial life of bliss for his children to have physical body, as he does.

For Except (means no other way) a seed falls to the ground and dies, it abides alone, but if the seed dies it brings forth much fruit - This is what Father Adam did - He is the Seed that died, him and Mother Eve, to kick start procreation

 

[Colt]

The Son of GOD is who fathered the Mankind Race. It is only the Son of GOD who can father an entire race. Cherubim and Seraphim do not have elders, or fathers or a principal Ancestor neither do Angels; for none of these are the Son of GOD. It is only the Son of GOD, who inherited from HIS Father, that could Father an entire race, and represent that entire race in HIMSELF. Else, No man would have a physical body except him and Mother Eve.

GOD is the creator, Adam is the Procreator. Father Adam could have chosen to remain in Eden, perfect and not fall and kick start procreation; but he didnt. He Willingly sacrificed His Celestial life of bliss for his children to have physical body, as he does.

For Except (means no other way) a seed falls to the ground and dies, it abides alone, but if the seed dies it brings forth much fruit - This is what Father Adam did - He is the Seed that died, him and Mother Eve, to kick start procreation

That's all made up and unrelated to the Bible.

 

[Yahcubs777]

That's all made up and unrelated to the Bible.

Seems you don't know the bible.

 

[Colt]

Seems you don't know the bible.

That's just it, I do know the Bible, and i can see where you cherry picked your custom doctrine from.

 

[Yahcubs777]

That's just it, I do know the Bible, and i can see where you cherry picked your custom doctrine from.

Nothing is cherry picked, its all in the bible.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

En arche ēn ho Logos, kai ho Logos ēn pros ton Theon, kai Theos ēn o Logos. – John 1:1 (Greek text)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. – John 1:1 (NWT)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. – John 1:1 (KJV)

(Some translations read "the Word was divine.")

“The beginning” refers to the time when God began his creative work and produced the Word. Thereafter, the Word was used by God in the creation of all other things. (John 1:2, 3) The Bible states that Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation” and that “by means of him all other things were created. Colossians 1:15, 16. -JW.org

Many scholars identify "logos" with God’s wisdom and reason. The logos is the expression of God, and is His communication of Himself, just as a “word” is an outward expression of a person’s thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son, and thus it is perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the “Word.” Jesus is an outward expression of God’s reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason, we call revelation “a word from God” and the Bible “the Word of God.”

If we understand that the logos is God’s expression—His plan, purposes, reason and wisdom, it is clear that they were indeed with Him “in the beginning.” Scripture says that God’s wisdom was “from the beginning” (Prov. 8:23). It was very common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. No ancient Jew reading Proverbs would think that God’s wisdom was a separate person, even though it is portrayed as one in Proverbs chapter 8. “I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, and I find knowledge and discretion."

The Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”). The Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures were being translated into Sahidic Coptic (an ancient Egyptian language) during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on Greek manuscripts which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant versions. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of that time, did not have an indefinite article, Sahidic Coptic does.

ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙ ΠϢΑϪЄ
ΑΥШ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ ΑΥШ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤΕ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ
John 1:1 (Sahidic Coptic text)

Transliteration:
Hn te.houeite ne.f.shoop ngi p.shaje
Auw p.shaje ne.f.shoop n.nahrm p.noute Auw ne.u.noute pe p.shaje

Literal English translation: In the beginning existed the word. And the word existed in the presence of God. And a god was the word.

The Coptic translation says ne.u.noute pe p.Saje: "the Word was a god (or, divine)," not "the Word was God." The Coptic language has both indefinite and definite articles in its grammatical structure. If the Sahidic Coptic translators held the doctrine that "the Word was God," or if the Coptic translators understood the Greek text to say "the Word was God," the Coptic language had the grammatical tools to say so. But they did not write "the Word was God." They wrote "the Word was a god."

Egypt was conquered by Alexander the Great in 332 BCE and the country was subsequently Hellenized. Greek influence had been in Egypt for some 500 years by the time those translators began their work. Likely made well before Nicea (325 CE), the Coptic text tells us how early translators interpreted John 1:1, apart from the influence of later dogma and church tradition. The Sahidic Coptic version, the earliest translation of the Greek originals into a language that contained the indefinite article, used that indefinite article at John 1:1: “the Word was a god.”

The NWT of John 1:1 is said to be an incorrect translation. Yet, in rendering John 1:1 from Greek into their own native language, the Coptic scribes came to the same understanding 1,700 years ago.

The NWT MUST be an incorrect translation in John 1:1 due to seemingly countless verses in both testaments that demonstrate/state/prophesy or make an apologetic for JESUS IS GOD. The issue isn't linguistics as much as whether you believe the Bible is God's Word, and whether you will follow the Bible, not JW teachings that are extra-biblical.

 

[filthyrottendirty]

No,He has one Son, HIS only Begotten Son, Father Adam, the Son of GOD. Father Adam Spirit Being was birthed by The Most Holy Spirit of GOD.

If you call GOD father, without recognising HIS son, you are calling GOD Abram; assumed father

Saul Paul was very unclear in his writings which has led to the confusion of the church.

Every child of the kingdom is a Son or Daughter of Adam, who is our principal ancestor. Only reason we can call GOD father, is because HIS Son is our principal ancestor.

The add options, are the Angels, Seraphim and cherubim that are pure hominids, by the teachings of Father Adam in Eden; the Micha-el who taught Arch Angel Michael and gave him the authority in his name to do things while he would be in the ghost world. They do not call GOD their father, they call HIM GOD.

No child of the kingdom is an add option (adoption), but a legitimate citizen by birth; genetically linked with the Son of GOD, Adam His Eminence; the Lord of all the administrative heavens.

I'm glad you mentioned that Job, as that is an allegory about the fall of Man. Job is Adam in the Fall.

You didnt answer my question, what denomination are you?

 

[Yahcubs777]

You didnt answer my question, what denomination are you?

None.

 

[filthyrottendirty]

The NWT MUST be an incorrect translation in John 1:1 due to seemingly countless verses in both testaments that demonstrate/state/prophesy or make an apologetic for JESUS IS GOD. The issue isn't linguistics as much as whether you believe the Bible is God's Word, and whether you will follow the Bible, not JW teachings that are extra-biblical.

I'm not even jw and most of my op doesn't even come from them, only one paragraph. You didn't read any of it and you just listen to the lies the corrupted church tells you.

 

[filthyrottendirty]

None.

Then where do you get your beliefs? Where is your doctrine from?

 

[Yahcubs777]

Then where do you get your beliefs? Where is your doctrine from?

From my Man of GOD. Yet, my church has no link with the mother harlot or any of her daughters.

My church is the church of Father Adam.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

the concept of the logos is a pagan concept, central to the pagan worldview of the philosophers before christianity came

 

[capumetu]

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

En arche ēn ho Logos, kai ho Logos ēn pros ton Theon, kai Theos ēn o Logos. – John 1:1 (Greek text)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. – John 1:1 (NWT)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. – John 1:1 (KJV)

(Some translations read "the Word was divine.")

“The beginning” refers to the time when God began his creative work and produced the Word. Thereafter, the Word was used by God in the creation of all other things. (John 1:2, 3) The Bible states that Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation” and that “by means of him all other things were created. Colossians 1:15, 16. -JW.org

Many scholars identify "logos" with God’s wisdom and reason. The logos is the expression of God, and is His communication of Himself, just as a “word” is an outward expression of a person’s thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son, and thus it is perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the “Word.” Jesus is an outward expression of God’s reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason, we call revelation “a word from God” and the Bible “the Word of God.”

If we understand that the logos is God’s expression—His plan, purposes, reason and wisdom, it is clear that they were indeed with Him “in the beginning.” Scripture says that God’s wisdom was “from the beginning” (Prov. 8:23). It was very common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. No ancient Jew reading Proverbs would think that God’s wisdom was a separate person, even though it is portrayed as one in Proverbs chapter 8. “I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, and I find knowledge and discretion."

The Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”). The Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures were being translated into Sahidic Coptic (an ancient Egyptian language) during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on Greek manuscripts which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant versions. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of that time, did not have an indefinite article, Sahidic Coptic does.

ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙ ΠϢΑϪЄ
ΑΥШ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ ΑΥШ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤΕ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ
John 1:1 (Sahidic Coptic text)

Transliteration:
Hn te.houeite ne.f.shoop ngi p.shaje
Auw p.shaje ne.f.shoop n.nahrm p.noute Auw ne.u.noute pe p.shaje

Literal English translation: In the beginning existed the word. And the word existed in the presence of God. And a god was the word.

The Coptic translation says ne.u.noute pe p.Saje: "the Word was a god (or, divine)," not "the Word was God." The Coptic language has both indefinite and definite articles in its grammatical structure. If the Sahidic Coptic translators held the doctrine that "the Word was God," or if the Coptic translators understood the Greek text to say "the Word was God," the Coptic language had the grammatical tools to say so. But they did not write "the Word was God." They wrote "the Word was a god."

Egypt was conquered by Alexander the Great in 332 BCE and the country was subsequently Hellenized. Greek influence had been in Egypt for some 500 years by the time those translators began their work. Likely made well before Nicea (325 CE), the Coptic text tells us how early translators interpreted John 1:1, apart from the influence of later dogma and church tradition. The Sahidic Coptic version, the earliest translation of the Greek originals into a language that contained the indefinite article, used that indefinite article at John 1:1: “the Word was a god.”

The NWT of John 1:1 is said to be an incorrect translation. Yet, in rendering John 1:1 from Greek into their own native language, the Coptic scribes came to the same understanding 1,700 years ago.

Very good post sir, it is interesting to note that Acts 28:6 was written the same way and the versions that call the Word God all render an a there, indicating they deliberately altered Jn 1:1.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm not even jw and most of my op doesn't even come from them, only one paragraph. You didn't read any of it and you just listen to the lies the corrupted church tells you.

No I got my doctrine from Bible reading. My doctrine is accurate. I was happy to make a point about the NWT, which is a contrived and false translation in some aspects.

 

[TiggerII]

BilliardsBall: “The issue isn't linguistics as much as whether you believe the Bible is God's Word, and whether you will follow the Bible, not JW teachings that are extra-biblical.”

“My doctrine is accurate. I was happy to make a point about the NWT, which is a contrived and false translation in some aspects.”
.…………………….

Since we are discussing John 1:1c, I take it that the NT Greek texts of that clause are part of the Bible which you are recommending. Whether JW’s have made a “contrived and false translation” at this important clause should be based on the careful, honest translation of that NT Greek text.

It wasn’t until the 1930’s when a trinitarian (E.C. Colwell) finally came up with an alleged grammatical proof that John 1:1c should read “God.” (Trinitarians had been translating it that way anyway simply because they wanted to.)

Colwell said, in effect, that when a predicate noun (theos, in this case) without the definite article (“the”) came before the verb in a clause in NT Greek, that predicate noun should be understood to have the definite article with it anyway.

Since theos with the definite article was understood to be “God,” not “a god” --- there was your proof. He listed some examples to ‘prove’ his point, but they were incorrect examples. You see, just as in English, there are often exceptions to the rule. Since Colwell picked only the exceptions to ‘prove’ his rule, it is not proven. In fact, if you actually examine all the uses of examples truly parallel to John 1:1c in John’s writings, you will find that all 19 are just the opposite: the predicate noun is indefinite (takes an indefinite article, a/an).

So the actual literal reading is “a god.”

Even some noted trinitarian scholars are forced to admit that grammatically John 1:1c in NT Greek may be literally translated as “the Word was a god”! These include:

W. E. Vine (p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.);

Dr. C. H. Dodd (director of the New English Bible project, Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977);

Dr. Murray J. Harris (p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992);

Dr. Robert Young (p. 54, ‘New Covenant’ section, Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing).

Dr. William Barclay (p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985).

J.W. Wentham, p. 35 (f.n.) The Elements of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Of course, being trinitarians, they often insist that the correct interpretation of such a literal translation must be, somehow, trinitarian in spite of the actual literal meaning.

 

[TiggerII]

Another new (20th century) ‘rule’ concerning the word order of John 1:1c has been proposed to make the Word of the same essence as God. These ‘Qualitative’ rules are like Colwell’s rule above except they don’t allow for an understood article (ho) before theos. They say that the word order makes theos ‘qualitative.’


The same method of examining all truly proper examples that are parallel to John 1:1c in John proves both modern 'rules' to be wrong.

 

[74x12]

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

En arche ēn ho Logos, kai ho Logos ēn pros ton Theon, kai Theos ēn o Logos. – John 1:1 (Greek text)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. – John 1:1 (NWT)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. – John 1:1 (KJV)

(Some translations read "the Word was divine.")

“The beginning” refers to the time when God began his creative work and produced the Word. Thereafter, the Word was used by God in the creation of all other things. (John 1:2, 3) The Bible states that Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation” and that “by means of him all other things were created. Colossians 1:15, 16. -JW.org

Many scholars identify "logos" with God’s wisdom and reason. The logos is the expression of God, and is His communication of Himself, just as a “word” is an outward expression of a person’s thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son, and thus it is perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the “Word.” Jesus is an outward expression of God’s reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason, we call revelation “a word from God” and the Bible “the Word of God.”

If we understand that the logos is God’s expression—His plan, purposes, reason and wisdom, it is clear that they were indeed with Him “in the beginning.” Scripture says that God’s wisdom was “from the beginning” (Prov. 8:23). It was very common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. No ancient Jew reading Proverbs would think that God’s wisdom was a separate person, even though it is portrayed as one in Proverbs chapter 8. “I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, and I find knowledge and discretion."

The Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”). The Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures were being translated into Sahidic Coptic (an ancient Egyptian language) during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on Greek manuscripts which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant versions. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of that time, did not have an indefinite article, Sahidic Coptic does.

ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙ ΠϢΑϪЄ
ΑΥШ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ ΑΥШ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤΕ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ
John 1:1 (Sahidic Coptic text)

Transliteration:
Hn te.houeite ne.f.shoop ngi p.shaje
Auw p.shaje ne.f.shoop n.nahrm p.noute Auw ne.u.noute pe p.shaje

Literal English translation: In the beginning existed the word. And the word existed in the presence of God. And a god was the word.

The Coptic translation says ne.u.noute pe p.Saje: "the Word was a god (or, divine)," not "the Word was God." The Coptic language has both indefinite and definite articles in its grammatical structure. If the Sahidic Coptic translators held the doctrine that "the Word was God," or if the Coptic translators understood the Greek text to say "the Word was God," the Coptic language had the grammatical tools to say so. But they did not write "the Word was God." They wrote "the Word was a god."

Egypt was conquered by Alexander the Great in 332 BCE and the country was subsequently Hellenized. Greek influence had been in Egypt for some 500 years by the time those translators began their work. Likely made well before Nicea (325 CE), the Coptic text tells us how early translators interpreted John 1:1, apart from the influence of later dogma and church tradition. The Sahidic Coptic version, the earliest translation of the Greek originals into a language that contained the indefinite article, used that indefinite article at John 1:1: “the Word was a god.”

The NWT of John 1:1 is said to be an incorrect translation. Yet, in rendering John 1:1 from Greek into their own native language, the Coptic scribes came to the same understanding 1,700 years ago.

You can't understand John 1:1 without reference to Genesis 1. That's the whole reason for the similar language between Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1.

"In the beginning" is the hint.

Jesus is the Light of Genesis 1:3 which is not created by the way. Just shone in the darkness. Because everything must be created in the light of 6 days.

 

[Deeje]

No I got my doctrine from Bible reading. My doctrine is accurate. I was happy to make a point about the NWT, which is a contrived and false translation in some aspects.

Would you like to be specific about that, since you have made some sweeping statements here. In what way is the NWT contrived or false? Lets see why you said that....?