"The word was a god"?

[tigger 2]

.....................................
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 ar 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!

 

[tigger 2]

One of the exceptions from my DEFinite study which you and most others continue to ignore:

Most frequently misused exceptions are nominative nouns with attributive genitive nouns or prepositions:

As Dana and Mantey tell us, “The use of prepositions, possessive ... pronouns, and the genitive case also tend to make a word definite. At such times, even if the article is not used, the object is already distinctly indicated.” -p. 137, D&M Grammar.

“In examples like this [“prepositional” constructions] (cf. ... Mt. 27:54) ONLY THE CONTEXT CAN DECIDE [whether the anarthrous noun is definite or indefinite]. Sometimes the matter is wholly doubtful.... [Please note that the example Robertson has given (Matt. 27:54) has the anarthrous predicate noun coming before the verb as in Colwell’s Rule!] In Jo. 5:27 [‘son of man’] may be either ‘the son of man’ or ‘a son of man.’” - p. 781. Robertson says this in spite of the fact that John 5:27 also has an anarthrous predicate noun preceding its verb!! It’s “prepositional” (noun modified by a genitive noun in these cases) and, therefore, the use of the article is ambiguous! - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson, 1934.

In section VIII, ‘The Absence of the Article,’ Professor Robertson quotes Gildersleeve and tells us, “prepositional phrases and other formulae may dispense with the article” - p. 790. And “(b) with genitives. We have seen that the substantive may still be definite if anarthrous, though not necessarily so.” - p. 791. - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson.

+++ C. F. D. Moule says: “9. Finally, note that the use or non-use of the article may, in some cases, be due to the influence of Semitic idiom rather than deliberate desire to modify the sense. A noun in the construct case [similar to a noun modified by a genitive noun in NT Greek, e.g., ‘man of God’] in Hebrew is never allowed to carry the article, and this may sometimes be sufficient to explain an anarthrous noun in a Greek equivalent phrase: aggelos kuriou might be a Hebraism for the angel of the Lord; so doxa kuriou.” – p. 117, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1990 printing.

+++ J. H. Moulton tells us: “the matter [of identifying an anarthrous ‘spirit’] is complicated threefold by the question of the non-use of the art[icle] with proper nouns, and in prepositional expressions ..., and even (in Biblical Greek through influence of the Heb. construct state) before a genitive. In none of these situations need the lack of the art[icle] indicate any indefiniteness of reference” - p. 175. And, “(d) Absence of Article Before a Noun Which Governs a genitive. In Heb. a noun may be in the construct state or have a suffix attached to it, and in either case it would be anarthrous. This influenced the LXX [Septuagint] and, in turn, the NT writers in varying degrees. Thus aggelos kuriou is not ‘an angel’ but the angel’, doxa laou is ‘the glory’.” - pp. 179-180, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. III, J. H. Moulton, 1963.

+++ “The article … is sometimes missing, especially after prepositions … and with a genitive which depends on an anarthrous noun (especially a predicate noun): Mt 27:43.” - Blass & Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, p. 133, University of Chicago Press, 1961.

+++ - "A genitive qualifier tends to make the head noun definite even though it might not have the article." - Dr. Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek, p. 67, Broadman and Holman Publ., 1994.

+++ Henry Alford wrote concerning Titus 2:13 in his The Greek Testament, “It [‘saviour’] is joined with [hmwn, ‘of us’ (genitive)], which is an additional reason why it may spare the article: see Luke 1:78; Ro. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3” - p. 420, The Greek Testament, by Henry Alford.

+++ “….(2) definiteness is not expressed only by the article but may [not always] also be indicated by an accompanying genitive or possessive pronoun; …(4) Biblical Greek sometimes reflects the Semitic idiom in which the noun in the construct state [comparable to ‘angel of Lord’], even if definite, is anarthrous … and (5) there is a tendency for nouns to be anarthrous that are used in familiar or stereotyped expressions that may date from the prearticular age of Greek - expressions such as idiomatic prepositional phrases.” - p. 304, Jesus as God, Murray J. Harris, Baker Book House, 1992. (Emphasis added)

+++ “#1146. A substantive followed by an attributive genitive and forming with it a compound idea, usually omits the article.” - H. W. Smyth’s A Greek Grammar for Colleges, p. 291 .

+++ Also see pp. 150-151 in G.B. Winer's A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek.

+++ Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 734, Zondervan, 1996.

Since John 1:1c does not have its predicate noun with a “prepositional” construction anyway, it is necessarily a part of proper research to select parallel examples (i.e., without “prepositional” constructions) in any attempt to show a similar effect as claimed for John 1:1c.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

.....................................
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 ar 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!

Here is W E Vine, I want you to do the same from the edition you quoted from


Murray Harris



BOTH are very clear, that the reading is "the Word was God"! Vine says that it is MISLEADING to say, "a god"!

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

One of the exceptions from my DEFinite study which you and most others continue to ignore:

Most frequently misused exceptions are nominative nouns with attributive genitive nouns or prepositions:

As Dana and Mantey tell us, “The use of prepositions, possessive ... pronouns, and the genitive case also tend to make a word definite. At such times, even if the article is not used, the object is already distinctly indicated.” -p. 137, D&M Grammar.

“In examples like this [“prepositional” constructions] (cf. ... Mt. 27:54) ONLY THE CONTEXT CAN DECIDE [whether the anarthrous noun is definite or indefinite]. Sometimes the matter is wholly doubtful.... [Please note that the example Robertson has given (Matt. 27:54) has the anarthrous predicate noun coming before the verb as in Colwell’s Rule!] In Jo. 5:27 [‘son of man’] may be either ‘the son of man’ or ‘a son of man.’” - p. 781. Robertson says this in spite of the fact that John 5:27 also has an anarthrous predicate noun preceding its verb!! It’s “prepositional” (noun modified by a genitive noun in these cases) and, therefore, the use of the article is ambiguous! - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson, 1934.

In section VIII, ‘The Absence of the Article,’ Professor Robertson quotes Gildersleeve and tells us, “prepositional phrases and other formulae may dispense with the article” - p. 790. And “(b) with genitives. We have seen that the substantive may still be definite if anarthrous, though not necessarily so.” - p. 791. - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson.

+++ C. F. D. Moule says: “9. Finally, note that the use or non-use of the article may, in some cases, be due to the influence of Semitic idiom rather than deliberate desire to modify the sense. A noun in the construct case [similar to a noun modified by a genitive noun in NT Greek, e.g., ‘man of God’] in Hebrew is never allowed to carry the article, and this may sometimes be sufficient to explain an anarthrous noun in a Greek equivalent phrase: aggelos kuriou might be a Hebraism for the angel of the Lord; so doxa kuriou.” – p. 117, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1990 printing.

+++ J. H. Moulton tells us: “the matter [of identifying an anarthrous ‘spirit’] is complicated threefold by the question of the non-use of the art[icle] with proper nouns, and in prepositional expressions ..., and even (in Biblical Greek through influence of the Heb. construct state) before a genitive. In none of these situations need the lack of the art[icle] indicate any indefiniteness of reference” - p. 175. And, “(d) Absence of Article Before a Noun Which Governs a genitive. In Heb. a noun may be in the construct state or have a suffix attached to it, and in either case it would be anarthrous. This influenced the LXX [Septuagint] and, in turn, the NT writers in varying degrees. Thus aggelos kuriou is not ‘an angel’ but the angel’, doxa laou is ‘the glory’.” - pp. 179-180, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. III, J. H. Moulton, 1963.

+++ “The article … is sometimes missing, especially after prepositions … and with a genitive which depends on an anarthrous noun (especially a predicate noun): Mt 27:43.” - Blass & Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, p. 133, University of Chicago Press, 1961.

+++ - "A genitive qualifier tends to make the head noun definite even though it might not have the article." - Dr. Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek, p. 67, Broadman and Holman Publ., 1994.

+++ Henry Alford wrote concerning Titus 2:13 in his The Greek Testament, “It [‘saviour’] is joined with [hmwn, ‘of us’ (genitive)], which is an additional reason why it may spare the article: see Luke 1:78; Ro. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3” - p. 420, The Greek Testament, by Henry Alford.

+++ “….(2) definiteness is not expressed only by the article but may [not always] also be indicated by an accompanying genitive or possessive pronoun; …(4) Biblical Greek sometimes reflects the Semitic idiom in which the noun in the construct state [comparable to ‘angel of Lord’], even if definite, is anarthrous … and (5) there is a tendency for nouns to be anarthrous that are used in familiar or stereotyped expressions that may date from the prearticular age of Greek - expressions such as idiomatic prepositional phrases.” - p. 304, Jesus as God, Murray J. Harris, Baker Book House, 1992. (Emphasis added)

+++ “#1146. A substantive followed by an attributive genitive and forming with it a compound idea, usually omits the article.” - H. W. Smyth’s A Greek Grammar for Colleges, p. 291 .

+++ Also see pp. 150-151 in G.B. Winer's A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek.

+++ Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 734, Zondervan, 1996.

Since John 1:1c does not have its predicate noun with a “prepositional” construction anyway, it is necessarily a part of proper research to select parallel examples (i.e., without “prepositional” constructions) in any attempt to show a similar effect as claimed for John 1:1c.

you are posting LIES on here!

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

One of the exceptions from my DEFinite study which you and most others continue to ignore:

Most frequently misused exceptions are nominative nouns with attributive genitive nouns or prepositions:

As Dana and Mantey tell us, “The use of prepositions, possessive ... pronouns, and the genitive case also tend to make a word definite. At such times, even if the article is not used, the object is already distinctly indicated.” -p. 137, D&M Grammar.

“In examples like this [“prepositional” constructions] (cf. ... Mt. 27:54) ONLY THE CONTEXT CAN DECIDE [whether the anarthrous noun is definite or indefinite]. Sometimes the matter is wholly doubtful.... [Please note that the example Robertson has given (Matt. 27:54) has the anarthrous predicate noun coming before the verb as in Colwell’s Rule!] In Jo. 5:27 [‘son of man’] may be either ‘the son of man’ or ‘a son of man.’” - p. 781. Robertson says this in spite of the fact that John 5:27 also has an anarthrous predicate noun preceding its verb!! It’s “prepositional” (noun modified by a genitive noun in these cases) and, therefore, the use of the article is ambiguous! - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson, 1934.

In section VIII, ‘The Absence of the Article,’ Professor Robertson quotes Gildersleeve and tells us, “prepositional phrases and other formulae may dispense with the article” - p. 790. And “(b) with genitives. We have seen that the substantive may still be definite if anarthrous, though not necessarily so.” - p. 791. - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson.

+++ C. F. D. Moule says: “9. Finally, note that the use or non-use of the article may, in some cases, be due to the influence of Semitic idiom rather than deliberate desire to modify the sense. A noun in the construct case [similar to a noun modified by a genitive noun in NT Greek, e.g., ‘man of God’] in Hebrew is never allowed to carry the article, and this may sometimes be sufficient to explain an anarthrous noun in a Greek equivalent phrase: aggelos kuriou might be a Hebraism for the angel of the Lord; so doxa kuriou.” – p. 117, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1990 printing.

+++ J. H. Moulton tells us: “the matter [of identifying an anarthrous ‘spirit’] is complicated threefold by the question of the non-use of the art[icle] with proper nouns, and in prepositional expressions ..., and even (in Biblical Greek through influence of the Heb. construct state) before a genitive. In none of these situations need the lack of the art[icle] indicate any indefiniteness of reference” - p. 175. And, “(d) Absence of Article Before a Noun Which Governs a genitive. In Heb. a noun may be in the construct state or have a suffix attached to it, and in either case it would be anarthrous. This influenced the LXX [Septuagint] and, in turn, the NT writers in varying degrees. Thus aggelos kuriou is not ‘an angel’ but the angel’, doxa laou is ‘the glory’.” - pp. 179-180, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. III, J. H. Moulton, 1963.

+++ “The article … is sometimes missing, especially after prepositions … and with a genitive which depends on an anarthrous noun (especially a predicate noun): Mt 27:43.” - Blass & Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, p. 133, University of Chicago Press, 1961.

+++ - "A genitive qualifier tends to make the head noun definite even though it might not have the article." - Dr. Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek, p. 67, Broadman and Holman Publ., 1994.

+++ Henry Alford wrote concerning Titus 2:13 in his The Greek Testament, “It [‘saviour’] is joined with [hmwn, ‘of us’ (genitive)], which is an additional reason why it may spare the article: see Luke 1:78; Ro. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3” - p. 420, The Greek Testament, by Henry Alford.

+++ “….(2) definiteness is not expressed only by the article but may [not always] also be indicated by an accompanying genitive or possessive pronoun; …(4) Biblical Greek sometimes reflects the Semitic idiom in which the noun in the construct state [comparable to ‘angel of Lord’], even if definite, is anarthrous … and (5) there is a tendency for nouns to be anarthrous that are used in familiar or stereotyped expressions that may date from the prearticular age of Greek - expressions such as idiomatic prepositional phrases.” - p. 304, Jesus as God, Murray J. Harris, Baker Book House, 1992. (Emphasis added)

+++ “#1146. A substantive followed by an attributive genitive and forming with it a compound idea, usually omits the article.” - H. W. Smyth’s A Greek Grammar for Colleges, p. 291 .

+++ Also see pp. 150-151 in G.B. Winer's A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek.

+++ Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 734, Zondervan, 1996.

Since John 1:1c does not have its predicate noun with a “prepositional” construction anyway, it is necessarily a part of proper research to select parallel examples (i.e., without “prepositional” constructions) in any attempt to show a similar effect as claimed for John 1:1c.

another LIE exposed! Here is Dr Mantey's letter to the JW's

Dr Mantey's Letter

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

One of the exceptions from my DEFinite study which you and most others continue to ignore:

Most frequently misused exceptions are nominative nouns with attributive genitive nouns or prepositions:

As Dana and Mantey tell us, “The use of prepositions, possessive ... pronouns, and the genitive case also tend to make a word definite. At such times, even if the article is not used, the object is already distinctly indicated.” -p. 137, D&M Grammar.

“In examples like this [“prepositional” constructions] (cf. ... Mt. 27:54) ONLY THE CONTEXT CAN DECIDE [whether the anarthrous noun is definite or indefinite]. Sometimes the matter is wholly doubtful.... [Please note that the example Robertson has given (Matt. 27:54) has the anarthrous predicate noun coming before the verb as in Colwell’s Rule!] In Jo. 5:27 [‘son of man’] may be either ‘the son of man’ or ‘a son of man.’” - p. 781. Robertson says this in spite of the fact that John 5:27 also has an anarthrous predicate noun preceding its verb!! It’s “prepositional” (noun modified by a genitive noun in these cases) and, therefore, the use of the article is ambiguous! - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson, 1934.

In section VIII, ‘The Absence of the Article,’ Professor Robertson quotes Gildersleeve and tells us, “prepositional phrases and other formulae may dispense with the article” - p. 790. And “(b) with genitives. We have seen that the substantive may still be definite if anarthrous, though not necessarily so.” - p. 791. - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson.

+++ C. F. D. Moule says: “9. Finally, note that the use or non-use of the article may, in some cases, be due to the influence of Semitic idiom rather than deliberate desire to modify the sense. A noun in the construct case [similar to a noun modified by a genitive noun in NT Greek, e.g., ‘man of God’] in Hebrew is never allowed to carry the article, and this may sometimes be sufficient to explain an anarthrous noun in a Greek equivalent phrase: aggelos kuriou might be a Hebraism for the angel of the Lord; so doxa kuriou.” – p. 117, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1990 printing.

+++ J. H. Moulton tells us: “the matter [of identifying an anarthrous ‘spirit’] is complicated threefold by the question of the non-use of the art[icle] with proper nouns, and in prepositional expressions ..., and even (in Biblical Greek through influence of the Heb. construct state) before a genitive. In none of these situations need the lack of the art[icle] indicate any indefiniteness of reference” - p. 175. And, “(d) Absence of Article Before a Noun Which Governs a genitive. In Heb. a noun may be in the construct state or have a suffix attached to it, and in either case it would be anarthrous. This influenced the LXX [Septuagint] and, in turn, the NT writers in varying degrees. Thus aggelos kuriou is not ‘an angel’ but the angel’, doxa laou is ‘the glory’.” - pp. 179-180, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. III, J. H. Moulton, 1963.

+++ “The article … is sometimes missing, especially after prepositions … and with a genitive which depends on an anarthrous noun (especially a predicate noun): Mt 27:43.” - Blass & Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, p. 133, University of Chicago Press, 1961.

+++ - "A genitive qualifier tends to make the head noun definite even though it might not have the article." - Dr. Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek, p. 67, Broadman and Holman Publ., 1994.

+++ Henry Alford wrote concerning Titus 2:13 in his The Greek Testament, “It [‘saviour’] is joined with [hmwn, ‘of us’ (genitive)], which is an additional reason why it may spare the article: see Luke 1:78; Ro. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3” - p. 420, The Greek Testament, by Henry Alford.

+++ “….(2) definiteness is not expressed only by the article but may [not always] also be indicated by an accompanying genitive or possessive pronoun; …(4) Biblical Greek sometimes reflects the Semitic idiom in which the noun in the construct state [comparable to ‘angel of Lord’], even if definite, is anarthrous … and (5) there is a tendency for nouns to be anarthrous that are used in familiar or stereotyped expressions that may date from the prearticular age of Greek - expressions such as idiomatic prepositional phrases.” - p. 304, Jesus as God, Murray J. Harris, Baker Book House, 1992. (Emphasis added)

+++ “#1146. A substantive followed by an attributive genitive and forming with it a compound idea, usually omits the article.” - H. W. Smyth’s A Greek Grammar for Colleges, p. 291 .

+++ Also see pp. 150-151 in G.B. Winer's A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek.

+++ Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 734, Zondervan, 1996.

Since John 1:1c does not have its predicate noun with a “prepositional” construction anyway, it is necessarily a part of proper research to select parallel examples (i.e., without “prepositional” constructions) in any attempt to show a similar effect as claimed for John 1:1c.

Another LIE exposed! A T Robertson

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

One of the exceptions from my DEFinite study which you and most others continue to ignore:

Most frequently misused exceptions are nominative nouns with attributive genitive nouns or prepositions:

As Dana and Mantey tell us, “The use of prepositions, possessive ... pronouns, and the genitive case also tend to make a word definite. At such times, even if the article is not used, the object is already distinctly indicated.” -p. 137, D&M Grammar.

“In examples like this [“prepositional” constructions] (cf. ... Mt. 27:54) ONLY THE CONTEXT CAN DECIDE [whether the anarthrous noun is definite or indefinite]. Sometimes the matter is wholly doubtful.... [Please note that the example Robertson has given (Matt. 27:54) has the anarthrous predicate noun coming before the verb as in Colwell’s Rule!] In Jo. 5:27 [‘son of man’] may be either ‘the son of man’ or ‘a son of man.’” - p. 781. Robertson says this in spite of the fact that John 5:27 also has an anarthrous predicate noun preceding its verb!! It’s “prepositional” (noun modified by a genitive noun in these cases) and, therefore, the use of the article is ambiguous! - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson, 1934.

In section VIII, ‘The Absence of the Article,’ Professor Robertson quotes Gildersleeve and tells us, “prepositional phrases and other formulae may dispense with the article” - p. 790. And “(b) with genitives. We have seen that the substantive may still be definite if anarthrous, though not necessarily so.” - p. 791. - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson.

+++ C. F. D. Moule says: “9. Finally, note that the use or non-use of the article may, in some cases, be due to the influence of Semitic idiom rather than deliberate desire to modify the sense. A noun in the construct case [similar to a noun modified by a genitive noun in NT Greek, e.g., ‘man of God’] in Hebrew is never allowed to carry the article, and this may sometimes be sufficient to explain an anarthrous noun in a Greek equivalent phrase: aggelos kuriou might be a Hebraism for the angel of the Lord; so doxa kuriou.” – p. 117, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1990 printing.

+++ J. H. Moulton tells us: “the matter [of identifying an anarthrous ‘spirit’] is complicated threefold by the question of the non-use of the art[icle] with proper nouns, and in prepositional expressions ..., and even (in Biblical Greek through influence of the Heb. construct state) before a genitive. In none of these situations need the lack of the art[icle] indicate any indefiniteness of reference” - p. 175. And, “(d) Absence of Article Before a Noun Which Governs a genitive. In Heb. a noun may be in the construct state or have a suffix attached to it, and in either case it would be anarthrous. This influenced the LXX [Septuagint] and, in turn, the NT writers in varying degrees. Thus aggelos kuriou is not ‘an angel’ but the angel’, doxa laou is ‘the glory’.” - pp. 179-180, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. III, J. H. Moulton, 1963.

+++ “The article … is sometimes missing, especially after prepositions … and with a genitive which depends on an anarthrous noun (especially a predicate noun): Mt 27:43.” - Blass & Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, p. 133, University of Chicago Press, 1961.

+++ - "A genitive qualifier tends to make the head noun definite even though it might not have the article." - Dr. Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek, p. 67, Broadman and Holman Publ., 1994.

+++ Henry Alford wrote concerning Titus 2:13 in his The Greek Testament, “It [‘saviour’] is joined with [hmwn, ‘of us’ (genitive)], which is an additional reason why it may spare the article: see Luke 1:78; Ro. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3” - p. 420, The Greek Testament, by Henry Alford.

+++ “….(2) definiteness is not expressed only by the article but may [not always] also be indicated by an accompanying genitive or possessive pronoun; …(4) Biblical Greek sometimes reflects the Semitic idiom in which the noun in the construct state [comparable to ‘angel of Lord’], even if definite, is anarthrous … and (5) there is a tendency for nouns to be anarthrous that are used in familiar or stereotyped expressions that may date from the prearticular age of Greek - expressions such as idiomatic prepositional phrases.” - p. 304, Jesus as God, Murray J. Harris, Baker Book House, 1992. (Emphasis added)

+++ “#1146. A substantive followed by an attributive genitive and forming with it a compound idea, usually omits the article.” - H. W. Smyth’s A Greek Grammar for Colleges, p. 291 .

+++ Also see pp. 150-151 in G.B. Winer's A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek.

+++ Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 734, Zondervan, 1996.

Since John 1:1c does not have its predicate noun with a “prepositional” construction anyway, it is necessarily a part of proper research to select parallel examples (i.e., without “prepositional” constructions) in any attempt to show a similar effect as claimed for John 1:1c.

Another LIE exposed. Henry Alford

κ. θ. ἦν ὁ λ.] and the Word was God. As regards the form of the sentence, it is strictly parallel with πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, ch. Joh_4:24. But the sense to be conveyed here is as weighty a consideration as the form of the sentence. Had John intended to say, ‘God was the Word,’—what meaning could his assertion possibly have conveyed? None other than a contradiction to his last assertion, by which he had distinguished God from the Word. And not only would this be the case, but the assertion would be inconsistent with the whole historical idea of the λόγος, making this term to signify merely an attribute of God, just as when it is said ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν. Not to mention the unprecedented inversion of subject and predicate which this would occasion; ὁ λόγος having been the subject before, and again resumed as the subject afterwards.
The rendering of the words being then as above, their meaning is the next question. The omission of the article before θεός is not mere usage; it could not have been here expressed, whatever place the words might hold in the sentence. ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός would give a sense liable to the objections first stated, and destroy the idea of the λόγος altogether. θεός must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,—not ὁ θεός, ‘the Father,’ in Person. It does not = θεῖος, nor is it to be rendered a God—but, as in σὰρξ ἐγένετο, σάρξ expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in θεὸς ἦν, θεός expresses that essence which was His ἐν ἀρχῇ:—that He was very God. So that this first verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,—was with God (the Father),—and was Himself God.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

One of the exceptions from my DEFinite study which you and most others continue to ignore:

Most frequently misused exceptions are nominative nouns with attributive genitive nouns or prepositions:

As Dana and Mantey tell us, “The use of prepositions, possessive ... pronouns, and the genitive case also tend to make a word definite. At such times, even if the article is not used, the object is already distinctly indicated.” -p. 137, D&M Grammar.

“In examples like this [“prepositional” constructions] (cf. ... Mt. 27:54) ONLY THE CONTEXT CAN DECIDE [whether the anarthrous noun is definite or indefinite]. Sometimes the matter is wholly doubtful.... [Please note that the example Robertson has given (Matt. 27:54) has the anarthrous predicate noun coming before the verb as in Colwell’s Rule!] In Jo. 5:27 [‘son of man’] may be either ‘the son of man’ or ‘a son of man.’” - p. 781. Robertson says this in spite of the fact that John 5:27 also has an anarthrous predicate noun preceding its verb!! It’s “prepositional” (noun modified by a genitive noun in these cases) and, therefore, the use of the article is ambiguous! - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson, 1934.

In section VIII, ‘The Absence of the Article,’ Professor Robertson quotes Gildersleeve and tells us, “prepositional phrases and other formulae may dispense with the article” - p. 790. And “(b) with genitives. We have seen that the substantive may still be definite if anarthrous, though not necessarily so.” - p. 791. - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson.

+++ C. F. D. Moule says: “9. Finally, note that the use or non-use of the article may, in some cases, be due to the influence of Semitic idiom rather than deliberate desire to modify the sense. A noun in the construct case [similar to a noun modified by a genitive noun in NT Greek, e.g., ‘man of God’] in Hebrew is never allowed to carry the article, and this may sometimes be sufficient to explain an anarthrous noun in a Greek equivalent phrase: aggelos kuriou might be a Hebraism for the angel of the Lord; so doxa kuriou.” – p. 117, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1990 printing.

+++ J. H. Moulton tells us: “the matter [of identifying an anarthrous ‘spirit’] is complicated threefold by the question of the non-use of the art[icle] with proper nouns, and in prepositional expressions ..., and even (in Biblical Greek through influence of the Heb. construct state) before a genitive. In none of these situations need the lack of the art[icle] indicate any indefiniteness of reference” - p. 175. And, “(d) Absence of Article Before a Noun Which Governs a genitive. In Heb. a noun may be in the construct state or have a suffix attached to it, and in either case it would be anarthrous. This influenced the LXX [Septuagint] and, in turn, the NT writers in varying degrees. Thus aggelos kuriou is not ‘an angel’ but the angel’, doxa laou is ‘the glory’.” - pp. 179-180, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. III, J. H. Moulton, 1963.

+++ “The article … is sometimes missing, especially after prepositions … and with a genitive which depends on an anarthrous noun (especially a predicate noun): Mt 27:43.” - Blass & Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, p. 133, University of Chicago Press, 1961.

+++ - "A genitive qualifier tends to make the head noun definite even though it might not have the article." - Dr. Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek, p. 67, Broadman and Holman Publ., 1994.

+++ Henry Alford wrote concerning Titus 2:13 in his The Greek Testament, “It [‘saviour’] is joined with [hmwn, ‘of us’ (genitive)], which is an additional reason why it may spare the article: see Luke 1:78; Ro. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3” - p. 420, The Greek Testament, by Henry Alford.

+++ “….(2) definiteness is not expressed only by the article but may [not always] also be indicated by an accompanying genitive or possessive pronoun; …(4) Biblical Greek sometimes reflects the Semitic idiom in which the noun in the construct state [comparable to ‘angel of Lord’], even if definite, is anarthrous … and (5) there is a tendency for nouns to be anarthrous that are used in familiar or stereotyped expressions that may date from the prearticular age of Greek - expressions such as idiomatic prepositional phrases.” - p. 304, Jesus as God, Murray J. Harris, Baker Book House, 1992. (Emphasis added)

+++ “#1146. A substantive followed by an attributive genitive and forming with it a compound idea, usually omits the article.” - H. W. Smyth’s A Greek Grammar for Colleges, p. 291 .

+++ Also see pp. 150-151 in G.B. Winer's A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek.

+++ Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 734, Zondervan, 1996.

Since John 1:1c does not have its predicate noun with a “prepositional” construction anyway, it is necessarily a part of proper research to select parallel examples (i.e., without “prepositional” constructions) in any attempt to show a similar effect as claimed for John 1:1c.

Another LIE exposed. Daniel Wallace

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

One of the exceptions from my DEFinite study which you and most others continue to ignore:

Most frequently misused exceptions are nominative nouns with attributive genitive nouns or prepositions:

As Dana and Mantey tell us, “The use of prepositions, possessive ... pronouns, and the genitive case also tend to make a word definite. At such times, even if the article is not used, the object is already distinctly indicated.” -p. 137, D&M Grammar.

“In examples like this [“prepositional” constructions] (cf. ... Mt. 27:54) ONLY THE CONTEXT CAN DECIDE [whether the anarthrous noun is definite or indefinite]. Sometimes the matter is wholly doubtful.... [Please note that the example Robertson has given (Matt. 27:54) has the anarthrous predicate noun coming before the verb as in Colwell’s Rule!] In Jo. 5:27 [‘son of man’] may be either ‘the son of man’ or ‘a son of man.’” - p. 781. Robertson says this in spite of the fact that John 5:27 also has an anarthrous predicate noun preceding its verb!! It’s “prepositional” (noun modified by a genitive noun in these cases) and, therefore, the use of the article is ambiguous! - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson, 1934.

In section VIII, ‘The Absence of the Article,’ Professor Robertson quotes Gildersleeve and tells us, “prepositional phrases and other formulae may dispense with the article” - p. 790. And “(b) with genitives. We have seen that the substantive may still be definite if anarthrous, though not necessarily so.” - p. 791. - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson.

+++ C. F. D. Moule says: “9. Finally, note that the use or non-use of the article may, in some cases, be due to the influence of Semitic idiom rather than deliberate desire to modify the sense. A noun in the construct case [similar to a noun modified by a genitive noun in NT Greek, e.g., ‘man of God’] in Hebrew is never allowed to carry the article, and this may sometimes be sufficient to explain an anarthrous noun in a Greek equivalent phrase: aggelos kuriou might be a Hebraism for the angel of the Lord; so doxa kuriou.” – p. 117, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1990 printing.

+++ J. H. Moulton tells us: “the matter [of identifying an anarthrous ‘spirit’] is complicated threefold by the question of the non-use of the art[icle] with proper nouns, and in prepositional expressions ..., and even (in Biblical Greek through influence of the Heb. construct state) before a genitive. In none of these situations need the lack of the art[icle] indicate any indefiniteness of reference” - p. 175. And, “(d) Absence of Article Before a Noun Which Governs a genitive. In Heb. a noun may be in the construct state or have a suffix attached to it, and in either case it would be anarthrous. This influenced the LXX [Septuagint] and, in turn, the NT writers in varying degrees. Thus aggelos kuriou is not ‘an angel’ but the angel’, doxa laou is ‘the glory’.” - pp. 179-180, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. III, J. H. Moulton, 1963.

+++ “The article … is sometimes missing, especially after prepositions … and with a genitive which depends on an anarthrous noun (especially a predicate noun): Mt 27:43.” - Blass & Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, p. 133, University of Chicago Press, 1961.

+++ - "A genitive qualifier tends to make the head noun definite even though it might not have the article." - Dr. Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek, p. 67, Broadman and Holman Publ., 1994.

+++ Henry Alford wrote concerning Titus 2:13 in his The Greek Testament, “It [‘saviour’] is joined with [hmwn, ‘of us’ (genitive)], which is an additional reason why it may spare the article: see Luke 1:78; Ro. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3” - p. 420, The Greek Testament, by Henry Alford.

+++ “….(2) definiteness is not expressed only by the article but may [not always] also be indicated by an accompanying genitive or possessive pronoun; …(4) Biblical Greek sometimes reflects the Semitic idiom in which the noun in the construct state [comparable to ‘angel of Lord’], even if definite, is anarthrous … and (5) there is a tendency for nouns to be anarthrous that are used in familiar or stereotyped expressions that may date from the prearticular age of Greek - expressions such as idiomatic prepositional phrases.” - p. 304, Jesus as God, Murray J. Harris, Baker Book House, 1992. (Emphasis added)

+++ “#1146. A substantive followed by an attributive genitive and forming with it a compound idea, usually omits the article.” - H. W. Smyth’s A Greek Grammar for Colleges, p. 291 .

+++ Also see pp. 150-151 in G.B. Winer's A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek.

+++ Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 734, Zondervan, 1996.

Since John 1:1c does not have its predicate noun with a “prepositional” construction anyway, it is necessarily a part of proper research to select parallel examples (i.e., without “prepositional” constructions) in any attempt to show a similar effect as claimed for John 1:1c.

Another LIE exposed, Dana and Mantey

 

[tigger 2]

another LIE exposed! Here is Dr Mantey's letter to the JW's

Dr Mantey's Letter

Please point out the lie.

you are posting LIES on here!

Instead of pointing out the places you insist are false and using Christian-like terms such as "mistaken,"in error," etc., we just see unkind, personal attack. Please try to discuss as a Christian should. Please carefully, in your own words, point out each "error" I have made in detail.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Please point out the lie.



Instead of pointing out the places you insist are false and using Christian-like terms such as "mistaken,"in error," etc., we just see unkind, personal attack. Please try to discuss as a Christian should. Please carefully, in your own words, point out each "error" I have made in detail.

In EVERY case that I have shown from the actual works that you quoted, they ALL said that the reading is

And the Word was God

You have consistently posted LIES from the books you PRETEND support your warped theology on this verse

Now prove me wrong

 

[tigger 2]

In EVERY case that I have shown from the actual works that you quoted, they ALL said that the reading is

And the Word was God

You have consistently posted LIES from the books you PRETEND support your warped theology on this verse

Now prove me wrong

I have carefully quoted and cited the words in my studies. I do not say that, for the most part, these trinitarian scholars believe or teach that John 1:1 intends "The Word was a god." I do quote where some of them say that literally (or grammatically) it can be translated "the Word was a god," but I also show that they will not interpret it that way. Please read more carefully.

But more than their trinitarian opinions of John 1:1c, I have actually done the study they should have done. Obviously you will never read any of it carefully (or at all), so you have no grasp of the actual intended meaning. Harner, Colwell, and Wallace have at least done a partial such study. That is why I have shown why they have (intentionally or not) left out the most important aspects of such a study to come to an incorrect conclusion. But since you will never examine the truth, you will never know. I'm sorry, but I tried to inform you.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

I have carefully quoted and cited the words in my studies. I do not say that, for the most part, these trinitarian scholars believe or teach that John 1:1 intends "The Word was a god." I do quote where some of them say that literally (or grammatically) it can be translated "the Word was a god," but I also show that they will not interpret it that way. Please read more carefully.

But more than their trinitarian opinions of John 1:1c, I have actually done the study they should have done. Obviously you will never read any of it carefully (or at all), so you have no grasp of the actual intended meaning. Harner, Colwell, and Harner have at least done a partial such study. That is why I have shown why they have (intentionally or not) left out the most important aspects of such a study to come to an incorrect conclusion. But since you will never examine the truth, you will never know. I'm sorry, but I tried to inform you.

the purpose of what you did was to try and show that the scholars you quoted said that John 1.1 does not read, and the Word was God. In every case that I have shown what you have quoted is FALSE

 

[Aunty Jane]

@tigger 2 it seems to me that there is a huge concentration on a few verses that ‘appear’ to support the trinity, whilst ignoring the host of scriptures that demonstrate that it was not possible for Jesus to be the Almighty.....not the least of which is the atonement value of Jesus’ sacrifice.

@ByGraceThroughFaith The truth is....the Almighty is immortal and therefore cannot die. Jesus, as a spirit being, who was at his Father’s right hand, as “the beginning of God’s creation” (Revelation 3:14) like all other spirit beings created by the Father, (“through” his “firstborn”. Colossians 1:15-17) was not immortal and could therefore become a human by the operation of God’s spirit, and offer his life in exchange for Adam’s sin. That is “atonement”...one for one...like for like...which was God’s law. (Deuteronomy 19:21)

To reinforce the validity of his actual death, Jesus was to remain in his tomb for three days and nights as it was prophesied. (Matthew 12:38-40) Only then was he resurrected. Who resurrected Jesus?

To understand the principle behind redemption, there is a set price....no more, no less. It could be paid by anyone who wanted to bail the debtor out of his debt...a relative or other benefactor could pay the price owed. Jesus was a willing volunteer and had his Father’s approval and assistance to be “sent” and to become a human being so that his life could be 100% human...not a god/man because Adam was not a god/man...he was created sinless, just as Jesus was created sinless. That is all Jesus needed to be...a sinless equivalent of the sinner who created the debt in the first place. He is “the last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45) because his life was the equivalent of the first Adam, the original debtor. (Romans 5:12)

1 Timothy 2:5-6 says...
“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.” (ESV)
If there is “one God” and Jesus is the “one mediator between God and men”....how can Jesus be God?
We all know what a “ransom” is.....it is the price demanded to free a captive. Jesus’ sinless human life, was that ransom. If Jesus was God, the price is a ridiculous overpayment. Like using 10 trillion cans of bug spray to kill one mosquito. To redeem the human race, an equivalent “life” was required.

The fact that Jesus was “sent” by his Father to fulfill this role of redeemer, shows that Jesus is not God.

As Jesus himself said....in prayer to his Father....
“And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” (John 17:3-5 - ESV)

Is God praying to himself? If Jesus was God, how does God need to glorify himself “with the glory he had before the world was”? Was God “with” himself?
Why do we need to “know” the Father and the son in order to gain eternal life, but not the third and equal person of the trinity.....the Holy Spirit?

How or why would God need to “send” himself, given the fact that as an immortal, he could not die.
How can Jesus call his Father “the only true God” without including himself in that description?

So even suggesting that Jesus is Almighty God flies in the face of his role as redeemer....and is undone by all these other scriptures. If Jesus was God, then the over payment would have been completely unnecessary, not to mention, impossible, since an immortal God cannot die!

Jesus has a God, whom he identified as his Father. (John 20:17) The Jews never expected their Messiah to be anything other than a human being, who was prophesied to be born at a specific location (Bethlehem) and in a certain tribe of Israel (Judah). Jesus fulfilled both criteria.

The Jews considered Jesus to be a blasphemer because he claimed to be “the son of God”...imagine if he had claimed to be God incarnate!....which is something he NEVER did....not once.

 

[tigger 2]

the purpose of what you did was to try and show that the scholars you quoted said that John 1.1 does not read, and the Word was God. In every case that I have shown what you have quoted is FALSE

You can lead a donkey to water, but ....

 

[Aunty Jane]

.

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.

Sorry, we are not the only ones who have promoted this idea....it is not a WT rule.
The use of the definite article is seen in John 1:1 very clearly.
But looking at the English translation, the omission of the definite article which is clearly in the Greek text, with regards to Yahweh, (consult the Interlinear) but not with regard to “ho Logos”.....this speaks volumes for such a small word. It changes the meaning of the entire verse. Trinitarian bias at its finest.

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.

There is only only one Archangel....the plural does not exist in scripture, reinforcing the fact that Michael is “the Archangel”....the only one. There are no other archangels.

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

Spoken like an apostate.....are you an “ex” or just informed by our opposers?

No one had a good word to say about Jesus and his disciples either. If we were well spoken about, we would be worried that satan had no interest in us.....(John 15:18-21) Christians were to be hated....not for doing anything wrong, but for the same reason that Jesus was hated....for disagreeing with the majority view and making them feel insecure about the truth of everything they taught.

Truth exposes error, but only to those who are open to the truth in the first place. I was raised in Christendom, but it’s teachings were so distant from what Jesus said and did, that all I saw was the hypocrisy. Like the first century, it’s the heretics pointing fingers and calling others “heretics” but who are in fact, only speaking an uncomfortable truth....fully backed up by plain scripture.

 

[PinSeeker]

you are posting LIES on here!

Well, to be fair, he thinks he's telling the truth, so he's not really lying, right? I mean, he's surely not telling the truth, but he's not actually lying; we have another word or two for what's actually going on... :)

Grace and peace to you, BGTF.

 

[Matthias]

Yes.

Eight hours later and I’m still surprised that you think the Geneva Bible is disrespectful of Jesus. I accept it, and acknowledge that you have every right to, but I’ve never come across anyone prior to you who felt that way about it.

I’ve heard various arguments for and against the Geneva Bible but never before that it disrespects Jesus. You’ve added a wrinkle to my life experience, and I thank you for that.

The Geneva Bible: The Bible of the Protestant Reformation

https://www.amazon.com/Geneva-Bible-Protestant-Reformation/dp/1598562126

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Below is the text of Col 1:16-17 quoted verbatim from the Watchtower
Society's New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures ©1969.

"Because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens
and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter
whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All
[other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before
all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to
exist."

The word "other" is in brackets. This alert readers that "other" is not in the
Greek manuscript; viz: the Society's translators took the liberty to pencil it
in; which gives the impression that God's son was His first creation; and
thereafter, the Son created everything else.

NOTE: I heard it from a JW that the Society's translators added "other"
because that's what Col 1:16-17 means to say even though it doesn't say so
in writing. In other words; that portion of the Society's Bible is an
interpretation rather than a translation.

Anyway: one day back in 1980, a pair of Watchtower missionaries came to my
door consisting of an experienced worker and a trainee. I immediately began
subjecting the trainee to a line of questioning that homed in on the Society's
rather dishonest habit of embellishing the Bible in order to reinforce its line
of thinking.

I had him read the Society's text of Col 1:16-17 and then pointed out that
the word "other" is in brackets to alert him to the fact that "other" is not in
the Greek manuscript. The experienced worker corroborated my statement.

I then proceeded to have the trainee read the passage sans "other". It
comes out like this:

"By means of him all things were created in the heavens and upon the earth,
the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are
thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All things have been
created through him and for him. Also, he is before all things and by means
of him all things were made to exist."

The trainee's eyes really lit up; and he actually grinned with delight to
discover that Col 1:16-17 reveals something quite different than what he
was led to believe.

Had I pressed the attack; I would have pointed out that the Society is
inconsistent with its use of the word "other" by failing to pencil it into John
1:3 in order to make it read like this:

"All [other] things came into existence through him, and apart from him not
even one [other] thing came into existence."

FYI: The 1984 revised edition of the New World Translation omits brackets
around the word "other" in Col 1:16-17 so as to make it appear that word
is legitimate.
_

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

The Jews considered Jesus to be a blasphemer because he claimed to be “the son of God”...imagine if he had claimed to be God incarnate!....which is something he NEVER did....not once

"And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making Himself equal with God" (John 5:16-18)

The Jews unlike some, are very clear on their understanding of what Jesus is saying, that He is EQUAL WITH GOD THE FATHER.

ἴσον, is of absoulte essential unity, as much as GOD as the Father is GOD

Now prove Jesus wrong!