"The word was a god"?

[Matthias]

John 1
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

This speaks of Jesus the Word.

Jesus, the Father and the Spirit act together.

John 1

3. All things came into being through it, and apart from it nothing came into being that has come into being.

Who does this speak of?

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Jesus is the son of God, not God himself

if this is true, then the Bible is false!

 

[DavidB]

In all of these English translations, there is no one that reads "God is your throne", Hebrews 1:8 Parallel: But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

As I have said, for this to be the reading of the Greek, "Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεὸς", the words cannot be an address, and will be in the nominative proper. However, in Hebrews 1:8, it is the nominitave as vocative, as it is an address by the Father to Jesus Christ. This is also acknowledged by the Unitarian Greek grammirian, Dr George Winer. In fact, another Unitarian, Dr Noyes, in his NT reads, "thy throne O God"

Only those who try to wrest the Bible, and force its normal meaning, based on their theology, will reject the reading, "Your throne O God"

Jesus Christ is Himself Yahweh, the Eternal God, as is the Father and Holy Spirit. Jesus says so Himself, when He quotes Malachi 3:1, in Matthew 11:10, and changes the pronoun in the Greek, so that He becomes the Speaker, "Yahweh of Hosts", in Malachi. Jesus could not have done this if He was not Almighty God.

I am aware that most translations read “Your throne O God.” But like I said not all do. Right within your Biblehub list you linked is this translation.

Mace New Testament
“but to the son he saith, "God is thy throne for ever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of equity.”

2 more examples:

James Moffatt New Testament:
"He says of the Son, 'God is thy throne for ever and ever"

Goodspeed New Testament:
"But of the Son he says, "God is your throne forever and ever!"

These seem much more consistent with Hebrews 1:9 where God is described as Jesus’ God. This is also consistent with all the other verses that refer to the “God and Father of Jesus Christ.”

As to the majority of Bibles translating these few disputed verses to support the trinity, that seems to be the result of over 1,600 years of indoctrination. Father and Son. Very clear.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

I am aware that most translations read “Your throne O God.” But like I said not all do. Right within your Biblehub list you linked is this translation.

Mace New Testament
“but to the son he saith, "God is thy throne for ever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of equity.”

2 more examples:

James Moffatt New Testament:
"He says of the Son, 'God is thy throne for ever and ever"

Goodspeed New Testament:
"But of the Son he says, "God is your throne forever and ever!"

These seem much more consistent with Hebrews 1:9 where God is described as Jesus’ God. This is also consistent with all the other verses that refer to the “God and Father of Jesus Christ.”

As to the majority of Bibles translating these few disputed verses to support the trinity, that seems to be the result of over 1,600 years of indoctrination. Father and Son. Very clear.

ok, so you are more interested in a FEW that support what you want them to say?

It is not "most" but 99% that are RIGHT!

It is clear that you are not interested in what the Bible actually says, but look for those "versions" like Moffatt and Goodspeed, both LIBERALS who twist John 1:1!

 

[Webers_Home]

.

Micheal and he is THE Archangel.

It's a common Watchtower rule of translation that when a Greek noun is
modified by the Greek article "ho" then the noun becomes unique; for
example ho theós pertains to the one true God while theós unmodified
usually pertains to nondescript gods.

According to the interlinear of the Strong's Concordance, and the 1969
Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, "archangel" in
1Thess 4:16-17 isn't modified by the article "ho" meaning of course that the
voice in question is that of a nondescript archangel instead of one in
particular.

BTW: The 1984 Green Monster (NWT) translates that passage with "an"
archangel rather than "the" archangel.
_

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

It's a common Watchtower rule

they know NOTHING of Greek grammar and have their own "rules"!

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Please help me to understand what is meant here. If Jesus was "a god" then He could be THE God or a false god. What else could this mean? How can Jesus be "a god"?

Nothing more that the Jehova's Witness BLASPHEMOUS CORRUPTION of the Scriptures. Their "Jesus" is rather different than the REAL Jesus, making their worthless Religious system of salvation by WORKS of no value whatsoever. THEY added the textually false "A" to reinforce their own corrupt theology.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Nothing more that the Jehova's Witness BLASPHEMOUS CORRUPTION of the Scriptures. Their "Jesus" is rather different than the REAL Jesus, making their worthless Religious system of salvation by WORKS of no value whatsoever. THEY added the textually false "A" to reinforce their own corrupt theology.

well said brother!

 

[Carl Emerson]

John 1

3. All things came into being through it, and apart from it nothing came into being that has come into being.

Who does this speak of?

The Word is Jesus - not an 'it' - please be respectful.

 

[Matthias]

The Word is Jesus - not an 'it' - please be respectful.

The passage I gave you is from the Geneva Bible.

What does that say to you about the Geneva Bible? That it is disrespectful?

Jesus is not an “it” and I have never referred to him that way.

 

[Carl Emerson]

The passage I gave you is from the Geneva Bible.

What does that say to you about the Geneva Bible? That it is disrespectful?

Yes.

 

[Matthias]

Yes.

Okay. Thanks.

If you’re going to take that position with the Geneva Bible then your going to have to take it with all English translations translated from Greek manuscripts prior to 1611 as disrespectful.

Maybe that’s why the Roman Catholic Church fought against English translations of the Bible and put men like Tyndale to death for having done so.

William Tyndale. Disrespectful of Jesus?

I don’t think so.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

The passage I gave you is from the Geneva Bible.

What does that say to you about the Geneva Bible? That it is disrespectful?

Jesus is not an “it” and I have never referred to him that way.

it looks like you search the web for Bible versions that support the nonsense that you believe!

 

[amigo de christo]

That my friend is what most folks do in all denominations . They hold to the version of greek and etc
that their men have led them astray by . As for the lambs we have CHRIST , THE SPIRIT
and we shall simply read our bibles and test all men .

 

[Matthias]

it looks like you search the web for Bible versions that support the nonsense that you believe!

It isn’t what it looks like to you.

I’m reconsidering trinitarianism. Your witness makes a strong case against it.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

It isn’t what it looks like to you.

I’m reconsidering trinitarianism. Your witness makes a strong case against it.

and how sould I care?

 

[DavidB]

ok, so you are more interested in a FEW that support what you want them to say?

It is not "most" but 99% that are RIGHT!

It is clear that you are not interested in what the Bible actually says, but look for those "versions" like Moffatt and Goodspeed, both LIBERALS who twist John 1:1!

I’m interested enough in what the Bible says to not misrepresent the truth which is that not all translators agree with you. I’m also interested enough to see a clear pattern of corruption in trinitarian translation.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

I’m interested enough in what the Bible says to not misrepresent the truth which is that not all translators agree with you. I’m also interested enough to see a clear pattern of corruption in trinitarian translation.

You are doing all that you can to reject Truth

 

[Matthias]

and how sould I care?

You haven’t demonstrated that you have the capacity to care. What makes you think I can help you with that?

 

[tigger 2]

...............................
I already gave you a free lesson about this. If you would be honest enough to carefully read my studies concerning John's use of the grammar of John 1:1c, you would know that even recognized scholars (Robertson; Moule; Dana and Mantey; etc.) acknowledge the ambiguity of nominative nouns which are modified by genitives or prepositions or are personal names; etc. They are, therefore, unacceptable as examples where the article is used or not.

John 1:6 - Why does anthropos not have the definite article? In fact, it is rare to find a translator who does not properly 'add' a: 'a man.' Furthermore, theou is a genitive! Read and learn.

How about actually studying my works and criticizing them with integrity? Just try. It won't hurt. Take the first things first, one by one. What is a clear error and what is your evidence?

.....................................
From my DEF study:

Even the trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Word”. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.

Equally trinitarian Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:

“A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

The reason Prof. Dodd rejected “a god” as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upset his trinitarian interpretations of John’s Gospel! This goes for all the trinitarian scholars who admit the honest translation - opinion rules.

Rev. J. W. Wenham wrote in his The Elements of New Testament Greek: “Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god [God]’.” - p. 35, Cambridge University Press, 1965.

"In John i.1 (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος), the article could not have been omitted if John had wished to designate the λόγος as ὁ θεὸς, because in such a connexion θεὸς without the article would be ambiguous." - A treatise on the grammar of New Testament Greek : regarded as a sure basis for New Testament exegesis, p. 151, G. B. Winer.


(Of course if you carefully examine the rest of my study, you will find that John’s use of grammar really shows that ‘The Word is [or “was” in John 1:1c] a god’ is what John intended.)

Trinitarian NT scholar Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that “John’s monotheism” will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992. However, his acknowledgment of the use of “god” for men at John 10:34-36 and the use of “god/gods” for angels, judges, and other men in the Hebrew OT Scriptures contradicts his above excuse for not accepting the literal translation. - p. 202, Jesus as God.


And Dr. J. D. BeDuhn in his Truth in Translation states about John 1:1c:

“ ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar… supports this translation.” - p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003.

Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is “and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word” - p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.

And highly respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay wrote: “You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a God’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong.” - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.

You see, in ancient times many of God’s servants had no qualms about using the word “god” or “gods” for godly men, kings, judges, and even angels.

Yes, as trinitarian scholar Dr. Robert Young tells us in the preface to Young’s Analytical Concordance in the section entitled “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”:

“65. God—is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, Magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. Ex. 7:1; ... John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28 ....” - Eerdmans Publ., 1978.

Without a careful study of the proper examples, you will not find the truth of John 1:1c in most trinitarian Bibles. The only scholars I have found who claim to have done a study of John 1:1c by looking at John's parallel examples are Colwell, Harner, and Wallace. I have examined their research (and have copies on my blog) and find that in every case they have chosen many of the exceptions to prove their case. This is not proper research!