A Question for Jehovah's Witnesses

[The Learner]

Seems to me that each and every prophet ALSO spoke for God the Father - by definition.

One speaking for God does not make that speaker God.

"And the Word was God." Here we have what are certainly the most widely discussed five words in the Bible. Is John here declaring that the Word is God the Father? A secondary, lesser god? Or One who possesses Deity in the same measure as the Father, but is also distinct from the Father? The word "LOGOS" is, again, preceded by the article. But the word "God" is not. While Greek possesses the definite article ("the"), it does not have an indefinite article ("a, an"). In Greek, the absence of the article usually signifies indefiniteness; however the grammar here makes that unlikely (see Grammatical Analysis, below). Definiteness is also a possibility, and indeed, many commentators and some grammarians see "God" here as a definite noun. There is a third option: Qualitative. Qualitative nouns occur in sentences like John 1:1c throughout the NT. They signify neither definiteness ("the God"), nor indefiniteness ("a god"), but rather attribute all the qualities or attributes of the noun to the subject of the sentence. If "God" is qualitative, here, it means that all the attributes or qualities of God - the same God mentioned in the previous clause - belong to the Son.

Consider the sentence: "Homo Erectus was Man." Here "Man" is neither definite ("the Man") nor indefinite ("a man"), but rather qualitative. If I made this statement to an evolutionist, I would be asserting that our ancient ancestor possessed all the qualities or attributes of humanity. I am saying he is truly human. Similarly, John is saying that the LOGOS is truly God - not the same Person mentioned in the previous clause - but possessing the same attributes or qualities.

In the beginning—the beginning before all beginnings, prior to the beginning of Genesis 1:1. The phrase could be rendered "from all eternity." The expression in Greek "characterizes Christ as preexistent, thus defining the nature of his person" (Dana and Mantey). was the Word—Greek, ho logos, signifying primarily "the Expression"—God expressed, God explained, God defined (see 1:18). The Greek term logos in philosophical terminology also denoted the principle of the universe, even the creative energy that generated the universe (Morris). Thus, Christ as the Logos is the agent of and the personal expression of the Creator God. the Word was with God—The preposition translated "with" is pros. In Koine Greek pros (short for prosôpon pros prosôpon, "face to face") was used to show intimacy in personal relationships (see Matt. 13:56; 26:18; Mark 6:3; 14:49; 1 Cor. 13:12; 6:10; 2 Cor. 5:8; Gal.1:18). Thus, for John to say "the Word was with God" was for him to mean "the Word was face to face with God" (see Williams’s translation) or "the Word was having intimate fellowship with God." This speaks of the preincarnate Son’s relationship with the Father prior to creation—in fact, prior to everything (see 1:18; 17:5, 24). the Word was God—The Greek clause underlying this clause stipulates, according to a rule of grammar, that "the Word" is the subject and "God" is the predicate nominative. Another particularity of the Greek is that the article is often used for defining individual identity and often absent in ascribing quality or character. In the previous clause ("the Word was with God"), there is an article before "God" (ton theon), thus pointing to God the Father; in this clause, there is no article before "God." The distinction, though a fine one, seems to be intended. In the previous clause, John indicates that the Son was with God, the Father; in this clause, John indicates that the Son was himself God (or should we say, deity) but not the God (i.e., God the Father). Therefore, some translators have attempted to bring out these distinctions by rendering the last clause as follows: "and what God was the Word was" (NEB) or "and he was the same as God" (TEV). Thus, we see that John presents the Word as being eternal, as being with God (the Father), and as being himself God (or, deity). This is the One who became flesh and dwelt among men on earth (JFB).

THEOS ÊN HO LOGOS. The first task of the translator faced with this clause is to determine the subject. In most sentences or clauses (such as John 1:1b), the noun in the nominative case is the subject. The noun in the accusative case is the direct object. However, in Greek, "copulative" verbs (generally a form of "to be" or "to become") take the nominative case, not the accusative. Technically, a copulative verb does not ascribe an action, but predicates something about the subject. The "object" of a copulative verb, therefore, is called the "Predicate Nominative (PN)," not the direct object. As we have seen, ÊN is a form of the verb "to be." Therefore, both THEOS and LOGOS are in the nominative case - one is the subject and the other the PN. In such cases, if one noun has the article and the other does not, the noun with the article is the subject (see Dana and Mantey, p. 148; McGaughy, p. 50; etc.). Thus, hO LOGOS is the subject of the sentence; THEOS is the PN. "The Word was God," not "God was the Word." While the latter is not impossible from the standpoint of pure grammar, McGaughy's study makes it highly unlikely.

 

[The Learner]

Predicate Nominative​

GR​

In Greek, the subject of a sentence is determined by it's case - the nominative - not by word order. Similarly, most predicates can be identified by being in the accusative case. So, when translating from Greek into English, the first task is to look for a noun in the nominative case, for it will most likely be the subject of the sentence. Next, find a noun in the accusative case, for it will probably be the direct object, or predicate of the sentence. However, sentences containing a form of the verb "to be" are somewhat different. Strictly speaking, the predicate in a sentence with this verb is not a direct object (it "predicates" something about the subject, rather than receiving an action). It is called a predicate nominative, and appears in the nominative case. Determining the subject in such a case is based on context and (often) the placement of the article. "To exist" and "To become" are two common verbs in Greek which also take a predicate nominative.​

In short, the article identifies the Subject.

 

[The Learner]

Colwell's Rule
In 1933, E.C. Colwell published his now famous study of the use of the article with PNs occurring both before and after the verb. Colwell began by identifying a number of PNs that he believed were definite by virtue of the context. He then performed a statistical analysis of their occurrence - either before or after the verb - and with the article or without. He found that 87% of definite PNs before the verb occurred without the article. He "tentatively" offers a rule that, in part, stipulates: "Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article" (Colwell, p. 20). Colwell reasons:

But it is in the realm of translation and interpretation that the data presented here have their most valuable application. They show that a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a "qualitative" noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun in spite of the absence of the article (IBID, p. 20).

Thus, Colwell's study indicates that THEOS in John 1:1c should not be translated as an indefinite noun solely on the basis of the absence of the article. Colwell, like most grammarians prior to Harner (see below), considered "qualitative" nouns to be more or less equivalent to indefinite nouns. Recall, though, that Colwell studied only nouns that he had identified as definite based on the context - he did not study all nouns in the New Testament. Thus, some scholars have questioned Colwell's further application of his rule:

Loosely speaking, this study may be said to have increased the definiteness of a predicate noun before the verb without the article, and to have decreased the definiteness of a predicate noun after the verb without the article.

The opening verse of John's Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. Kai qeoV hn`o logoV looks much more like "And the Word was God" than "And the Word was divine" when viewed with reference to this rule. The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas (IBID, p. 21).

Based on his data gathered from known definite nouns, Colwell extrapolated that more or less the same statistical balance would prove true with nouns that were exegetically questionable. As we shall see below, subsequent studies have called this extrapolation into question, particularly those that emphasize qualitativeness as a semantic force independent of definiteness or indefiniteness.

At the same time, the vast majority of commentators (e.g., Carson) and some grammarians (e.g., Metzger) have accepted Colwell's conclusions regarding John 1:1, as has at least one major study (see Lane McGaughy, below). As with their earlier counterparts, these more recent scholars do not perceive definiteness as requiring convertibility, but rather emphasize that the nature of THEOS is ascribed to the Word: "The 'Word does not Himself make up the entire Godhead; nevertheless the divinity that belongs to the rest of the Godhead belongs also to Him'" (Tasker, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 45, quoted in Carson, p. 117). They are thus not far semantically or exegetically from those who argue for a qualitative or qualitative-definite semantic force for THEOS in 1:1c.

Maximilian Zerwick
Zerwick's introductory grammar first appeared in Latin in 1944. A revised and expanded edition was published in 1960, and an English translation with further additions followed three years later. Zerwick admits that Colwell has presented "not a few persuasive examples" that definite nouns preceding the verb usually appear without the article, but he cautions: "[Colwell's] theory has its appeal, but it is not easy to admit that the reason for this use of the article it to be found in a circumstance (order of words) which seems to belong to an altogether different category' (Zerwick, p. 56), Zerwick echoes other grammarians in viewing nouns without the article as being primarily qualitative:

The omission of the article shows that the speaker regards the person or thing not so much as this or that person or thing, but rather as such a person or thing, i.e. regards not the individual but rather nature or quality. (Zerwick, p. 55, emphasis in original).

Zerwick conflates qualitative and indefinite nouns into a single category and places THEOS in John 1:1c in that category:

for in the nature of things, the predicate commonly refers not to an individual or individuals as such, but to the class to which the subject belongs, to the nature or quality predicated of the subject; e.g. Jo 1,1 kai qeoV hn`o logoV, which attributes to the Word the divine nature (`o qeoV en`o logoV, at least in NT usage, would signify personal identity of the Word with the Father, since the latter is`o qeoV ) (IBID).

In fact, this one mention of "class" is the only time Zerwick may be inferred to understand indefiniteness to be present in an anarthrous noun at all. His entire discussion of the non-use of the article centers on the qualitative aspects ascribed to the subject. Thus, for Zerwick, nouns are either definite or qualitative, and membership in a class is secondary to the attributes, characteristics, or qualities ascribed to the subject when the author omits the article.

 

[The Learner]

Bottom line, the so-called "translators" of nwt do not know even basic greek grammar.

 

[The Learner]

This draft step is new to me that each and every prophet ALSO spoke for God the Father - by definition.

One speaking for God does not make that speaker God.

Lesson 4 | The Greek Article and Pronouns​

Grammar Point 3: Predicate Nominatives​

Thus far in this course, you have learned that nominative nouns primarily serve as a verb’s subject. However, there is an additional role that a nominative noun can play when the main verb is a being verb. Action verbs have a subject in the nominative and a direct object in the accusative. Being verbs (like γίνομαι and εἰμί) have a subject in the nominative. However, instead of an accusative direct object, they have a predicate noun in the nominative case as well. This predicate noun is called the predicate nominative.
Look, for example, at the first clause of Colossians 1:18.

You can see that we have a being verb (έστιν from εἰμί) and two nominative nouns: αὐτός and ἡ κεφαλή. The pronoun αὐτός is the subject nominative. But what about the other nominative noun: ἡ κεφαλή? It is the predicate nominative. In other words, this second nominative noun predicates or states something about the subject nominative. Look at another example from the last clause of John 1:1.

Here again you see that we have a being verb (ἦν from εἰμί) and two nominative nouns: ὁ λόγος and θέος. ὁ λόγος is the subject nominative, and θέος is the predicate nominative. θέος predicates or states something about the Word: “The Word was God.”
But how do we know which nominative noun is the subject and which is the predicate nominative? The general rule is that the more definite noun is the subject nominative. The following list orders different types of nouns. At #1, pronouns are the most definite and will always be the subject nominative. At #4, nouns without the article (as long as that noun is not a pronoun or a name) will probably be the predicate nominative unless the other nominative also lacks the article.

1. Pronouns
2. Noun with the article
3. Name
4. Noun without the article

So, with John 1:1, λόγος is more definite because it has the article. So, the sentence means: “the Word was God” rather than “God was the Word.”

 

[The Learner]

Lesson 4 | The Greek Article and Pronouns | Grammar Point 3: Predicate Nominatives

equip.biblearc.com

1. "and the Word was God" (John 1:1)
   Here, the subject is "the Word" because it has the article ὁ (ho) with it. In this instance, "the Word" is emphatically being described as "God," with "God" also being in the nominative case and connected by the verb "to be." Thus, the predicate nominative in this instance is "God" since the verb "to be" is restating who "the Word" is, or "was," that is, "God."
2. The Renaming Nominative (Nominative of Appellation)
   This is simply the placing of proper names in the nominative case where they are renaming another noun. In some instances the use of a noun in the nominative to rename another noun may be a little out of character grammatically, but it serves its purpose for emphasis.

Greek Grammar - Nominative Case

Learn more about the Nominative Case in Biblical Greek. There are five versions: subject, predicate, renaming, independent, and exclamation.

www.blueletterbible.org

Lesson 4

Case nominative — unfoldingWord® Greek Grammar 1 documentation

 

[The Learner]

Some interesting examples are: Galatians 6:3, εἰ γὰρ δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι μηδὲν ὤν (“For if someone considers [himself] to be something, when he is nothing”). Here, τι acts as predicate nominative following the infinitive εἶναί, and μηδὲν as predicate nominative to the subject contained in the participle ὤν.

 

[The Learner]

Predicate Nominatives in the New Testament

Predicate Nominatives in the New Testament and the “Problem” of John 1:1 and Other Passages A predicate nominative in the New Testament is, by definition, a noun in the nominative case that is link…

thimblefulloftheology.com

How to Distinguish Subjects and Predicate Nominatives in Koine - exegetical.tools

Remember these three guidelines and save yourself lots of time and errors.

exegeticaltools.com

https://www.areopage.net/ColwellRule.pdf

 

[rebuilder 454]

Yup. That’s because 1 cannot be 3. It’s called logic.

...and walking on water is what? Watchtower logic impasse?
Mental carnal men trying to figure out how JESUS IS DECLARED GOD in Hebrew's by the Father, and how God leads his angels to sin by ordering them to worship Jesus whom watchtower neutered into a " created being".
IOW, in order to be a upright watchtower member, you have to have the audacity to deny Jesus.

Just sickening.
They celebrate ignorance.
It is in fact invincible ignorance.

 

[The Learner]

There have been many translations in history with a god at John 1:1--Rejected by so called scholars. Here are the so called scholars of Jesus' day- Matt 12:24--not so scholarly as they thought they were. Jesus even told them off at Matt 23-saying they were misleading all listening to them to not enter Gods kingdom.
The divine name kjv came out in 2015, they put Gods name back where it belongs. Because it belongs in every one of those spots--BY GODS WILL his name belongs in every one of those spots. The truly unscholarly keep Gods name out against his will to mislead.

They all are unitaitans, arians like Christadelphians and clowns who don't know their Greek Grammar.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Lets take this a verse at a time and see what it is actually saying in plain English…the language we speak today…..for context, this is when a crippled man was healed “in the name of Jesus Christ”…..so we understand that “in the name of” means being given authority to do something as a representative of the person in whose name it is carried out.
If a police officer was to say to someone “Stop in the name of the law”….he is not the law, but is a representative of the law, and authorized by it to apprehend a criminal.

So….”by the name of Jesus”…”whom God raised from the dead” does the man stand before the accusers, healed. Who raised Jesus from the dead? He did not raise himself.

Jesus had told his apostles....”…whatever you ask in my name, I will do this, so that the Father may be glorified in connection with the Son. 14 If you ask anything in my name, I will do it.” (John 14:13)

John 15:16..
“You did not choose me, but I chose you, and I appointed you to go and keep bearing fruit and that your fruit should remain, so that no matter what you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.”

They performed miracles “in Jesus’ name”, or by his authority until the promised holy spirit would be given them after his departure…..this is not what was meant by calling on the name of Yahweh…..the one who gave Jesus his authority. (Matt 28:18) As the scripture says…it is “the Father” who grants Christians their requests, asked “in Jesus’ name”.…indicating faith in his sacrifice.

Yes, Jesus is the name of the savior, sent by his God and Father to redeem the human race and save them from the judgment to come. The Father is the Savior who sends the rescuer which makes him also a savior.
The term means “a rescuer or deliverer”. It is not exclusive to Jesus or his Father. There are others called “saviors”. (Judges 3:9)

“Calling on the name of the LORD” is not calling on Jesus, but on the one Jesus called to in his dying moments….his God and Father. Yahweh saves us through the actions of his Messiah in laying down his sinless life to pay back what Adam stole from his children. Father and son have always acted as a team…..right from the beginning….(Rev 3:14)

They are “Father” and “son” by their own definition, so why is there a need to reinterpret that relationship that is clearly understood by all humans? What was simple then becomes ridiculously complicated and confusing by trying to redefine something that never needed to be.…just to accommodate a false doctrine?…which was something that Jesus never taught. Who is responsible for that do you think?

Pot <> kettle big time.
You instruct people to follow your false religion.
That beast has carried all of you into a desert and died. You hang around that corpse and ignorantly have God commanding his own angels in rebellion to worship a created being.

 

[The Learner]

My translation does not have that. Do you have a source or translation I can refer to?

studies name of God bible yahweh - Google Search

www.google.com

Yahweh | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org

Ligonier Ministries, founded by R.C. Sproul, exists to proclaim, teach, and defend the holiness of God in all its fullness to as many people as possible.

www.ligonier.org

Yahweh

Biblical tradition asserts that the revelation of God to Moses in the burning bush involved also a declaration of the divine name, the Tet (represented by the letters Y, H, W, H), and its meaning. There are indications that the divine name was known prior to the time of Moses, although ultimate...

www.google.com

 

[rebuilder 454]

I'd like a $1 for every time you have posted this verse....I could retire! It does prove that a person can read a verse armed with either mans wisdom, or God's, and arrive at totally opposing positions. Seek wisdom and with all thy seeking Jack, get understanding!
F2F

did you ever figure out in watchtower wisdom how Tomas was in some made-up error by worshipping your neutered Jesus.?
You can not. Not honestly.

 

[The Learner]

LOL.....If it was, then we would be worried, since the majority of them are trinitarians. Ours is faithful to the original languages, which only careful Bible study reveals......we do not not accept misinterpretations designed to deliberately suggest things that the Bible does not teach...many of which your own denomination also rejects.

I already posted the court case where your head scholar could not even read basic Hebrew.
Also, posted what scholars really said about nwt.

Your invincible igorance is amazing.

 

[Wrangler]

...and walking on water is what? Watchtower logic impasse?

You mean like Peter did? I really don't understand your proto-thought question.

Mental carnal men trying to figure out how JESUS IS DECLARED GOD in Hebrew's by the Father,

No such thing ever happened. Trinitarians confuse prepositions (OF, 'O, FROM, IN) with verbs (IS).

 

[The Learner]

Red, you either have ears to hear, or you don't.

14 Principles for Studying the Bible

How can you dig deeper into God’s Word? Understand it better? Apply it well? Keep these fourteen foundational Bible study principles in mind when you read.

www.crossway.org

 

[Wrangler]

studies name of God bible yahweh - Google Search

www.google.com

Yahweh | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org

Ligonier Ministries, founded by R.C. Sproul, exists to proclaim, teach, and defend the holiness of God in all its fullness to as many people as possible.

www.ligonier.org

Yahweh

Biblical tradition asserts that the revelation of God to Moses in the burning bush involved also a declaration of the divine name, the Tet (represented by the letters Y, H, W, H), and its meaning. There are indications that the divine name was known prior to the time of Moses, although ultimate...

www.google.com

Thank you for this post. The disconnect is the claim that YHWH's name appears 200 times in the NT. I'd love a reference or translation that affirms this. Thanks! :)

 

[Wrangler]

I already posted the court case where your head scholar could not even read basic Hebrew.

I must have missed that. On what grounds did this go to a governmental court?

 

[The Learner]

Where the OT is quoted. The biggest misleading deception by the removal of Gods name is found at Joel 2:21-22--All who call on the name of YHVH(Jehovah) will be saved---quoted 2 x in NT-Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13-- The name YHVH(Jehovah) belongs at both spots. But the altered versions to mislead has LORD at Joel, thus has lord at both NT spots and since 1 Cor 8:6 says Jesus is lord, the mislead will call on his name because they lack truth and cannot accomplish this ultra important truth-John4:22-24--those will lose. Only false religions use the altered translations in support of satans will over Gods will who inspired his name in all of the over 7000 spots because he wants it there. It is his will for his name to be in his bible in every one of those spots. Wicked men removed it in fear of taking Gods name in vain. Only the wicked fear taking Gods name in vain, the righteous run to it as a strong tower and share it just like Jesus did-John 17:6,26)

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” But the temple he had spoken of was his body. — John 2:19-21

No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have the right to lay it down, and I have the right to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father. — John 10:18

And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you, then he who raised Christ from the dead will also bring your mortal bodies to life through his Spirit who lives in you. — Rom 8:11

Paul, an apostle—not from men or by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead. — Gal 1:1

Through him you believe in God , who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. — 1 Pet 1:21

He was put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit. — 1 Pet 3:18b

 

[The Learner]

In Acts 2:24, Peter says that “God raised [Jesus] from the dead.” So that’s the basic answer. God resurrected Jesus. As we read more Scripture, that basic answer becomes more nuanced.

The Bible indicates that all three Persons of the Trinity were involved in Jesus’ resurrection. Galatians 1:1 says that the Father raised Jesus from the dead. First Peter 3:18 says that the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (see also Romans 1:4, and note that Romans 8:11 clearly says that God will resurrect believers “through His Spirit”). And in John 2:19 Jesus predicts that He will raise Himself from the dead (see also John 10:18). So, when we answer the question of who resurrected Jesus, we can say God did. And by that we can mean it was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

It may seem puzzling how Jesus could be said to raise Himself. How can a dead man have any say in his own resurrection? The answer is that Jesus was more than a man who died; He was the eternal Son of God incarnate. Wicked men could kill His body, but they could not change His eternal nature or diminish His divine power. In John 10:17–18 Jesus says something that no mere mortal could ever say: “I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.” No one else in the history of the world has ever had the authority both to lay down his life and to raise it up again.

Furthermore, Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25). He claimed to be the resurrection Himself; He has absolute authority over life and death (Revelation 1:18). Jesus is God. He could say He would raise up His body on the third day because He, being God, has power over death.

Who resurrected Jesus from the dead? God did, and by that we mean all three Persons of the Trinity were involved. All three Persons of the Trinity participated in creation (1 Corinthians 8:6; Genesis 1:1–2). All three are involved in salvation (John 3:6, 16). And all three are responsible for the resurrection of Christ Jesus.