We can know the meaning of John 1:1 from John 1:3

[JM2C]

The word is like the a tool God the father used.

“The word is like the a tool?”
Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
The “Word” and God are ONE.
Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.

 

[idav]

“The word is like the a tool?”
Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
The “Word” and God are ONE.
Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.

That doesn't change the fact that jesus points to gods will, and the verse referenced calls it Gods creation, as in not Jesus creation.

Also the will doesn't even come from Jesus but at the same time does have independence.
"For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me."

 

[JM2C]

That doesn't change the fact that jesus points to gods will, and the verse referenced calls it Gods creation, as in not Jesus creation.

Also the will doesn't even come from Jesus but at the same time does have independence.
"For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me."

Please read and understand Post#19

 

[jah59]

It calls it Gods creation which means it isn't the creation of the subject, but does have authority, a hand in it. This affirms what "God created through the word" really means. The word is like the a tool God the father used.

Certainly, if you presuppose that the Word is not God you would naturally think this. I thank you for your opinion, but wouldn't want to base a doctrine on a verse that basically comes down to opinion. Rather, I still prefer passages such as John 1:3, Colossians 1:15-17, and 1 John 4:8 for important teachings that are difficult to mistranslate and misunderstand.
__________________
I firmly believe that when God wants to emphasize a matter in his written word such as in John 1:3, Colossians 1:15-17, and 1 John 4:8, He so inspires it that it is difficult, if not impossible to mistranslate.

 

[jah59]

1) No serious Greek scholar would argue that a line which doesn't use any lexeme we might translate as "god" clearly indicates

While most of your post seems clear enough, the above phrase is puzzling to me and feel that I'm missing the main point, great as that may be. I do believe I am reasonably knowledgeable of common English grammar, can look up "lexeme" in a dictionary, and even know a smattering of Koine Greek, but I still don't know what you are saying here. Will you please dumb this down for a simpleton like me?

 

[jah59]

2) The text is quite clear that "the word" (ho logos) didn't create, but rather uses a construction that deliberately avoids this reading: πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν (panta di' autou egeneto, kai choris autou egeneto oude hen). "All things came to be through [not by, not because of] him, and apart from him came to be not a thing". It's pretty clear that the author(s) stress(es) the necessity of "the word" for everything that is, but deliberately avoids the suggestion that "the word" was a creative force. If dia is taken to be "through" in the sense "through the creative power of ho logos, then there would be no need to indicate that nothing existed without ho logos playing creative role. In fact, this latter part doesn't make much sense other than to indicate that "the word/memra/divine wisdom/etc." was important (even vital) for that which is. It would be simplicity itself to mimic Genesis and indicate that ho logos wasn't simply pre-existent but created everything (or was a creative force). Instead, the author(s) elect(s) to use a weaker preposition and doesn't use any verb, participle or similar construction indicating a creative role.

Not sure if you can sum this up, but it basically looks to me like you just said with this phrase "It's pretty clear that the author(s) stress(es) the necessity of "the word" for everything that is" that the word created himself. I keep seeing that to my amazement! Fortunately, I don't see it in the Bible.

 

[jah59]

4) Lexemes are universally polysemous; constructions are idiomatic by definition and frequently nested, inheriting from multiple others, and ambiguous; finally, the prologue is quite deliberately poetic, metaphorical, arcane, and cryptic. IE linguistics, classicists, NT scholars, etc., can't make arguments here based upon the Greek. To suggest that what is deliberately more ambiguous & cryptic than language normally is can be settled by Greek grammar is to misunderstand the nature of language itself.

Fair enough. Just don't argue that the Greek makes this clear.

I thank you for your opinion. It is certainly an original argument. Although no matter how simple and easy a sentence is for someone to understand, if that person doesn't like it, there's often a tendency to want to make it ambiguous or worse. Let me explain why I think you are mistaken about the value of the meaning in Greek and every language it's translated into. Knowing the original language of the Bible (or having access to those who do) and having a multitude of manuscripts closer to the time these ancient writings, which makes even the existence of Julius Caesar, by comparison questionable, is immensely important. Otherwise, we depend on "translations", which invariably introduce human error.
__________________
I firmly believe that when God wants to emphasize a matter in his written word such as in John 1:3, Colossians 1:15-17, and 1 John 4:8, He so inspires it that it is difficult, if not impossible to mistranslate.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

the above phrase is puzzling to me

Let me simplify:

no Greek scholar can be found who disputes the clear meaning of verse 3

No serious Greek scholar would argue that any verse has clear meaning (particularly those whose expertise in ancient/classical Greek- including Hellenistic- is rooted in linguistic theory/theories rather than outdated philology, classical studies, etc.). This is true in general for texts written in dead languages and more so for those that, like Greek (and unlike Latin or Hebrew), weren't continuously spoken long after there were no native speakers.

You seem to think that a verse which doesn't mention Jesus clearly indicates

that Jesus created everything

despite the fact that the verse also doesn't explicitly mention creation, creating, or some Greek construction relatively synonymous with English lexemes/constructions meaning "create". That's fine. Arguing that this is, or even can be, so firmly established by an understanding of Greek is baseless.

Not sure if you can sum this up

The verse avoids explicitly using any constructions (lexemes, terms, words, or whatever you prefer) that a Greek author could use to say "the word" (or, better, yet, Jesus) created anything. The prologue indicates that all that is required "the word" in order to be. I require carbon to be. Carbon, however, didn't create me. I was created through a very particular contact between organic but non-living systems that resulted in a living system. I was not created through my Aunt introducing my father to my mother, even though it was "through her" that I came to exist and that without her I couldn't.

The text says that a relatively obscure (for those who can't read Greek) concept/agent had something to do with the ontology of the cosmos and everything in it. It doesn't say anything about creation. Moreover, it doesn't say anything about Jesus (not in anyway any Greek scholar could argue without relying on literary, theological, and/or other arguments as bases for interpretation).

Although no matter how simple and easy a sentence is for someone to understand, if that person doesn't like it, there's often a tendency to want to make it ambiguous or worse.

Can you read the sentence you believe to be so "simple and easy"?

It is frequently difficult to determine whether languages have basic grammatical categories (including those as basic as adjectives) or even whether these exist cross-linguistically. The best account of language holds that the minimal unit of language isn't a word (or lexeme) but constructions, and there is nothing to support that sentences are anything but arbitrary divisions Western grammarians imposed upon language structures before they knew much about linguistic diversity. It is a truism that there do not exist any one-to-one mappings between a word/lexeme in one language and that in another.

A key component of the "sentence" in question is dia (translated as "through"). For a simple example of the complexities of Greek prepositions, see e.g.,:
Luraghi, S. (2003). On the meaning of prepositions and cases: The expression of semantic roles in Ancient Greek (Studies in Language Companion Series Vol. 67). John Benjamins Publishing.

For what it even means to say that there were prepositions in ancient Greek, see e.g.,:
Hewson, J., & Bubenik, V. (2006). From case to adposition: The development of configurational syntax in Indo-European languages (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory Vol. 280). John Benjamins Publishing.

Then check out the century or so of debate among NT/classical/Greek scholars on anarthrous definite nouns that revolve around whether "and the word was god" equates "the word" with the "God" (as even in Christian & Hellenistic Jewish literature, theos doesn't necessarily mean the Jewish or Christian God).

Let me explain why I think you are mistaken about the value of the meaning in Greek and every language it's translated into.

If you don't know Greek (and by that I mean classical and Hellenistic Greek, not modern or Byzantine), then your explanation doesn't matter to me. If you do, then we can talk about the Greek directly and rely on both Greek scholarship and linguistics rather than translations. It is unfortunate that the best reference grammars are in German, and not simply because the most comprehensive ancient Greek reference grammar in English in existence was edited by my grandfather, yet is still vastly inferior to Schweitzer's and probably even Kühner's (outdated) grammars (let alone grammars specific to New Testament like the BDF). It means even a familiarity with Greek isn't enough for serious discussion, which is why I had to learn to read German, French, and Italian. However, knowledge of Greek should be enough for the level of analysis needed here. I mention the above because if you find me analyzing the verses in question using standard grammars for Greek in various languages, linguistic theory you aren't familiar with, and god knows what else you can tell me to shut up and rein it in. I am more than a bit obsessive, which is part of why I quit this forum (and why I occasionally succumb to the temptation to return). I am terrible at answering questions to those who don't have my background, but not as bad when I'm alerted that I'm assuming as common knowledge that which isn't. The same thing is true of when it appears I'm acting like a know-it-all *******.

 

[idav]

Certainly, if you presuppose that the Word is not God you would naturally think this. I thank you for your opinion, but wouldn't want to base a doctrine on a verse that basically comes down to opinion. Rather, I still prefer passages such as John 1:3, Colossians 1:15-17, and 1 John 4:8 for important teachings that are difficult to mistranslate and misunderstand.

I havent ignored the verse "the word is also god and with god", I also havent ignored the fact that the word and the father have distinct roles in creation or else there is no reason to mention a separation.

 

[jah59]

I havent ignored the verse "the word is also god and with god", I also havent ignored the fact that the word and the father have distinct roles in creation or else there is no reason to mention a separation.

Thank you for that agreement.

 

[jah59]

Let me simplify:


No serious Greek scholar would argue that any verse has clear meaning (particularly those whose expertise in ancient/classical Greek- including Hellenistic- is rooted in linguistic theory/theories rather than outdated philology, classical studies, etc.). This is true in general for texts written in dead languages and more so for those that, like Greek (and unlike Latin or Hebrew), weren't continuously spoken long after there were no native speakers.

You seem to think that a verse which doesn't mention Jesus clearly indicates despite the fact that the verse also doesn't explicitly mention creation, creating, or some Greek construction relatively synonymous with English lexemes/constructions meaning "create". That's fine. Arguing that this is, or even can be, so firmly established by an understanding of Greek is baseless.

The verse avoids explicitly using any constructions (lexemes, terms, words, or whatever you prefer) that a Greek author could use to say "the word" (or, better, yet, Jesus) created anything. The prologue indicates that all that is required "the word" in order to be. I require carbon to be. Carbon, however, didn't create me. I was created through a very particular contact between organic but non-living systems that resulted in a living system. I was not created through my Aunt introducing my father to my mother, even though it was "through her" that I came to exist and that without her I couldn't.

The text says that a relatively obscure (for those who can't read Greek) concept/agent had something to do with the ontology of the cosmos and everything in it. It doesn't say anything about creation. Moreover, it doesn't say anything about Jesus (not in anyway any Greek scholar could argue without relying on literary, theological, and/or other arguments as bases for interpretation).

I appreciate the time you've taken and your valuable opinion, except that I'm not entirely sure all these words are really even relevant as I've still not understood exactly what you believe this verse to be saying. Do you believe that it says or in some way with verse 1 confirms that the Word was created, then made everything else through the power of God or do you believe that the Word, who has always existed as a distinct person in the Godhead brought everything into existence that was brought into existence, or do you think it says something different?

 

[jah59]

Let me simplify:
No serious Greek scholar would argue that any verse has clear meaning (particularly those whose expertise in ancient/classical Greek- including Hellenistic- is rooted in linguistic theory/theories rather than outdated philology, classical studies, etc.). This is true in general for texts written in dead languages and more so for those that, like Greek (and unlike Latin or Hebrew), weren't continuously spoken long after there were no native speakers.

You seem to be missing my point here. The point is that it was inspired by God grammatically such that it is always translated with the same meaning "All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being." Certainly, different words can be used, but grammatically it always comes out saying the same thing as opposed to other verses we've covered here, e.g. Rev. 3:14 and of course, verse 1 in this chapter. It never comes out saying "Some things came into being...", for instance or "without Him only one thing came into being..." and no Koine Greek scholar says that it should be translated in such a way that would permit a different grammatical structure producing a different literal meaning. If the Word was brought into being before he brought things into being, the verse is a lie to me. Of course, you can question every word of every sentence and claim everything you don't like ambiguous or metaphorical to such a degree that no one can confidently understand any book or any writing of any kind, but I firmly believe that God intentionally inspired the important passages such that they do not get mistranslated or misunderstood if you understand simple logic and grammar and that the Bible was in fact written so that all can understand the important things.
__________________
I firmly believe that when God wants to emphasize a matter in his written word such as in John 1:3, Colossians 1:15-17, and 1 John 4:8, He so inspires it that it is difficult, if not impossible to mistranslate.

 

[jah59]

Let me simplify:
...it doesn't say anything about Jesus (not in anyway any Greek scholar could argue without relying on literary, theological, and/or other arguments as bases for interpretation).

Seriously? Please read John 1:14, 17 and if you have any questions, just ask, thanks.

 

[JM2C]

Jn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another/same/ALLOS Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another/different/HETEROS gospel:

Here we read two “another”, one is Same/ALLOS -John 14:16- and the other one is Different/HETEROS -Gal. 1:6.

These are the classical Greek words and not the simplified Koine Greek words. Subtleties like these classical Greek words are still intact in the Scriptures or the N.T
.
As you can read in John 14:16, the two words, “another/Same/ALLOS and Comforter/PARAKLETOS”, the Lord Jesus Christ was referring to the Holy Spirit as the “ANOTHER/SAME/ALLOS or as the same as He is.

IOW, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit of God are One or the Same/ALLOS and not as another/different/HETEROS from each other.
Classical Greek words like this one in the N.T. is really hard to debunk without giving another/different/HETEROS English meaning which “are universally polysemous”

“Classical Greek” is a language capable of exact expression and subtle nuances unlike the English language or words that “are universally polysemous” that often add meanings without subtracting any.


“As the Greek language spread across the world and met other languages, it was altered (which is true of any language, especially the English language). The dialects also interacted with each other. Eventually this adaptation resulted in what today we call Koine Greek. “Koine” (koinhv) means “common” and describes the common, everyday form of the language, used by everyday people.” -W. D. Mounce

 

[JM2C]

Moreover, it doesn't say anything about Jesus (not in anyway any Greek scholar could argue without relying on literary, theological, and/or other arguments as bases for interpretation).

The Word or ho logos is an argot or an idiom peculiar to John’s writings.

We can read them in,
Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh,
1Jn 1:1 the Word of life;
1Jn 5:7 the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Rev 19:13 his name is called The Word of God.


How one could argue, with these verses, that John was not talking about the Lord Jesus Christ here?

1)
constructions are idiomatic by definition and frequently nested, inheriting from multiple others, and ambiguous; finally, the prologue is quite deliberately poetic, metaphorical, arcane, and cryptic.

Only those who have Fellowship [See 1John 1:3] with “The Word” could understand the meaning of it otherwise, its hidden from others.

1)
Lexemes are universally polysemous;

But not the classical Greeks and you should know that ’cause you said it yourself that you knew the language very well.

1)
If you don't know Greek (and by that I mean classical and Hellenistic Greek, not modern or Byzantine), then your explanation doesn't matter to me.

 

[viole]

I believe no verse with a clearer meaning can be found in all of scripture than John 1:3. While some people really dear to me claim that verse 1 can mean "a" god, this verse should remove any doubt to its meaning, as no Greek scholar can be found who disputes the clear meaning of verse 3, that is that Jesus created everything that was created and therefore cannot himself be created!

I firmly believe that when God wants to emphasize a matter in his written word such as in John 1:3, Colossians 1:15-17, and 1 John 4:8, He so inspires it that it is difficult, if not impossible to mistranslate.

I think the verse has a logical fallacy embedded in it.

What does it mean: without him nothing was made that has been made?

If something has been made, then it is impossible that nothing has been made.

So, the author is begging the question. It assumes that everything that exists has been made and deduces that without a maker this everything would not be made.

It is the logical equivalent of saying: without storks no child that was carried by storks has been carried by storks.

Which does not look very deep, even if technically true.

If that is the inspired word of god, then I think god need to study logical fallacies. i am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

 

[JM2C]

1)
"All things came to be through [not by, not because of] him, and apart from him came to be not a thing".

Like you said “Lexemes are universally polysemous” or the English words “are universally polysemous” so another English prepositions of the word “dia” are “by” and “because” Which you denied because the other English meaning of the word “dia“ is “through” which is also true, but “dia” can also be use as the “cause” and since John was talking about the creation Jn 1:3 “without him was not any thing made that was made.” all these English prepositions can be use as the “cause” of the creation, because John was not talking about time and places so its gotta be the “cause“. IOW, the “cause” of the creation is “The Word” or the Lord Jesus Christ.

John could have used the word “en”, another Greek preposition, but he did not ’cause “en” means “mean” meaning; not the “cause” and I think you would prefer that John should have used that, the “en”, to justify the “through” preposition you were arguing. Should we say it’s a matter of semantics after all “Lexemes are universally polysemous” especially the English words, but Classical Greek is not and you should know better because you knew the language better than others.

 

[idav]

The Word or ho logos is an argot or an idiom peculiar to John’s writings.

We can read them in,
Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh,
1Jn 1:1 the Word of life;
1Jn 5:7 the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Rev 19:13 his name is called The Word of God.


How one could argue, with these verses, that John was not talking about the Lord Jesus Christ here?



Only those who have Fellowship [See 1John 1:3] with “The Word” could understand the meaning of it otherwise, its hidden from others.



But not the classical Greeks and you should know that ’cause you said it yourself that you knew the language very well.

Jesus is flesh, the word is spirit, christ/god became flesh embodied as jesus.

 

[JM2C]

What does it mean: without him nothing was made that has been made?

The Word of God is the Lord Jesus Christ that became flesh is John 1:14. Now, without The Word of God, which is, the Lord Jesus Christ, nothing we have seen or anything that human have seen from the beginning of time, from Genesis chapter 1 and 2 to the present, will be made and be seen.

IOW, “BY” or “BECAUSE” or “THROUGH” [a Greek preposition “dia’ that is in argument here] The Word of God, and that is, the Lord Jesus Christ, none of the events that took place from Genesis 1 and 2 to the present time would have taken place.

IOW again, “The Word” of God, and that is, the Lord Jesus Christ, is the creator of everything known and unknown to human mind.

It’s really hard to argue against John 1:1-3.

 

[JM2C]

Jesus is flesh, the word is spirit, christ/god became flesh embodied as jesus.

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The “WORD” is God, and that is, the Lord Jesus Christ. The “WORD” and God are ONE.
Jn 1:14 And the 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.