Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
God was in Heaven while the Son was on the earth and yet the Son is equal to the Father in Spiritual nature because the Son is the Father confined to time and space in a body to represent mankind for salvation sake; so as for us to know God in as much as it is possible for a man to know Him. The Great Communicator is the Holy Spirit between the Father and the Son and these three are One. They are the three distinct persons of the Godhead. They can be thought of seperately and as the One God.
PHIL 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
PHIL 2:7 But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
PHIL 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
PHIL 2:9 Wherefore God also has highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name:
PHIL 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
PHIL 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
What you are espousing is called Tri-theism which is the doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Gods. However, God (Elohim) refers to Himself in singular terms. For example;
Ex. 20:2 "I am (’ā·nō·ḵî; Singular) the LORD (Yhvh) your God (’ĕ·lō·he·ḵā [Elohim]; Plural), who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
Ex. 29:46 "They shall know that I am (’ă·nî; Singular) the LORD (Yhvh) their God (’ĕ·lō·hê·hem; Plural) who brought them out of the land of Egypt, that I might dwell (lə·šā·ḵə·nî;Singular) among them; I am (’ă·nî; Singular) the LORD their God(’ĕ·lō·hê·hem; Plural).
Jer. 32:38 "They shall be My people, and I (wa·’ă·nî;Singular) will be their God (lê·lō·hîm; Plural);
Deut. 4:35 "To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He (hū; Singular) is God (hā·’ĕ·lō·hîm; Plural) there is no other besides Him.
While there is plurality within the Godhead in terms of three distinct 'Persons,' yet without separate existence, nevertheless, God is singular, or One, in terms of His essence.
It is a basic principle that a doctrine is not built on one or two verses, but on the totality of Scripture which is pertinent to a particular subject.
While God is three in 'Persons' He is one in essence. One God in three 'Persons.' I understand that you will disagree with this, but nevertheless, the concept to which the term 'Trinity' has been applied is taught in the Bible.
How many times must I point this out? Elohim is plural. It means Gods, not God. Stick and "s" as the end of every reference where the word "God" is written in your English Bible. The usage of Elohim in reference to the God/Gods of Israel is as a singular plural just as the word forest is singular plural. One might say that there is just one forest, but it's a forest and a forest by definition is composed of multiple trees. This is why the "us" in "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness" is not a contradiction.
You are putting far too much weight on how a bunch of Trinitarian linguists rendered the Bible into English. Interestingly, you'd be latching onto the plurality of the word "Elohim" like mad if you were trying to debate with a Unitarianist. After all, it is only the plurality of Elohim in the Old Testament that sets the stage for your belief that there are three persons in the Godhead. Any well studied Jewish scholar, if they're honest, will tell you that Trinitarians are polytheists who are in denial about being polytheists.
What I believe in is not Tritheism precisely. I do not pray to Jesus. I do not pray to the Holy Spirit. I pray to God the Father because that is how Christ directed us to pray. When I use the word "God" in conversation, I mean God the Father first, with Jesus and Holy Spirit as indispensable peripherals by association. Yes all three are Omniscient, Omnipotent and each has power over all things. It's quite different from what we typically think of as Tritheism. We don't have Zeus, Poseidon and Hades, all three with separate agendas. Jesus and the Holy Spirit aren't playing a coup de tat overthrow of God the Father. There are no separate agendas within Elohim (the Gods). But rather than needing to add text to the Bible like you, the Bible is actually sufficient to establish my point of view. (And I'm not even a Sola Scriptura sort to begin with, so that's kinda ironic.) If you think that makes me a polytheist, fine. Who cares? I still believe it when the Bible when it says that there is only One True God(s). I'm quite comfortable in my beliefs. I've studied things out and sought personal revelation and there is nothing wrong with what I believe. There is no better witness of truth than God, right?
You never really answered me though. Why do you and so many others figure that the early Catholic Church got it right?? We'd both agree that they got with celibacy, transubstantiation, Mariology, saints, recited prayers, only doing services in Latin, indulgences, the clergy forgiving sins, the pre-eminence of Rome, Papal infallibility and so many other things. You have yet to explain to me why you think that Catholicism just happened to get it right with the Trinity.
What you are espousing is called Tri-theism which is the doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Gods. However, God (Elohim) refers to Himself in singular terms. For example;
Ex. 20:2 "I am (’ā·nō·ḵî; Singular) the LORD (Yhvh) your God (’ĕ·lō·he·ḵā [Elohim]; Plural), who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
Ex. 29:46 "They shall know that I am (’ă·nî; Singular) the LORD (Yhvh) their God (’ĕ·lō·hê·hem; Plural) who brought them out of the land of Egypt, that I might dwell (lə·šā·ḵə·nî;Singular) among them; I am (’ă·nî; Singular) the LORD their God(’ĕ·lō·hê·hem; Plural).
Jer. 32:38 "They shall be My people, and I (wa·’ă·nî;Singular) will be their God (lê·lō·hîm; Plural);
Deut. 4:35 "To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He (hū; Singular) is God (hā·’ĕ·lō·hîm; Plural) there is no other besides Him.
While there is plurality within the Godhead in terms of three distinct 'Persons,' yet without separate existence, nevertheless, God is singular, or One, in terms of His essence.
It is a basic principle that a doctrine is not built on one or two verses, but on the totality of Scripture which is pertinent to a particular subject.
While God is three in 'Persons' He is one in essence. One God in three 'Persons.' I understand that you will disagree with this, but nevertheless, the concept to which the term 'Trinity' has been applied is taught in the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
How many times must I point this out? Elohim is plural. It means Gods, not God. Stick and "s" as the end of every reference where the word "God" is written in your English Bible. The usage of Elohim in reference to the God/Gods of Israel is as a singular plural just as the word forest is singular plural. One might say that there is just one forest, but it's a forest and a forest by definition is composed of multiple trees. This is why the "us" in "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness" is not a contradiction.
You are putting far too much weight on how a bunch of Trinitarian linguists rendered the Bible into English. Interestingly, you'd be latching onto the plurality of the word "Elohim" like mad if you were trying to debate with a Unitarianist. After all, it is only the plurality of Elohim in the Old Testament that sets the stage for your belief that there are three persons in the Godhead. Any well studied Jewish scholar, if they're honest, will tell you that Trinitarians are polytheists who are in denial about being polytheists.
What I believe in is not Tritheism precisely. I do not pray to Jesus. I do not pray to the Holy Spirit. I pray to God the Father because that is how Christ directed us to pray. When I use the word "God" in conversation, I mean God the Father first, with Jesus and Holy Spirit as indispensable peripherals by association. Yes all three are Omniscient, Omnipotent and each has power over all things. It's quite different from what we typically think of as Tritheism. We don't have Zeus, Poseidon and Hades, all three with separate agendas. Jesus and the Holy Spirit aren't playing a coup de tat overthrow of God the Father. There are no separate agendas within Elohim (the Gods). But rather than needing to add text to the Bible like you, the Bible is actually sufficient to establish my point of view. (And I'm not even a Sola Scriptura sort to begin with, so that's kinda ironic.) If you think that makes me a polytheist, fine. Who cares? I still believe it when the Bible when it says that there is only One True God(s). I'm quite comfortable in my beliefs. I've studied things out and sought personal revelation and there is nothing wrong with what I believe. There is no better witness of truth than God, right?
You never really answered me though. Why do you and so many others figure that the early Catholic Church got it right?? We'd both agree that they got with celibacy, transubstantiation, Mariology, saints, recited prayers, only doing services in Latin, indulgences, the clergy forgiving sins, the pre-eminence of Rome, Papal infallibility and so many other things. You have yet to explain to me why you think that Catholicism just happened to get it right with the Trinity.
As I said, God (Elohim) refers to Himself in the singular. God is plural in one way, but singular in another. There is a plurality of 'Persons' (three) in the Godhead, and yet He is one God by reason of His essence. He is a united One.
Deut. 6:4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God (’ĕ·lō·hê·nū:Plural), the LORD is one (’e·ḥāḏ )!
One God in three 'Persons.'
What the Roman Catholic Church believes isn't the issue. What the Bible reveals is the issue.
And to point out once again, while you keep claiming that 'the Word was God' implies Sabellianism, Wallace says the opposite. He says, '“and the Word was the God” (i.e., the Father; Sabellianism).' The Word was with God, and the Word was God makes a distinction between the Word and the Father. Therefore, no Sabellianism. In order for it to be Sabellianism it would have to read, 'and the Word was the God.' That would make the Word the person of the Father. You have it backwards.
Ok,
You are missing the point. This is not to belittle you, it is just reality.
Here is the problem.
Wallace says:
To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:
“and the Word was the God” (i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)
“and the Word was a god” (Arianism)
“and the Word was God” (Orthodoxy).
Notice also he does not say any of the above renderings are not grammatically possible/correct. He just prefers his.
This is under his: Exegetical Insight for Chapter 6, by Daniel B. Wallace
Which is NOT grammar, but what he believes.
This is critical to seeing the problem.
In Koine Greek there are not upper and lower case distinctions. In effect the clause in question would read: “THE WORD WAS GOD”. The distinction in Greek for a definite rendering VS indefinite depends on two items.
1. The definite article ho/the
2. The sentence structure.
Now in translating a translator may or may not include the ho/the if present and that does not change the definiteness. So John 1:1B reads in a word for word translation:
“AND THE WORD WAS WITH THE GOD”.
In English we drop the ho/the and capitalize the “G” in God. However we also see uses in Greek without the definite article that are still Definite such as:
KJV John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
In the Greek the definite article does not exist, yet it is translated as “God” EVERY capitalization of “God” indicates a Definite rendering.
Thus whether you say “The Word was the God or The Word was God” it means the same thing and would be Sabellianism.
Both are Definite. This is grammar and in fact we see where most translations will actually translate a Definite Theos/God as Indefinite even though the Ho/The is in the text.
ASV Acts 7:43 And ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, And the star of the god Rephan, The figures which ye made to worship them: And I will carry you away beyond Babylon.
NIV Acts 7:43 You have lifted up the shrine of Molech and the star of your god Rephan, the idols you made to worship. Therefore I will send you into exile' {43 Amos 5:25-27} beyond Babylon.
In the Greek text the word Ho (ton) is there indicating a definite noun. However to distinguish between the God of the Bible and a G/god of the Nations a lower case “g” is use to … avoid a Definite rendering conflating that God with the True God. Wallace avoids speaking of this. Yet he KNOWS it.
More than that he KNOWS that the clause in question is a PVPN (If you have read Wallace you know what that is). That makes it in his opinion Qualitative. OK, ignoring that a Qualitative in the 1800 to help the Trinity, it still shows “God” is wrong. Why? As I stated before NO PVPN is ever translated with a Capital as that makes it definite. Ask Wallace to show you one where it is capitalized and is yet not definite.
Here are some examples from the book of John where we find an anarthrous noun in the PVPN construction.
KJV John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
KJV John 9:17 They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.
KJV John 9:28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.
KJV John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king.
If you look at all uses of a PVPN you will not necessarily see an “a”, but the lower case is common. In fact in every instance of a PVPN it ALWAYS refers to a member of a Class, thus Indefinite. Indefinite includes Qualitative as we see in John 6:79. Judas was like the Devil, but was not a Devil by essence. Jesus is a kig, but NOT by essence and there are many kings, just like there are many people who have characteristics like the devil. This structure is common and always applies to a member of a class. In fact we do this today. If we say:
She is a beautiful woman” or “She is a beauty“,
We are no saying she is the only one like that, she is a member of a class. In fact we commonly use one where “essence” is clearly ruled out. Many times in referring to a nurse we will say: “She is an angel”. We are referring to her conduct not her essence.
I learned long ago, been studying this for over 40 years and once believed the Trinity could be true, that EVERYONE has a bias. To really study one must not just look at what a person says, but the why AND the supporting evidence. If no supporting evidence from the text such as PVPN that is rendered with a Capital letter and is yet not Definite, then a view of John 1:1 that says a “G” is OK is in conflict with the facts. Wallace, who I have great respect for, is still human and a Trinitarian and is subject to bias like everyone. After all most Trinitarians will reject anything a Unitarian says, even if a well-respected scholar, so why should a Trinitarian be accepted with their bias? Check them both for facts, not opinion.
Please show us all something other than his opinion unsupported by facts, that we can all check IN scripture?
As I said, God (Elohim) refers to Himself in the singular. God is plural in one way, but singular in another. There is a plurality of 'Persons' (three) in the Godhead, and yet He is one God by reason of His essence. He is a united One.
Deut. 6:4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God (’ĕ·lō·hê·nū:Plural), the LORD is one (’e·ḥāḏ )!
One God in three 'Persons.'
What the Roman Catholic Church believes isn't the issue. What the Bible reveals is the issue.
Elohim is a plural noun and has no
plurality" meaning within it.
It is either God singular or Gods plural. That is it. A false argument that Trinitarians grasp at withoput checking the facts.
In fact Jews who knew their language translated Elohim as either Theos (singular) or theoi (plural) as they knew the language better than anyone today.
If the plurality was a legitimate argument we would have seen it sued as the Trinity was developed through the first several centuries and it is never found. A false argument.
Even more revealing is that John 1;1 was NEVER used by those promoting the trinity to support it. Why not? They knew the language and knew it wasn't there.
It is an argument that developed a few hundred years ago based on poor English translations. Darby first used the Qualitative a grammatical structure that was not known till it was created to support the trinitarian view of John 1;1 as people began to see the "the word was God" problem as sabellianism.
You are missing the point. This is not to belittle you, it is just reality.
Here is the problem.
Wallace says:
To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:
“and the Word was the God” (i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)
“and the Word was a god” (Arianism)
“and the Word was God” (Orthodoxy).
Notice also he does not say any of the above renderings are not grammatically possible/correct. He just prefers his.
This is under his: Exegetical Insight for Chapter 6, by Daniel B. Wallace
Which is NOT grammar, but what he believes.
This is critical to seeing the problem.
In Koine Greek there are not upper and lower case distinctions. In effect the clause in question would read: “THE WORD WAS GOD”. The distinction in Greek for a definite rendering VS indefinite depends on two items.
1. The definite article ho/the
2. The sentence structure.
Now in translating a translator may or may not include the ho/the if present and that does not change the definiteness. So John 1:1B reads in a word for word translation:
“AND THE WORD WAS WITH THE GOD”.
In English we drop the ho/the and capitalize the “G” in God. However we also see uses in Greek without the definite article that are still Definite such as:
KJV John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
In the Greek the definite article does not exist, yet it is translated as “God” EVERY capitalization of “God” indicates a Definite rendering.
Thus whether you say “The Word was the God or The Word was God” it means the same thing and would be Sabellianism.
Both are Definite. This is grammar and in fact we see where most translations will actually translate a Definite Theos/God as Indefinite even though the Ho/The is in the text.
ASV Acts 7:43 And ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, And the star of the god Rephan, The figures which ye made to worship them: And I will carry you away beyond Babylon.
NIV Acts 7:43 You have lifted up the shrine of Molech and the star of your god Rephan, the idols you made to worship. Therefore I will send you into exile' {43 Amos 5:25-27} beyond Babylon.
In the Greek text the word Ho (ton) is there indicating a definite noun. However to distinguish between the God of the Bible and a G/god of the Nations a lower case “g” is use to … avoid a Definite rendering conflating that God with the True God. Wallace avoids speaking of this. Yet he KNOWS it.
More than that he KNOWS that the clause in question is a PVPN (If you have read Wallace you know what that is). That makes it in his opinion Qualitative. OK, ignoring that a Qualitative in the 1800 to help the Trinity, it still shows “God” is wrong. Why? As I stated before NO PVPN is ever translated with a Capital as that makes it definite. Ask Wallace to show you one where it is capitalized and is yet not definite.
Here are some examples from the book of John where we find an anarthrous noun in the PVPN construction.
KJV John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
KJV John 9:17 They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.
KJV John 9:28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.
KJV John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king.
If you look at all uses of a PVPN you will not necessarily see an “a”, but the lower case is common. In fact in every instance of a PVPN it ALWAYS refers to a member of a Class, thus Indefinite. Indefinite includes Qualitative as we see in John 6:79. Judas was like the Devil, but was not a Devil by essence. Jesus is a kig, but NOT by essence and there are many kings, just like there are many people who have characteristics like the devil. This structure is common and always applies to a member of a class. In fact we do this today. If we say:
She is a beautiful woman” or “She is a beauty“,
We are no saying she is the only one like that, she is a member of a class. In fact we commonly use one where “essence” is clearly ruled out. Many times in referring to a nurse we will say: “She is an angel”. We are referring to her conduct not her essence.
I learned long ago, been studying this for over 40 years and once believed the Trinity could be true, that EVERYONE has a bias. To really study one must not just look at what a person says, but the why AND the supporting evidence. If no supporting evidence from the text such as PVPN that is rendered with a Capital letter and is yet not Definite, then a view of John 1:1 that says a “G” is OK is in conflict with the facts. Wallace, who I have great respect for, is still human and a Trinitarian and is subject to bias like everyone. After all most Trinitarians will reject anything a Unitarian says, even if a well-respected scholar, so why should a Trinitarian be accepted with their bias? Check them both for facts, not opinion.
Please show us all something other than his opinion unsupported by facts, that we can all check IN scripture?
'The Word was God' does NOT mean the same thing as 'the Word was the God.' And no reputable Greek scholar would agree with you. Wallace certainly doesn't. Furthermore, no reputable Greek Scholar would agree with the New World translation of John 1:1c as 'a god.'
And John did not write, 'and the Word was a god,' or 'and the Word was the God.' He wrote, 'and God was the Word', which as Wallace has stated is properly translated into English as, 'and the Word was God.
Once you've taught Greek classes at a University or Seminary, and have produced an intermediate Greek Grammar like Wallace has, then you get back to me.
Now as for what real Greek scholars think about the Jehovah's Witnesses translation of John 1:1 here's quite a few.
Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation):
"A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature):
"A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."
Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England:
"Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]
Now here is Dr. Mantey's letter to the Watchtower Society regarding the fact that they took quotes from his Greek Grammar out of context to support their mistranslations.
And one point that Dr. Mantey made in his letter follows below.
(4) Prof. Harner, Vol. 92.1 (1973) in JBL, has gone beyond Colwell's research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature of character of the subject . He found this true in 53 passages in the Gospel of John and 8 in the Gospel of Mark, Both scholars wrote that when indefiniteness was intended, the Gospel writers regularly placed the predicate noun after the verb, and both Colwell and Harner have stated that theos in John l: 1 is not indefinite and should not be translated "a god".
Elohim is a plural noun and has no
plurality" meaning within it.
It is either God singular or Gods plural. That is it. A false argument that Trinitarians grasp at withoput checking the facts.
In fact Jews who knew their language translated Elohim as either Theos (singular) or theoi (plural) as they knew the language better than anyone today.
If the plurality was a legitimate argument we would have seen it sued as the Trinity was developed through the first several centuries and it is never found. A false argument.
Even more revealing is that John 1;1 was NEVER used by those promoting the trinity to support it. Why not? They knew the language and knew it wasn't there.
It is an argument that developed a few hundred years ago based on poor English translations. Darby first used the Qualitative a grammatical structure that was not known till it was created to support the trinitarian view of John 1;1 as people began to see the "the word was God" problem as sabellianism.
Elohim does indeed refer to God's plurality. God (Elohim) said, ''Let us make man in our own image.
Genesis 1:26 Then God (’ĕ·lō·hîm) said, "Let Us make (na·‘ă·śeh) man in Our image (bə·ṣal·mê·nū ), according to Our likeness (kiḏ·mū·ṯê·nū ); and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
'The Word was God' does NOT mean the same thing as 'the Word was the God.' And no reputable Greek scholar would agree with you. Wallace certainly doesn't. Furthermore, no reputable Greek Scholar would agree with the New World translation of John 1:1c as 'a god.'
I will try one last time to help you SEE,
Again according to grammar and usage it DOES. That is why they say it isn’t definite BUT they translate ita s a definite Noun. Plus as Qualitative it is pointing to a member of a class just as John 6:70 does. Wallace gives no support for his assertion.
Now to show that Scholars do agree with the NWT consider:
The rule holds wherever the subject has the article and the predicate does not. The subject is then definite and distributed, the predicate indefiniteand undistributed.—A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, fourth edition, 1934, p. 767.
In John 1:1...Theos en (“was deity”);...The qualitative forceis obvious and most important,—Alfred M. Perry, “Translating The Greek Article” in Journal of Biblical Literature, 1949, Vol. l68, p. 331.
Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated “the word was with the God (= the Father), and the word was a divine being.—John L. McKenzie, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible, p. 317. A Jesuit Scholar.
The late Dr. William Temple in His Readings in St. John’s Gospel (1939), 4, obviously accepts Moffatt’s translation, for he says, ‘The term “God” is fully substantival [shows identity, who, or what, ‘the God’, the Father, is] in the first clause pros ton then [“with the God”, both “the” (ton) and “God” (Theon) being spelled accusative case endings] it is predicative and not far from being adjectival in the second - kai theos en ho logos [“and (a) god was the Word”]—R.H. Strachan, The Forth Gospel (3rd ed., 1941).
As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue’s “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved.—Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p
We reach a more difficult issue in the Gospel of John. Here, in the Prologue, the Word is said to be God, but, as often observed, in contrast with the clause, ‘the Word was with God’, the definite article is not used (in the final clause.) For this reason it is generally translated ‘and the Word was divine’ (Moffatt) or is not regarded as God in the Absolute sense of the name...In a second passage in the Prologue (I 18) the textual evidence attests ‘only-begotten God’ more strongly than ‘only begotten Son’, but the latter is preferred by many commentators as being more in harmony with Johnnine usage and with the succeeding clause, ‘who is in the bosom of the Father’. In neither passage is Jesus unequivocally called God, while again and again in the Gospel He is named ‘the Son of God.—Vincent Taylor, The Expository Times, January
This is a short list. You need to understand there is no unanimity of agreement among scholars other than Jesus is Not the God he is with, an impossibility according to the grammar.
Next will be a list of versions by reputable scholars, in the main Trinitarians who ..... agree with the NWT.
Furthermore, no reputable Greek Scholar would agree with the New World translation of John 1:1c as 'a god.'
“And the Word was a god”—Het Nieuwe Testament van onze Herr Jezus Christus, uit het Grieksch vertaald dorr Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. (Dutch: = The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from Greek by Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D.), 1694.
“[A]nd the Word was a god”—The New Testament in an Improved Version, 1808.
“The Word was a God”—The New Testament In Greek an English, Abner Kneeland, 1822.
These first couple are important because there we NO qualitative structure before about 1830. It was invented to help Trinitarians to deal with John 1:1 by Darby.
“[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word”—Concise Commentary On TheHoly Bible, Robert Young, c. 1885.
“[A]nd the word was god”, (note lower case “g”)—The Four Gospels, C. Torrey, Second Edition, 1947.
“[T]he Word was divine”—The Authentic New Testament, Hugh J. Schonfield, 1956.
“[A]nd a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word”—Das Evagelium nach Johnnes, (German), Siegfried Schulz, 1975.
“The Logos was with God, and the Logos was divine (a divine being).” (e.a.)—Robert Harvey,D.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, The Historic Jesus in the New Testament, London; Student Movement Christian Press, 1931,
Goodspeed, E.J. An American Translation N.T. 1923 "and the Word was Divine"
Madsen, J. New Testament A Rendering , 1994 "the Word was a divine Being"
La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel,1928: “and the Word was a divine being.”
These are just a few from scholars.
Now to help you SEE how people lie to you. Next post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
