A god in John 1:1, really?

In this video I talk about John 1:1 and the idea shared by some to translate the word "teos" as "a god." I examine this notion and test it through writings of John. This video is a brief word study that should be helpful to anyone who studies the Bible.
The video will give hints to understand the divinity of Jesus Christ
My NEW Drawing Tablet:amzn.to/2yLRBf1
My Old Drawing Tablet: amzn.to/2TEEnsA
My GoPro: amzn.to/37c9xvn
My Greek New Testament (UBS 4/5): amzn.to/2SvedY9
NA27/28 Greek New Testament: amzn.to/2SsgB1Z
Accordance Bible Software: www.accordancebible.com
VIDEO COURSE: courses.greekforall.com/p/gre...
GREEK PARADIGM CHART: greekforall.com/paradigms
VOCABULARY APP: greekforall.com/app
iTunes: itunes.apple.com/us/app/greek...
Android: play.google.com/store/apps/de...
Textbook: greekforall.com/textbook
AnswerKeys: greekforall.com/answerkey
FREE Word of the Day: greekforall.com/vocabulary/
FREE WORKSHEETS: greekforall.com/learn-writing...
FOLLOW ME:
Instagram: / greekforall
Facebook: / greekforall
Website: greekforall.com

[@sthrnvoice3198]

one of the very few videos that says they are going to reference another video, and actually do so!!!! kudos!

[@thejewelsmith1460]

Fantastic breakdown!

[@wilsontoribio4546]

This video has clarify my doubts, thank you!

[@GreekForAll]

I'm glad it was helpful. Blessings on your faith journey!

[@totonchua]

Hi Wilson, pls see my post next to yours. Thanks.

[@watchtowerdefence571]

Hi Wilson. I am sorry to inform you but Stan made a mistake in his video. See my comment's

[@user-dc7tt2dc8g]

You can clearly see the nominative case in , but also see that the definite article is lacking in the last Theos. Kidney Greek lacks the indefinite article (a) found in English. But we do have an early ( late 1st or early 2nd century ) example of translation of John 1:1 in a language which also has in indefinite article. The sahidic and Boeric Coptic translations from the Greek have the indefinite article which corresponds to ‘ a god’.

[@GreekForAll]

Well, I do not know Coptic to comment on its text and grammar. However, I can raise reasonable doubts: 1. It is just one translation among many. 2. There is no guarantee that it is correct as it could be theologically biased. 3. It could be a sign of later redaction. Finally, there are a number of earlier sources expressing different views (like Clement or Origen, and others). One just cannot take one source and claim that a hundred others are incorrect. What we have is that at some point in time, one translator, chose to render Jn1:1c as “a god.” What could stand behind it is a subject of interpretation. Welcome to Textual Criticism and into the academic world!

[@carolinaburgos9943]

Teacher the third phrase in jhon 1 1 Does show nominative predicative? And is it true that in these cases the predicative is an Subject's atribute?

[@GreekForAll]

Great question. Yes, you are right. The construction in John 1:1 has a predicate nominative. What syntactical function it has is a matter of interpretation. I do agree that often it shows the subject's attribute. In this case, John 1:1 could be understood as "the word was divine" meaning that the word had divine nature. It is quite possible that this is what is meant here. Daniel Wallace describes the relationship between the subject and the predicate in such constructions as (a) nom.predicate is a class to which the subject belongs, or (b) subject = nom.predicate. It is up to the interpreter to decide. As for me, both of these could be true in John 1:1.

[@tdickensheets]

@@GreekForAll If you ask a Jehovah's Witness today what he thinks about the occult and spiritism, you're bound to get a negative response. After all, the April 1,2000 issue of The Watchtower and the July 22,2000 issue of Awake strongly warn its readers about the dangers of these demonic practices. They even quote Deuteronomy 18:10-12 proving that consulting spirit mediums, fortunetellers or channelers is detestable to Jehovah. However, does the Watchtower always practice what they preach? Lets go back to the April 1, 1983 edition of The Watchtower. In the Questions from Readers section, someone asked, "Why in recent years, has The Watchtower not made use of the [bible] translation by the former Catholic priest, Johannes Greber?" The answer in a nutshell is that when the Society found out by reading the foreword of Johannes Greber's 1980 edition of his New Testament, that he was a spirit medium, they stopped using his translation for support. You see, for 14 years the Watchtower used Greber's New Testament translation to give credence to their own peculiar New World Translation. Particularly John 1:1, which is basically identical in both translations. The fact is, however, that the Watchtower Society knew that Johannes Greber was a spirit medium way before they read it in the foreword of his 1980 translation. They already knew this after reading the foreword of his 1937 edition. This can be verified by reading the February 15, 1956 edition of The Watchtower, pages 110 and 111. Here, they exposed Johannes Greber as a spiritist and author of the book, "Communication With the Spirit World: Its Laws and Its Purpose". They also warned their readers that the spirits that helped Greber translate his New Testament are of antichrist.

[@tdickensheets]

It is interesting that Greber's translation also renders the Word as "a god" in John 1:1. Why do the Watchtower and spirit mediums have a common interest in calling Jesus "a god" and not "God", as do all versions that are translated by recognized Greek scholars? Why did the Watchtower use this demonic translation for support in the first place since Deuteronomy 18:10-12 is clear in forbidding all contact with the occult? Couldn't they have used a recognized authority and not a spiritist for support? Obviously, the spirits that helped Greber cannot be trusted. Furthermore, if the Watchtower is correct in calling Jesus "a god", why in John 5:23 does Jesus demand that all honor the Son, just as they honor the Father? Why would a created being demand the same honor as the Creator receives? And why did Jesus say in John 15:26, that when the Spirit of truth comes from the Father, that one will bear witness of Himself and not Jehovah?

[@jorgepinzon7268]

Thank you for your very good job,I would like to know how must be translated Acts 28:6 it’s similar to Jhon 1:1

[@Oliva_80]

Good one 👍

[@1979joey]

Good point. I guess there was no avantage for Trinitarians to translate this occurrence of an anarthrous theos as “God” because it wasn’t about Jesus. lol All English translations I consulted properly translate Acts 28:6 as “a god”. The Maltese were pagan idol worshippers and did not have a concept of one supreme God so anyone with supernatural powers would be “a god “ not “God”

[@Matteo78067]

Hi! Maybe an off topic question, but do you yourself believe in the Trinity? I myself don't believe in the Trinity (believing that Jesus is not God) but I do believe they are very similar to each other in terms of nature.

[@GreekForAll]

It's very interesting the way you put it. Hmmm... I guess, my answer would depend on your definition of Trinity. How do you understand it?

[@Matteo78067]

@@GreekForAll Hi, sorry for the late reply. I don't really believe in the Trinity, but I do believe that they both have divine nature inside of them. But to go as far as saying Jesus is God just doesn't fit right to me. Perhaps I am wrong and Jesus is in fact God. But when you read that Jesus prayed to God, that blows the Trinity apart.

[@Scott23882]

@@Matteo78067 1 John 4:15,16 KJV

[@MelissaK-lh4ig]

He talked to God just as He did in heaven. He became man and he showed us how to pray. We must follow Jesus in everything.@@Matteo78067

[@karagrunder4999]

Thank you for this translation! I appreciate your details. I don't know if this will make a huge difference to Jehova Witnesses I've spoken to, but you at least enabled me to plant seeds! God bless!

[@GreekForAll]

Thank you! Blessings to you as well!

[@tongakhan230]

Does this mean that 'and the Word was God' is correct? Why did John then testify further down: John 1:34 And I have seen it, and I have given witness that this one is the SON OF GOD.” 'WAS God' would mean that Jesus had been God while WITH God. Now he has ceased to be God. How would this make any sense? Guess JWs have been right all along.

[@watchtowerdefence571]

No it will not make a difference to Jehovah's Witnesses _(not Jehova Witnesses)_ Stan made a fundematal mistake in the examples he used. Look for my comment

[@watchtowerdefence571]

@@tongakhan230 No it does not mean that 'and the Word was God' is correct. Stan made a mistake. Look for my comment

[@GreekForAll]

@@watchtowerdefence571 I haven't made a fundamental mistake in my video. Look for my detailed comment.

[@STROND]

Last point........You criticises the NWT for translating Θεὸς as "a god" and yet you quote the latter part of John 1:18 which YOU quote as "the only begotten SON, which is in the bosom of the Father," so here you quote Θεὸς as "SON" I thought you would have known better as Θεὸς is GOD......the Greek word for son is Υἱὸν or υἱός ......so it does sound like you are having double standards here........just saying !

[@GreekForAll]

Your posts just expose your own unawareness. I would recommend you to familiarize yourself with available manuscripts of Jn 1:18. The strongest witnesses attest μονογενὴς θεὸς (including P66 and P75 - some of the oldest manuscripts, Alef, B, C, and others). I REPEAT AGAIN: if you continue using "sharp" language while being totally ignorant, I will block you. For you are not only arrogant but also don't know how to lead meaningful discussion.

[@bensybency]

Hallelujah!

[@leef_me8112]

The explanation of the greek is very helpful. Especially deliberate and detailed explanation. I have never seen anyone (in either the 'God' or ' a god' camp) look at the greek from other parts of the chapter as part of the test. This suggests to me another perspective and question: Why would John, being so careful about his writing, shift between "God" and "a god" without clarifying?

[@GreekForAll]

I do not see John shifting between "God" and "a god" at all. You probably meant to say that John shifts between "theos" and "o theos". The article in Greek is used quite differently from English, and it was the purpose of my video to show that the absence of the article in "theos" does not mean "a god."

[@leef_me8112]

@@GreekForAll I am talking about groups of people who say it is 'a god' and then use Greek translation to reinforce their opinion. other groups say 'God' and then use the Greek in a similar way.

[@GreekForAll]

@@leef_me8112 Now I got it.

[@christopherskipp1525]

@@leef_me8112 Because they an "axe to grind," as it were?

[@Scott23882]

@@leef_me8112 the word was god no capitals in Greek

[@mikeliew2148]

Thank you

[@GreekForAll]

Welcome

[@watchtowerdefence571]

The NWT is grammatically correct in the rendering of this text. Yes in John 1:1c there is no definite article, but that does nit mean that every time the word theos occurs without the definite article that it means that indefinite article is to be used. You are wrong in your test procedure when you compare the word theos in John 1:6, 12, 18. What you need to do is compare the type of noun that theos is at John 1:1c with other occurrences where that type of noun occurs. In John 1:c the word theos is - an anarthrous - singular - predicate - count noun coming before a linking verb, that is a 'to be" verb. When that construction is used the indefinite article is used in English. Here are a few examples. The an anarthrous - singular - predicate - count noun coming before a linking verb are in bold, and I capitalise the indefinite article. John 3:4 δυναται (is able) *ανθρωπος* (man) γεννηθηναι (to be generated) = can *A man* be born (JKV) John 4:19 οτι (that) *προφητης* (prophet) ει συ = that thou art *A prophet* (JKV) John 6:70 εις (one) *διαβολος* (devil) εστιν (is) = one of you is *A devil* (JKV) John 8:44 [a] εκεινος(that one) *ανθρωποκτονος* (man killer) ην (was) = He was *A murderer* (JKV) John 8:44 [b] οτι (that) *ψευστης* (liar) εστιν (he is) = he is *A liar* (JKV) Get the idea. One must compare like with like according to context

[@GreekForAll]

Thank you for a detailed comment. I commend you for, actually, the right approach to exegete this question, which is to find the same syntactical construction. The right construction though is: (anarthrous noun) + verb eimi + (articulated noun). In this case, none of your examples reflects the construction of John 1:1c. On the other hand, Mark 2:28 does: κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου. "The Son of man is lord of the sabbath." As you can see, "lord" has no article and it would be absurd to translate it "a lord of the sabbath." (there is no English translation which has any article before the word "lord" including NWT by Watchtower!!!). So if we observe the exact syntactical construction even NWT refutes your argument of how it should be translated. Now, it would be unfair if I leave it at this. Although your examples are not precise, they still resemble the construction of Jn 1:1c (except Jn 3:4 which is totally off). So, let's address them. The reason behind the indefinite article in English is the subject of interpretation and English grammar. The words "a lier", "a murderer", and "a prophet" imply "one of many". So it's easy and natural to write it this way. However, when it comes to "lord of the sabbath" or "God" in Jn 1:1c it's impossible to place the article "a" there implying "one of many". It is theologically inconsistent with the rest of the Bible! How many lords of the sabbath are out there? How many gods are out there? Do JWs believe in pantheism? I don't think so.

[@watchtowerdefence571]

@@GreekForAll I appreciate that you took the time to respond. Yes in John 1:1 the subject directly follows the linking verb (εἰμί) in its various forms. But, I disagree with you that the examples I gave do not articulate the subject. All the examples I gave do tell us something about the subject even that they are not followed by an articulated noun. I understand why you say that *_at first glance_* that John 3:4 is totally off, became the *whole word* γεννηθηναι is not a linking verb. As you well know Greek verbs are constructed very differently to English. Suffixes and prefixes are added to the stem to form one word in Greek, that, in English we would use several words for. The lexical form γεννάω _(I beget)_ has the suffix added to it, being the present infinitive of εἰμί - *εἶναι* to give us the verbal noun γεννηθηναι, which is what we find in John 3:4. So the English transition is “TO-BE born” Other examples of such verbal nouns with the “to-be” suffix are λύεσθαιι - *to-be* loosed; λαβῆναι - *to-be* taken γαμηθηναι - *to-be* married διακονηθηναι - *to-be* ministered And many more examples are easy to find Several trinitarian scholars have approached the subject related to trying to disprove the NWT rendering of John 1:1 and argued to show that the predicate use of θεὸς in John 1;1 is qualitative and not definite as Earnest Colwell and later Bruce Metzger advocated. These scholars include Phillip Harner. Paul Dixon, Rob Bowman, Donald Hartley and Daniel Wallace. They list John 3:4 as predicate nominative before a precopulative (linking) verb I agree that in Mark 2:28 the rendering “a lord” would not fit. Why? Because of the whole context of the passage. In Mark and the parellel accounts in Matthew and Luke we find the predicate nominative word κυριος associated with a genitive expression where generally the genitive is representing the possessor. Jesus is Lord *OF THE* sabbath. In John 1:1 we are not being told that Jesus is god *OF* anything or any one. Also in Mark there is only one lord mentioned where as in John there are two gods mentioned the God that Jesus was toward or with and Jesus. Mark has different writing style to John, and we are specifically discussing John’s writing style, not Mark’s. Mark has only 8 examples of an anarthrous predicate precedes the verb. Philip. Harner’s work “QUALITATIVE ANARTHROUS PREDICATE NOUNS: MARK 9:15, JOHN 1:1” _(Journal of Biblical Literature , Mar., 1973, Vol. 92, No. 1 (Mar., 1973), pp. 75-87 )_ mentions to Mark 2:28 in his arguments to counter Colwell’s ideas about definiteness and says on page 77 …. (italics mine) Quote “Our analysis so far suggests that Mark was a careful writer who always _had some reason to leave out or insert_ the article in predicate expressions. ….. Possibly he _[Mark]_ means the son of man is “the lord” of the sabbath. But this translation would shift the emphasis of the passage dealing with the sabbath observance (2:23-28) The question is not who the lord of the sabbath is, but what the nature or authority of the Son of Man is. Thus it appears more appropriate to say that the Son of Man is simply "lord" of the sabbath. The predicate noun has a distinct qualitative force, which is more prominent in this context than its definiteness or indefiniteness.” End Quote Philip states that in Mark there are 8 examples of in which an anarthrous predicate precedes the verb. In a footnote he says …. QUOTE Mark 2:28; 3:35; 6:49; 11:17, 32; 12:35; 14:70; 15:39. These clauses do not appear to have any common characteristics apart from the fact that an anarthrous predicate precedes the verb. End quote So no you can not compare Mark 2:28 with John 1:1

[@GreekForAll]

@@watchtowerdefence571 I appreciate you replying and putting significant effort to present your position. However, it appears that you yourself do not have a solid knowledge of Greek grammar on both levels: morphology and syntax. I admire your willingness to study this question and go far and beyond. I really do. However, the reasonings in your reply reveal that you do not really understand how Greek works and why scholars say one thing or the other. 1. Everything you wrote about Jn 3:4 is nonsense. The infinitive ending -ναι, doesn't make any verb into the linking verb. Period. It makes it the infinitive "to run", "to speak," and "to be." The examples, you provided are passive infinitives made by the suffix -θῆ-. Which has nothing to do with the verb εἰμί. The reason why Jn. 3:4 is quoted by other scholars is different. And I need to see how they quote it because syntactically γεννάω is not used in Jn 3:4 in the same manner as Jn 1:1c. 2. The argument about the genitive in Mk 2:28 is irrelevant. 3. Although the argument about literary styles is valid in some discussions, I do not see how it adds to our study. We talk about the grammar rules not literary devices. You and I have different literary styles but we still follow English grammar. So did Mark and John. In fact, syntactical similarity between JN 1:1c and Mk 2:28 show that they applied the same literary device. 4. Finally, the quote by Harner only proves that it is the subject of interpretation. He only suggests that it might be translated as "the lord" based on his opinion that it could possibly shift the focus of the passage. It is just an opinion based on nothing (definitely not on grammar). I can also say that it would NOT shift the focus. So, who is right? These are just opinions. ANYWAY, even if it could be translated as "the lord" based on uniqueness of the title "the lord of the sabbath" (that is one and only), it would even more prove that this cannot be translated as "a lord." 5. And your last line that we cannot compare Jn 1:1c and Mk 2:28 is puzzling. I am not sure how you came to this conclusion based on Harner's quote. Syntactically they are closer to each other MORE than any of the examples you provided. If I cannot use Mk 2:28 (even thought it's very close to Jn 1:1c), then you also cannot use any of your examples (which are way more different from Jn 1:1c). You are crushing your own original comment from which you started. Friend, I believe you are genuine and seek the truth. God will reveal it as we all seek Him with all our heart. This dialogue takes too much time. I will need to leave it as it is. You can reply. I will read but won't answer. Respectfully. Blessings.

[@jahtruthdefender]

@@GreekForAll I totally concur with @watchtowerdefence571 and your video in light of it teaching Greek, begs the question if your position is from a religious belief that Jesus is God? In any event Acts 28:4 where it is said of Paul, "the man is a murderer," from the Greek "phoneus estin ho anthropos." is this not a "qualitative/indefinite aspect" evident? In translations of this verse the qualitative/indefinite aspect of the noun is usually brought out by means of the indefinite article. The indefinite aspect seems clear enough, and the qualitative nuance naturally follows from the noun used to describe Paul. How can he be a murderer without owning the qualities of a murderer? This text provides an exact parallel to John 1:1c, where we have an anarthrous preverbal nominative followed by an articulated subject." Regarding John 1:1, a Greek scholar states "The Jehovah's Witness editors, in explaining this verse, say that they are trying to convey that the word has qualitative sense- that is, that the word belongs to the class of divine beings. This is correct. In fact, it seems clear to me that the word theos is in this verse a predicate adjective. I would translate as Moffatt and Goodspeed (two excellent scholars of Greek) have: "And the Word was divine."" How say you?

[@dalet9841]

I Noticed they put Jehovah in the new testament can you tell me if this is the correct translation

[@GreekForAll]

I think we need to stay faithful to the text, and if God's name is not written in the original manuscript we also should not insert it there. And if someone still puts God's name into the NT they should be consistent, especially in the OT quotes.

[@michellemicallef3250]

@@GreekForAll well, if that's th4e case, you shouldnt be using the name Jesus. How ridiculous. The Bible writer who were translating from Hebrew to Greek didnt keep demand tomstick to the right pronounciation of Jesus, they used the greek word. Now were speaking English, we say Jesus. Do you think Jesus family called him by that name, No. But we wouldn't call him Teacher. But we use it to honour him as Gods Son. The same is with Gods Name, we don't know the vowels they used, just like we know What vowels go in bldg. The name Jehovah is widely used, so it's acceptable to use it. God wants us to use his name, not just his many titles. If I go oversees, my name Michelle, is pronounced differently, so the same is with Jehovah. In Japan, they say, Ehoba, in the islands they say, Iehouah. God wants us to use him name. The Lord's prays Matt. 6:10 "Our God innheqven, let your name be known. God is not his name, it's a title, Satan is referred to as the God of This system. Money can be a God. Which God do you worshipmor pray to?

[@GreekForAll]

@@michellemicallef3250 Your comment should not be directed to me, as I have not commented on the letter "J" in God's name or in Jesus's name. I think your argumentation is right.

[@michellemicallef3250]

@@GreekForAll Sorry, I don't how that happened. I don't even remember writing to someone named Greek for all. I love you Greeks, I miss them since I've left Sydney, I'm living with a bunch kangaroos . Haaa. I love your food and family culture. Have a good day.

[@michellemicallef3250]

@Dalet Yes there are many translations with Jehovah in the New Testament. Here are some: A literal Translation of the New Testament .....from the text of the Vatican Manuscript, by Herman Heinfetter (pseudonym for Frederick Parker) Sixth Edition, London, in 1863 This translation uses "Jehovah" in the main text of various verses. Die heilige Schriftdes neuen Testaments (New Testament, in German) by Dominik von Brentano, Kempton, Germany 1790-1791. This translation uses "Jehova" or "Jehovah" in the main text of various verses or in explanatory commentaries and paraphrases. The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English (An American Translation of the Aramaic New Testament), by Glenn David Bauscher, Seventh Edition, Australia 2012. This Translation uses "THE LORD JEHOVAH" in the main text of various verses. The Christian's Bible - New Testament, by George Newton LeFevre, Strasburg, PA, USA, 1928. This Translation uses "Jehovah" in the main text of various verses. Arorutiet me Leel ne bo: Kiptaiyandennyo Jesu Kristo Yetindennyo (New Testament in Kalenjin), by Francis J Mumford and others, Nairobi , Kenya, 1968. This Translation uses "Jehovah" in the main texts of various verses. Edisana Nwed Abasi Ibom (The Bible in Efik) reprinted by the National Bible Society of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1949. This Translation uses "Jehovah" in The main verses, both in the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Greek Scriptures. a. How many times does the New World Translation use the name Jehovah in the Christian Greek Scriptures. b. What are some examples of earlier translations doing the same? But what about the use of the name "Jehovah" in the New Testament, the Christian Greek Scriptures? In The New World Translation, it appears 237 times. While this may seem to be unusual, this translation is by no means the first to use this name in this part of the Bible. It goes back at least as far as 1796, when German translator Brentano used the form "Jehovah" at Mark 12:29. There is also The Emphatic Diaglott, an interlinear translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, first published in 1864. Repeatedly it uses Jehovah in its quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures where this name appears for a total of 18 times. For example, see Matthew 22:37, 44 and Mark 29:30 and Luke 20:42. What recent evidence indicates that Gods name appeared in the original text of the Greek Scriptures? What dual change apparently took place in the 2nd century CE? The reason that is seems most unusual for the name "Jehovah" to appear in the Christian Greek Scriptures, is that, for centuries, it was thought that the name did not appear in the Septuagint Version of the Hebrew Scriptures used by Jesus and his apostles. But more recent discoveries definitely prove that the Tetragrammaton did appear in the Septuagint in those times. Thus the Professor Howard of the University of Georgia states: We know for a fact that the Greek speaking Jews continued tho write the (Tetragrammaton) within their Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most unlikely that early conservative Greek-speaking Jewish Christians varied from this practise ....It would have been extremely unusual for them to have dismissed the Tetragram from the Bibical text itself." So he concludes: "Since the Tetragram were still written in the Greek Bible which made up the scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the New Testament writers, when quoting from scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text. On the analogy of pre Christian Jewish practise we can image that the NT text incorporated the Tetragram into its OT quotations". Professor Howard also notes that when the Tetragrammaton was removed from the Septuagint, it was also removed from the quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures appearing in the Christian Greek Scriptures. This change evidently took place at the beginning of the 2nd century CE. There is no question that the name Jehovah does belong in the Christian Greek Scriptures, as we find it in the New World Translation. Phew, that took me along time to write, I hope it answers your question.

[@1979joey]

Thank you for your informative videos. However...you of course realize that “this people” or “those people” were not the first to note in their translation that the ‘ theos ‘ in this verse is merely an attribute or quality of the subject. Or is this just a case of another Russian attacking ‘this people’?

[@GreekForAll]

I would be fine with qualitative understanding of "theos." However, I'm totally against "a god." Now the qualitative understanding of theos actually means that the Logos is as God as anyone can only be. Everything what God is the Logos is.

[@1979joey]

I’m glad you agree on the qualitative nature of the “ theos” in this text. The exact interpretation of this nature now becomes a matter of debate between Arians and Trinitarians. My point however is that this video would have kept its scholarly integrity , like many of your other videos , if you had said more objectively something like “some translations” or “some translators” instead of “this” or “ those people”. Just a suggestion. Thank you sir for your excellent lessons.

[@GreekForAll]

@@1979joey I will keep this in mind for the future videos. Thanks for the suggestion.

[@toney5173]

The bible writer John was not under proper English guidelines because they did not exist then, please make a note of that.

[@watchtowerdefence571]

@@GreekForAll The way Greek grammars to English works, supports the rendering "and the Word was a god" The examples you used in the video are wrong.

[@ShareThegospel-fi4kr]

Amen my brother you deserve a subscribe

[@GreekForAll]

Thanks

[@ShareThegospel-fi4kr]

@@GreekForAll God bless you we need such people like you to clearify the new testament since it was written in Greek and you a Greek speaker

[@GreekForAll]

@@ShareThegospel-fi4kr I am happy to serve. Blessings

[@JohnTransue-ph7er]

Can John 1:1 be translated like this? In the beginning The Word was existing, and The Word has been with the Living God, and God was being The Word.

[@GreekForAll]

It is a very loose translation. You add many words. The simpler the better. The last line is grammatically incorrect. The “word” should be the subject, not God.

[@tongakhan230]

Logic should dictate that no one can be WITH another and he also be the one he is WITH. It is like me saying, "I was WITH my mother at the opening ceremony. I was also my mother." Here is John's clear declaration which would make any exercise to make Jesus into God futile. 'No man has SEEN God AT ANY TIME.' - 1 John 4:12,20. John grew up with Jesus. He certainly knew that Jesus was NOT God. Thus, fiddling around with his words at John 1:1 begets the question: Who is trying to fool whom?

[@GreekForAll]

@@tongakhan230 your example with your mother is very different from the one John writes in 1:1. Grammatically what is written in Jn 1:1 is incomparable to your example. I’d advise you to learn Greek grammar before making any conclusions. Alternatively, you could read at least a dozen commentaries just to peek what that verse could mean. Otherwise, you only share your ignorance.

[@tongakhan230]

@@GreekForAll : If one is unaware how John 1:1 should be actually translated, here is some help. • 1808: "and the Word was a god" - Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London. • 1822: "and the Word was a god" - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.) • 1829: "and the Word was a god" - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829) • 1863: "and the Word was a god" - A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863) • 1864: "and a god was the Word" - The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading) • 1879: "and the Word was a god" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979) • 1885: "and the Word was a god" - Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible(R. Young, 1885) • 1911: "and [a] God was the word" - The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, by George William Horner.[17] • 1958: "and the Word was a god" - The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958); • 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" - Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany • 1975: "and the Word was a god" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975); • 1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin • (Source - Wikipedia - John 1:1)

[@STROND]

I do think that there is a lack of consistency with your argument.....You say that in connection with John 1:18 John does not put any definite article here and you argue that so Θεὸν would not be "a god" and you are correct in the context of John 1:18, , however please take a look at Acts 28:6 and let me know if your Bible says "god" or "a god" as it too uses Θεὸν without the definite article ! So can you explain to us all why it is translated as "a god" ? So you see, it is grammatically within Koine Greek to insert "a" maybe not in modern Greek but in Koine Greek YES. That is why well respected Greek translators such as the following do likewise: "the Word was Divine" (Goodspeed, E.J. An American Translation N.T. 1923). "the Logos was Divine" (Moffatt, J. The Bible 1950). "And what God was, the Word was" (New English Bible 1961). "the Word was Divine" (Schonfield, H.L. Authentic N.T. 1956). "The Word was with God and shared his nature" (Translator's N.T. 1973). "and the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God" (Barclay, W. N.T. 1968). In addition to their comments below, W. E. Vine, Prof. C. H. Dodd (Director of the New English Bible project), and Murray J. Harris admit that this ("the Word was a god") is the literal translation, but, being trinitarians, they insist that it be interpreted and translated as "and the Word was God." Why? BECAUSE OF A TRINITARIAN BIAS ONLY!

[@kableguy5525]

I'm a bit late sorry but just viewed your video. Thanks for your presentation. But I just had to reply. From what I can see from listening here as well as looking around it seems there is a difference of opinion in koine Greek translation into English regarding John 1:1. as well as some other verses later in John 1 and other places. So, most bible translations, translators, scholars etc.... render the last clause as "the Word is God" BUT there are others that have the other reading "the Word is a god" or similar such as is divine. This difference has been noted of course by you and others in the other replies here. Of course, a certain view on anything held by the majority does not make it true just as a different view help by the minority also does not make it true. I don't speak Greek, but I have read some Greek scholars that agree with the rendering 'Word is a god" or God -like or a similar meaning. My Greek speaking friend told me the same thing interestingly as asked I him! But then there are other Greek scholars and other Greek speaking people say otherwise. I suppose even in English grammar you can have disagreements between English speaker's... ha ha 😢 But it seems interesting to me that some say that they identify the Greek grammar here in the last clause is talking about the Logos nature and not his identity? (this is not mentioned in the video and not sure why not) As opposed to the 2nd clause which is talking about the identity of God the Father which all agree on. They see that the grammatical structure in the Greek with no indefinite article before God in the last clause means a describing of the nature of the Word is needed. Hence saying the Word is divine in nature or is God-like or a god. All the same things. So, they say it is qualitative here and not identifying regarding the word (Some Refs I have copied below to show this just to show this and one goes back to 1808) So I'm thinking.... can the grammar refer here to the qualitative nature of the Word in this verse in the last clause. Does the koine Greek grammar allow that? Or is only about his identity? How to decide? Of course, context is such a vital ingredient in understanding grammar and hence the meaning with any language. Especially what was written 2000 yrs ago. Also, other scriptural evidence and questions are surely important to ask. Can we ask the following type of questions then? In John 1:1 how does the context change according to the grammar even within the verse? What does Divine mean? Even today what does any dictionary say Divine means? Can a son or a daughter have the same nature or qualities as their father or mother and if so are they the same persons? Can Jesus have the same nature as his father but not actually be the same person? Who did Jesus say he himself was? Who did Jesus say God his father was? Who did Jesus say was greater...himself or God before his resurrection? What's the story after his resurrection? Who did he tell his followers to pray to when he was on earth? Are Christians told in the Bible to pray to Jesus after his resurrection? If Jesus is God, should we pray to him or the Father? What does the bible consistently teach about Jesus' identity? Which rendering in John 1:1 contradicts other parts of or the rest of the Bible? Was Jesus sent by God? Can he be the same person as God who sent him? Can anyone be the same persona as the one who sent him to do something important? Can you be with someone but then be that same person you are with? Was the worship of God in the Old Testament monotheistic or of pagan origin? Is the belief of a Triune God Head have any originality in pagan religions predating the 1st CE Christians? Hopefully these sorts of questions could help us when there is a translated rendering that is in dispute due to grammar. Maybe it can help a person to then see which rendering is being influenced by a preconceived belief or just allowing accurate translation into English to take place. So as to then allow the reader to decide what the writer was meaning. Some food for thought and hope this all helps. Have a great day or night and thanks for reading 😊 REFs.....(as I said above there are two camps in all of this - but these quotes below I have copied in just to show that others have reasons for seeing a difference in the grammar in rendering John 1:1 compared to the majority - and in case these have not been seen - so not just one religion or group have these renderings and understanding. Just showing these out of interest. Thanks) 1/ Scholar Jason David BeDuhn agrees- he states that the absence of the definite article makes the two occurrences of “God” “as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” He also says - “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.”-Truth in Translation: Accuracy in English Translations of the New Testament, pages 115, 122, and 123. 2/ The Translator’s New Testament says regarding this absence of the article: “In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means ‘The Word was divine.’” 3/ In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) 4/ The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library in England notes that according to Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, while the·osʹ is used in scriptures such as John 1:1 in reference to Christ, “in none of these instances is ‘theos’ used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as ‘ho Theos,’ that is, the Supreme God.” And the Bulletin adds: “If the New Testament writers believed it vital that the faithful should confess Jesus as ‘God’, or Jesus is God, then why is this form of expression almost complete absent in the New Testament?” 5/ The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions “with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.” then it says - "this indicates that the loʹgos can be likened to a god". Also, it says of John 1:1: “The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·osʹ] cannot be regarded as definite.” 1/ “The Word was in the beginning, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.”-The New Testament in an Improved Version, 1808, edited by Thomas Belsham, based on a New Testament translation by William Newcome. 2/ John J. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”-(New York, 1965), p. 317. 3/ “In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.”-The Bible-An American Translation, 1935, by J.M.P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed. 4/ “The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.”-The Bible-Containing the Old and New Testaments, 1950, by James Moffatt. 5/ 1829 "and the Logos was a god" - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History, according to the Four Evangelists, by John S. Thompson, Baltimore.

[@uganda_mn397]

John 20:28-30

[@Sirder]

You JW I presume

[@kableguy5525]

@@uganda_mn397 John 20:17, John 17:3, John 14:28

[@uganda_mn397]

@@kableguy5525 what about it?

[@petermakiwa7503]

Excellent. Praise God. (I am in Africa, Zimbabwe 🇿🇼)

[@GreekForAll]

Welcome to the Greek club!

[@GreekForAll]

@@Scott23882 true about the capital letters. However, we can’t put “god” in all occurrences of “theos” in NT. In our culture and literary style the word “God” is capitalized when referring to the supreme deity of the Bible. Small lettered “god” refers to idols or gods of gentiles and in Jn 1:1 this is not the case.

[@Scott23882]

@@GreekForAll where it says the god it should be capitalized

[@Scott23882]

@@GreekForAll it does not say the word was the Son of God

[@GreekForAll]

@@Scott23882 totally agree.

[@RiskeFactor]

Why would you use the genitive and accusative form in John 1:6, John 1:12 and John 1:18 when these texts aren’t a grammatical parallel to John 1:1c?

[@GreekForAll]

Technically you are right, my examples are not the exact equivalent (and I think we could find exact equivalents). My point was that the anarthrous "theos" appears in John in the same chapter in relation to the Father. Although cases are different, anyone who understands Greek knows that it does not make any (or much) difference for this particular matter.

[@RiskeFactor]

@@GreekForAll where do you come up with this argument that it’s due to an anarthrous noun?

[@GreekForAll]

@@RiskeFactor JWs used it all the time. Perhaps now they don't because they realized that it's meaningless.

[@RiskeFactor]

@@GreekForAll unfortunately it’s been a strawman argument postulated by those that disagree with JWs since the release of the NWT in 1950.

[@GreekForAll]

@@RiskeFactor I am not sure I am following what you are trying to say.

[@proofofLastdays]

Julius Manety

[@makarov138]

You are correct, Sir. Here is another example for you: And example of the Greek (2316) “God” in the nomitive case, and without the article, as being capitalized: Mark 12:27 “He is not (the) God of the dead, but of the living: ye do greatly err.” The article is not there preceding the noun. Using this example, Jn 1:1C could just as legally be translated: “The Logos was the God.”

[@Scott23882]

Does not say the word was the God

[@rwatson2609]

Thanks, I was looking for a nomitive case example and you saved me a bit of work. You probably had to do a little reading to find that.

[@Scott23882]

@@rwatson2609 It does not prove much only a distinction

[@rwatson2609]

@@Scott23882 A distinction? What's that?

[@Scott23882]

@@rwatson2609 the Word was WITH the God that is the distinction

[@Nobody_114]

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. Λόγος here is translated as "the Word". In Greek, Λόγος (Logos - similar to logic) means "reason", which means perfect sense, regardless of which branch of Christianity or religion you follow. Why mix your culture with the literal translation of the revelation from God?

[@STROND]

I think you should listen to what others say...... Well known commentator William Barclay writes explains it all in one paragraph. John did not identify the Word here but was indicating what the Word was. Finally John says that "The Word was God". There is no doubt that this is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because Greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which English speaks. When the Greek uses a noun it almost always uses the definite article with it. The Greek for God is 'theos', and the definite article is 'ho'. When Greek speaks about God it does not simply say 'theos'; it says 'ho theos'. Now, when Greek does not use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like an adjective; it describes the character, the quality of the person. John did not say that the Word was 'ho theos'; that would have been to say that the Word was identical with God; he says that the Word was 'theos'- without the definite article- which means that the Word was, as we might say, of the very same charactor and quality and essence and being as God. When John said 'The Word was God' he was not saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like." (Barclay, W. The Gospel of John, vol.1, The Dailey Study Bible Series, Saint Andrew Press, p. 39)

[@GreekForAll]

Aman. I totally agree with him. I never stated that Jesus and the Father are identical (one person). They are two persons with the same nature. It's either you misunderstood my video or you totally miss what the commentator whom you quoted says.

[@STROND]

@@GreekForAll So when you same they are two persons with with the same nature, can you explain ?

[@GreekForAll]

@@STROND God is not a name. It is a title. I and my wife are two different persons, yet each of us is human. Jesus and the Father are two different persons, yet each is called God. PS: Please, do not duplicate questions in different threads.

[@STROND]

@@GreekForAll Yes I agree.....That is why we need to differentiate. Satan is also called "God" but neither is Jesus or Satan refereed to as the ALMIGHTY the way Yehovah is !

[@GameFighting23]

​@@STRONDAre you saying Jesus is God in the same way as satan? 😱

[@luketan7451]

John the apostle was a Jew, of a monotheistic faith. So when he wrote "theos" in relation to the God the Jews believe in, it cannot be translated "a god". Thankful that Stan highlighted those other references in the context, further confirming that "theos" must be the God, One and Only.

[@GreekForAll]

Indeed

[@GreekForAll]

Amen

[@santino591]

*My Question To Trinitarians Who Prefer The King James Version?* Please explain why the KJV Bible (and other off-shoot bibles) add the indefinite article [a] in several texts but remove it at John 1:1? [Some Examples]: a) Acts 28:6 - People viewed Paul as *[a] god* (In Ancient Koine Greek, there is no “a” before “god.” right?...Why is it here?) b) Mark 6:49 - [a] spirit c) John 6:70 - Judas called [a] devil ~~~~~~~ d)* Exodus 7:1 - Moses called [a] god to Pharaoh... *[NOTE]: There were "no" vowels in Ancient Hebrew, only consonants.* They wrote the way we text msg & abbreviate today: Examples: • msg (message) • ystrdy (yesterday) • btw (between), etc.

[@GreekForAll]

Santino, (1) the context plays the deciding role of how any word is used and how it should be interpreted/translated. (2) Greek has no indefinite article. Insertion of one in English is done to accommodate English grammar. Very often the article is dropped from English translations (including NWT) even though it is present in Greek to suite English grammar. (3) the consonantal language has a lot of nuances, so no need to oversimplify it: the same consonants could be understood differently: stl = steel, steal, or stool btw = between or by the way gd = god or guide and etc. So the technique of translation is not an easy task and anyone untrained can fall into numerous pitfalls. I hope it helps.

[@santino591]

@@GreekForAll Stanislav, First, I am truly honored by your swift, sincere, honest reply!... Based on my Biblical Research, I have no dispute w/ your 3 part reply... Nor do I mean to appear disagreeable or argumentative. However, there are 2 remarks that stood out in your reply. It is true that Translating & Transliterating from Greek to English is not an easy task... Also, your comment regarding context playing the deciding role in the way the bible is interpreted / translated (we might add transliterated) I'm sure we can agree that when translated accurately, the Bible does not contradict itself. Based on John 1:1, I think the ultimate question is whether or not Jesus is ALMIGHTY GOD (along with his Father) My answer is Absolutely Not! Based on Jesus' own statements that I sent U in another message. Please consider: *The Real Truth About "Mighty God"* ***[Isaiah 9:6]*** It is true that at Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is prophetically referred to as *"Mighty God" (Hebrew, ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ)*. So is the Father in some texts.... Yet, no where in scripture is Jesus ever referred to as *God Almighty (Hebrew ʼEl Shad·daiʹ)* as in Gen. 17:1,) This title ONLY applies to the Father (YHWH /Yehowah/Jehovah)... So to say that Jesus is *God* @ John 1:1 would be a complete contradiction. ~~~~~~ I have a "*Father*" but I also have a "*GrandFather*!"... They look alike but certainly are NOT the same person!... "*GrandPa*" is always much older & has more experience in life than my Father!!! PS - I eagerly await your reply to my other messages. Esp. Your thoughts on The Sahidic Coptic Manuscripts & John 1:1 as *[a] god* in other translations.

[@GreekForAll]

@@santino591 Thank you for the meaningful dialogue. Please accept my apologies for two reasons: (1) I receive so many messages, and have numerous threads that at times I simply miss messages and replies may get lost and unanswered. (2) I am also engaged in some other projects which demand time, so at the moment, I simply lack time to dedicate to any long-term discussions. Please, accept my apologies. I won't be able to continue this discussion until I finish a few projects.

[@santino591]

@@GreekForAll Respectfully, No rush!.... Whenever U have time!

[@kiwihans100]

One doesnt need any knowlesge of greek to understand who John was telling us the word was! Firstly he was NOT Almighty God him self because John said he was WITH GOD. Then the "Word became flesh" John & others 'saw him' yet he said "no one HAS seen God AT ANY TIME" ( verse 14,18 ). Also John's purpose in writing at chapter 20:31 "These things have been written that you may believe ( You and I !) that Jesus Christ IS THE SON OF GOD". I donyt know greek but thats good enough for me!

[@GreekForAll]

Well explained!

[@waleligndebalke1665]

@@GreekForAll what if the word is not person at all.But the word of God the father which become flesh.

[@GreekForAll]

@@waleligndebalke1665 Theoretically it is possible. At the same time, when all pieces put together it appears that the most reliable option is that Jesus is that Word and he had preincarnational existence with the Father (the idea which the entire John's Gospel promotes). So the better understanding is that the Word is the person.

[@MB-rh3mb]

you have Russian accent.are you from russia?

[@GreekForAll]

I am indeed.

[@deficrypto1234]

I am sorry but ur wrong and have the wrong perspective. U need to consider examples that have a subject and predicate. The rule of koine Greek is clear: definite article before subject and predicate and they r interchange. No definite article and its a quality or adjectival. That's the situation of John 1:1. U used examples that didn't involve a subject and predicate with no definite article Infront of one noun.

[@GreekForAll]

Hi Brother, The purpose of this video was not to discuss the use of the article in the subject/predicate positions. The purpose was to challenge the notion that if the article is absent it should be translated "a god." However, perhaps I could find better examples. I discuss the article in John 1:1 in light of your concern in some other videos. Thank you for your note. It is appreciated.

[@deficrypto1234]

@@GreekForAll That is the rule. U can't present a half rule which is misleading. U can't discuss John 1:1 without discussing subject and predicates.

[@GreekForAll]

@@deficrypto1234 My friend, let me emphasize again that I have not discussed any rule in my video, nor I presented any rule to follow. I have not discussed the use of the article nor I discussed the positions of the words (subject and predicate), nor I discussed whether the anarthrous word implies quality, nor I talked about any theology of the passage. All I did was to challenge the opinion that the absence of an article before "theos" in 1:1 gives a right to translate it as "a god." Of course, I could talk about all of those things, then my video would be 1 hour long and it is not what I wanted. So to make it clear, I'm not presenting any half rules. I'm just not talking about what you believe I should've talked about. I focus on one small element at a time. Nevertheless, I have taken time and searched for the appropriate examples similar to Jn 1:1 (where "theos" stands in predicate position without article). A couple examples are Deut 4:35 (οὗτος θεός ἐστιν) and 2Mac 7:37 (μόνος αὐτὸς θεός ἐστιν·) Both of these examples should be translated as "God." I hope it helps brother.

[@deficrypto1234]

@@GreekForAll Ur once again missing my point. U can't consider only a predicate when there is a subject. I am not discussing theology but grammar. The minute there is a subject and predicate, u can't consider a definite article in isolation. Its best u consider the context before making these videos. Ur once again citing recalled that don't have a subject and predicate when John 1:1 does. Pick a different sentence example not John 1:1 next time.

[@GreekForAll]

@@deficrypto1234 my friend, it seems that both examples that I presented in my previous comment have both SUBJECT and PREDICATE and the verb "to be" which syntactically is the same as John 1:1 (the only difference is that in Jn 1:1 the subject is articulated and in my examples it is the personal and demonstrative pronoun [which both are articulated by definition]). I am not missing your point. You want me to discuss both the subject and predicate when treating Jn 1:1. I already did it in another video. In this video, I wanted to focus on something else, namely, to debunk a popular opinion that "anarthrous "theos" in Jn 1:1 could be translated as 'a God' based on the absence of the article alone." You see, the theory has nothing to do with the position of the word, that is why I didn't discuss the subject-predicate dynamics. Brother, I love you in Christ and will take your advice to consideration for the future videos. You are appreciated.

[@ounkwon6442]

This verse is not about divinity of Jesus Christ - God Jesus. Logos is the word of utterance - of the Elohim. Jn 1:1c is not "the Word is a god" - as if one of many gods, but what God is. What God is, the Word was. Not 'the Word is God', nor 'the Word is a god' (NWT) - 'a god' meaning one of gods. Trinitarians entertain more than one God to worship - Father - God; Son - God; Holy Ghost God - of Trinity God - Godhead or Compound God.

[@GreekForAll]

You are absolutely right! This is qualitative just as you said: “what God is, the Word was.” The conclusion of Jesus’ divinity comes by implication that the Word is everything what God is.

[@ounkwon6442]

@@GreekForAll "... conclusion of Jesus’ divinity" is by a Trinitarian doctrine (i.e. of God Jesus religion). Different understanding and interpretation leading to a different conclusion by a non-Trinitarian doctrine.

[@proofofLastdays]

I was friends with Julius meant when is the oldest living renowned Greek scholars in the world if you were alive today he would applaud the work that you’re doing the rendering the translation is a matter of fact he reprimanded the watchtower society for miss quoting him as rendering the Danen in Manny’s Greek word and jam on one as a guide.

[@watchtowerdefence571]

I don't wish to speak ill of the dead, but Professor Mantey was very wrong in his public statements about the NWT and John 1:1c and in his gramper he does actually supports the NWT though he denies that he did.

[@totonchua]

The verses used (John 1:6,12,18) do not shed light on how the last part of John 1:1 should be translated. Please use verses in the Bible or other Koine Greek literature with the same grammatical structure to prove your point, that is: (no article) Noun1 + "is/to be" + definite article + Noun2. Practically speaking, the problem here (of translating the last part of John 1:1) cannot be solved by grammatical analysis alone. Without a doubt, scholars on either side of the argument have their valid points. If you are a Filipino, here's an analogy: I'll use "manager" in lieu of "God," and "clerk" in lieu of "word." Tagalog: #1 Manager ang clerk. (Notice that only one definite article, "ang," is used here.) #2 Ang manager ay ang clerk . (Notice the use of two definite articles here.) Cebuano: #1 Manager ang clerk. #2 Ang manager mao ang clerk. #1 --Shows that the clerk is a manager. This means that the clerk has the qualifications/role of a manager and could have acted in that capacity, say, when the manager was not around; the clerk could also be, in fact, the manager, but this cannot be definitely concluded based on the grammar alone. #2 --The grammar here definitely shows that the clerk is the manager. Here's another example showing the difference in meaning when using one versus two definite articles. #1 Ang karpentero engineer. (Same as "Engineer ang karpentero.") #2 Ang karpentero (ay) ang engineer. Note: Obviously, the translation would depend on the translator's belief or disbelief of the Trinity doctrine. Related: www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20081101/was-the-word-god/

[@GreekForAll]

Sorry, I''m not a Filipino. The point of the video was not to look at the construction of Jn 1:1c, but to address a common misconception that it could be translated "a god" solely on the basis of the article's absence.

[@totonchua]

@@GreekForAll Hi, Thanks for your reply. Your argument was that it should be translated "the Word was God"--if I am translating into Tagalog, that way of translating would not be a problem. It captures the idea that the Word has the qualities of the (Father) God, and could possibly be (Father) God himself. The problem comes when translating into English, the translator (wanting to be faithful to the original) would be compelled to use "a god", meaning divine, if his understanding of the entire Bible is that it does not support the Trinity doctrine. I reckon that if the translator is Jewish who believes that there is only one God (the Father alone, excluding the Messiah), he could easily see the validity, grammar-wise, of translating it "a god (divine)." Converse to your statement, my point is that Jn 1:1c could, also, not be translated as "the Word was God" solely on the basis of the article's absence. In other words, the Greek grammar allows both ways of translating, and deciding which one to use depends on the translator's, as mentioned already, understanding of the entire Bible, that is, whether the Trinity doctrine is correct or not.

[@tdickensheets]

Jesus was God - John 1:1 1. Daniel B. Wallace, quoted by William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, p. 27-28 a. “Generally speaking, When a word is thrown in front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order was been reversed. It reads, “and God was the Word.” (καὶ θεός ?ν ὁ λόγος) We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was “God” thrown forward? And (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father.” 2. To get what Jehovah’s Witnesses wish to claim, that Jesus was just a god in the sense that some men are “gods” in that they are God’s representatives you would need “and the Word was God” (καὶ ὁ λόγος ?ν θεός) in the Greek. This is why no English translation, outside the Jehovah’s Witnesses own poorly done one and a handful of other bad translations, says that "the Word was a god." 3. To get that Jesus and the Father are the same you would need “and the God was the Word” (καὶ ὁ λόγος ?ν ὁ θεός). 4. In other words John 1:1 says the same as Colossians 2:8-9, just in a concisely worded form.

[@tdickensheets]

Greek Scholar, the late Dr. Robert countess explains the dishonesty of the NWT committee in translating John 1:1 "a god". Former Jw's Bill Cetnar explains how the society has even turned to the occult for support of their mistranslation

[@brucebarnard]

The fact that logos is the subject of 1.1a means that John could have used the article before theos in 1.1c and there would no confusion as who is the subject in kai ho heos hn ho logos. Hence the omission of the article was for another purpose. In many of sentence contructs, a singular preverbal nominative in the GNT English translations render the noun indefinitely. Wallace and Mounce are wrong because their position is a theologically driven one. Thomas Dickensheets does not know the 1st thing about the Greek and he just quotes others but understands nothing of which he quotes. He does this all the time. In the CARM forums he did so. He is still doing it. He knew nothing of the Greel langauge then and still know nothing. All he does know is to call others liars, Satan and that they are going to hell. Strange man.

[@tdickensheets]

@@brucebarnard You don't believe Jesus is God in the flesh! You are going to hell!

[@tdickensheets]

@@brucebarnard CARM tells the truth! You tell lies!

[@tdickensheets]

@@brucebarnard John to have called Jesus "a god" in John 1:1 and meant him to be another true God, a mighty God alongside the almighty would go against everything in the monotheistic teaching of Judaism. The same goes for Thomas calling Jesus "my God" in John 20:28. ln their own publication… Thomas said to him: 'My Lord and my God!'-John 20:28" (Greek Interlinear reading, literally: "The Lord of me and the God of me!") Their own Greek Interlinear shows ho theos. (INTERLINEAR 1985, p. 513) This is polytheism, more than one god and worse yet they have an angel exalted as "a god." It does not matter if they worship him or not , they call him a god and creator. Jeremiah a reliable prophet said in chpt.10 v.11 "the Gods that have not made the heavens and the earth shall perish…" Then what are they to do with Jesus who is called creator and "a god", is he to be eliminated with all the rest. That's the problem when you have two gods even if one is almighty and the other mighty. What of the Father? According to them he only created one thing, Jesus the angel. If he did not make the heavens and the earth he too will perish! So if Jesus who is called "a god" did not create it all, he goes the away with the rest of the false gods. This isn’t my opinion but Gods! If Jesus had been claiming to be only "a god" as J.W.'s teach, then He would not have been charged with "blasphemy" as in Jn 10:30 when they tried to stone Him for He made himself to be equal to God. Not another God, but claiming to be united with the one God, as the Greek language bears this saying "we are one"- in nature.

[@jwjbros7926]

It all depends on whether you believe John was a Trinitarian, Modalist, or henotheist. Most Trinitarians will translate it to fit their theology.

[@GreekForAll]

I agree that every interpreter is influenced by his own theological presuppositions. When approaching the text one needs to do his best to reduce personal biases. With this being acknowledged, my video was not about how the text should be interpreted but rather to refute the obvious mistake in translation used by some. I pointed simple inconsistencies and demonstrated several examples.

[@deficrypto1234]

Who gave them the right to translate it according to their theology? The Bible needs to be translated according to the text and grammatical rules of koine Greek.

[@brucebarnard]

@@deficrypto1234 The NWT translates the Greek of 1.1c according to Greek grammar and context.

[@brucebarnard]

@@mackdaddy798 No, "a god" to agree with the sentence construct and it's context.

[@deficrypto1234]

@@brucebarnard Several translations who aren't Jehovah witnesses independently translated John 1:1 as ' a god'. More interestingly, The closest language to koine Greek is the Hasidic dialect of the Coptic language. The oldest translation was translated in the 3rd century, before the trinity become official church dogma. Also, it would have used original manuscripts as a basis for its translation. It translates John 1: 1 ' a god'. These weren't Jehovah's witnesses too. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1 Other variations of rendering, both in translation or paraphrase, John 1:1c also exist: 14th century: "and God was the word" - Wycliffe's Bible (translated from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate) 1808: "and the Word was a god" - Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London. 1822: "and the Word was a god" - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.) 1829: "and the Word was a god" - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829) 1863: "and the Word was a god" - A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863) 1864: "the LOGOS was God" - A New Emphatic Version (right hand column) 1864: "and a god was the Word" - The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading) 1867: "and the Son was of God" - The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible 1879: "and the Word was a god" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979) 1885: "and the Word was a god" - Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885) 1911: "and [a] God was the word" - The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, by George William Horner.[17] 1924: "the Logos was divine" - The Bible: James Moffatt Translation, by James Moffatt.[18] 1935: "and the Word was divine" - The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.[19] 1955: "so the Word was divine" - The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.[20] 1956: "And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" - The Wuest Expanded Translation[21] 1958: "and the Word was a god" - The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958); 1962, 1979: "'the word was God.' Or, more literally, 'God was the word.'" - The Four Gospels and the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979) 1966, 2001: "and he was the same as God" - The Good News Bible. 1970, 1989: "and what God was, the Word was" - The New English Bible and The Revised English Bible. 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" - Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany 1975: "and the Word was a god" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975); 1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin 1985: “So the Word was divine” - The Original New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield.[22] 1993: "The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one." - The Message, by Eugene H. Peterson.[23] 1998: "and what God was the Word also was" - This translation follows Professor Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, ed. Daniel J. Harrington.[24] 2017: “and the Logos was god” - The New Testament: A Translation, by David Bentley Hart.[25] The critical point is this; the lack of appearance of the article before both Gods means they are not interchangeable. One is a noun and the other is an adjective or description.

[@Mr.DC3.1914]

the Sahidic Coptic Text has an indefinite article and it says A god. So yes, A god is correct for John 1:1

[@GreekForAll]

I was not looking at the Sahidic text. I referred to English text coming from the Greek translation. On the same note, even if Sahidic text has an indefinite article, it is still a translation from Greek and thus is an interpretation. The original Greek from which all translations come out is still the ultimate text we should refer to.

[@Mr.DC3.1914]

@@GreekForAll Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.”

[@Mr.DC3.1914]

@@GreekForAll and then again, this translation is based on the oldest Greek ms which is not available now

[@GreekForAll]

@@Mr.DC3.1914 What it says that majority of the Greek manuscripts came later than coptic version (which is true). I do also agree that it may have more weight than the later manuscripts. However, it is irrelevant since papyrus P66 dated 175-200AD contains the gospel of John and predates the coptic translation. So no need to hypothesize about "non existent" manuscripts when we have extant papyrus.

[@Mr.DC3.1914]

@@GreekForAll the KOINE Greek does not have indefinite article correct? So when they translated that during the same time when those Greek ms are existing , then they know what the proper translation should be, and Sahidic Coptic text put an A in John 1:1

[@brucebarnard]

Trinityexamined is right as you have not dealt with the same grammar which we see in 1.1c. You have also ignored the context of this 3rd clause. Since John says that the LOGOS being with a certain QEOS then he can not be that QEOS and so must be another QEOS. The noun QEOS could rightly be applied by a Jew to another being not the supreme QEOS, the god, God without any conflict with the worship of that one true supreme god. Trinitarians alter the QEOS of 1.1b to mean one person of a three person God. So, is not trinitarians interpreting this in accord with a post-NT doctrine? Still, trinitarians such as Harner and Dixon argue against a definite QEOS in 1.1c yet to translate this QEOS as God is an English definite translation!

[@tdickensheets]

"Jesus is `a' god, not `the' God" The Watchtower Society's New World Translation renders Jn 1:1 as "... and the Word was a god." But the original Greek is, kai theos en ho logos ("and God was the Word"). That is, the pre-incarnate Son (Jn 1:14) shared the Father's God-nature. New Testament Greek does not have an indefinite article ("a") as English does, so the absence of the definite article ho ("the") before a noun, e.g. "God," does not mean it is indefinite. In the same chapter the word "God" appears without the definite article in Jn 1:6,12,13,18 but the NWT each time translates it as "God" without the indefinite article "a". The NWT's "a god" translation of John 1:1 makes Jehovah's Witnesses polytheists: those who believe in the existence of more than one true god. That is unless they wish to claim that Jesus is a false god! And the Apostle John, being a devout Jew, was a monotheist: one who believed in the existence of only one true God (Jn 17:3). So the NWT's "a god" translation of John 1:1 cannot be correct, and in fact all mainstream English translations render John 1:1 "... and the Word was God" (e.g. ASV, ESV, KJV, NIV, RSV, NASB & NKJV).

[@tdickensheets]

You don't believe that Jesus is God in the flesh! You are going to hell!! Case closed!!

[@tdickensheets]

Then are going to hell!!

[@tdickensheets]

We have already established that there is ONE TRUE GOD by nature. Now we ask the JW's the key question: Is Jesus a true god or a false god? They will have to admit that Jesus is a true god. This forces them to believe in more than one true god! You can't believe in two true gods as the JW's. How many gods do JW's believe in? JW's answer "One and a half!" The explanation was of course, that they believe Jehovah (God) created Jesus (god), was at the same time the archangel Michael, so Jesus became "Sort of a hybrid being, a god/ archangel Michael" at the same time! This reasoning also makes them polytheists, as does their rendering of John 1:1 NWT.

[@tdickensheets]

It's true that in the April 1, 1983 Watch-tower, page 31, under "Questions from the Readers", the Society claims that they found out from the 1980 Edition of the New Testament by Johannes Greber that he was involved with spiritism, and therefore they would not quote from his bible in the future. However, the facts are that the Watchtower Society knew, at least from 1956, that Johannes Greber was involved with demon spirits. They published an article to that effect in the Watchtower of February 15, 1956. With this knowledge, they deliberately used his "translation" of the bible as a basis for their "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures", in 1961. These dates do not lie. Why would the Watchtower Society knowingly embrace a translation of John 1:1 given by demon spirits? Every Jehovah's Witness needs to check this out.

[@jonathanbotin1338]

𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗻𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗷𝗼𝗵𝗻 1:14

[@mr.d.c.1914.1]

Sahidic text shows A god in John 1:1

[@GreekForAll]

This is totally fine. It is just an interpretation which has a historical value that at some point someone translated John into Sahidic and wrote 'a god". I'm fine with that.

[@mr.d.c.1914.1]

@@GreekForAll Sahidic text has an indefinite article and that's why it uses A in John 1:1, a god, that is not an interpretation

[@GreekForAll]

@@mr.d.c.1914.1 My friend, it is an interpretation. The Sahidic text is not what John wrote originally. It is a translation from Greek. Any translation is an act of interpretation.

[@mr.d.c.1914.1]

@@GreekForAll. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.”

[@GreekForAll]

@@mr.d.c.1914.1 It is a good point and it only supports what I said earlier that this knowledge has a historical value only showing that in the 3rd century, one translation viewed it in a particular way. There could be numerous reasons why it happened and it even does not fully depicts the entire view on this in the African church. We need to look at data objectively and not to assign more info into it than it contains. As for the Greek manuscripts, they don't contain the indefinite article - Greek just doesn't have it. If the Sahidic version decided place it there it is one opinion of how to interpret Greek "theos" in Jn 1:1.

[@trailtreker7002]

You don't need all that ( indefinite article ) non sense . As the Jews didn't either at that time . The Torah goes on to say that “God saw that he had turned aside to see; and God called out to him, “Moses! Moses!” And we know the rest of the story. Though Moses encountered Yahweh at the Bush , its always important to remember what he was experiencing was given him through " The Word " . All things passed from Yahweh to all other subjects through " The Word " And so this is why John 1:1 distinguishes the Differences between" The Word " who was with God , and the " Word " that is (the message ) relayed from God thorough Jesus preexistent being as " The Word of God " , and therefore recognized as such as Being God Himself and yet he was only " Channeling " the Message as a phone does a call from one person to another .. ( All the time , being a Sacred Secret to whom ever encountered Him ) . Jesus , clarified this over and over during his ministry , by saying " I don’t speak on my own authority. The Father who sent me has commanded me what to say and how to say it." John 12:49 . Jesus was so attuned in his mission that he mentioned his Oneness with Yahweh , and even passed the knowledge of attuneness of being at One to his followers, John 17:21 "that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be one in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. "

[@theodore8178]

I dont know Greek. Theologically divine makes the most sense here. Even If we translate as "a god" it hardly debunks the trinity or homoousian doctrine Jws if you look at their anti-trinitarian arguments they are actually arguing against modalism and not the tri-hypostatic divinity of Father Son And Spirit!

[@deficrypto1234]

Many translators do not translate John 1:1 as the ' word was God'. These are not JW's and came to the same conclusion as the NWT. So, it's not a JW thing.

[@brucebarnard]

I agree. Even if trinitarian translators rightly came out that the "a god" translation is correct it would not mean they would have to give up their teaching that the NT as a whole teaches that Jesus is 'God' in the orthodox trinitarian understanding. But it would mean they have more work to do so.

[@tdickensheets]

@@brucebarnard Many Jehovah’s Witnesses are publicizing new manuscript evidence they claim supports their preferred rendition of John 1:1c: “and the Word was a god.” This evidence-an early translation of the New Testament-comes from the same century as the earliest Greek witness to the New Testament. Such an understanding of John 1:1c flies in the face of what all major branches of the Christian tradition have testified about Jesus since the Nicene Creed: “true God from true God.” Therefore, if Jehovah’s Witnesses are correct concerning what this new evidence supports, it would radically alter how Christians understand the divinity of Jesus. But are Jehovah’s Witnesses correct in how they understand this new evidence? They are not. The best interpretation of this new evidence indicates that the subject of John 1:1c (“the Word”) possesses all the qualities of God (capital G). Not only is such an understanding well supported by existing scholarly work, it also applies best to other, similar passages in the New Testament, fits what we know the remainder of Scripture testifies to concerning Jesus, and accounts for the early Christian worship of Jesus. According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ is not like Jehovah, the only true God. He is rather a lesser divine being (“a god”). One primary passage they often point to is John 1:1. Why? Their own translation of the New Testament-the New World translation-reads “and the Word [=Jesus] was a god” in John 1:1c. Does their translation have any merit? How did they arrive at it? Why don’t other translations render it that way? Up until recently, if you were to discuss such questions with a Jehovah’s Witness (JW), your dialogue would go something like this: JW: “One of the main reasons for producing our own translation of the Bible fifty-one years ago was because the most used translation at that time, the King James Version, used archaic language, making Scripture difficult for people to understand.” You nod in agreement. JW: “Furthermore, the original Greek text of certain critical passages was translated inaccurately. For example, in John 1:1c, a fundamental text for orthodox Christian theology, the original Greek text lacks the article (in English, ‘the’) before the Greek word for ‘god’ (which is ‘theos’). That is why we correctly translate the passage, ‘and the word [Jesus] was a god.’ You can see this same reasoning applied elsewhere in passages we don’t debate. For example, we both translate Luke 20:6, ‘John was a prophet.’ That is because the Greek text lacks the article.” At this point, you might be able to quote some Christian scholars who say a Greek grammatical rule called “Colwell’s rule” disproves their translation of John 1:1c. JW: “They are wrong. Colwell’s rule doesn’t disprove either of our positions” (and they share the reasons why). For much of the past fifty years, your discussion ends here, both sides having to “agree to disagree.” More recently, however, many JWs are considering, advocating, and proclaiming new evidence in support of their translation. What is this new evidence? Why do they believe it supports their translation? What difference does it make? One of the earliest translations of the Greek New Testament into another language was Sahidic Coptic, which was spoken in Egypt during the first few centuries of Christianity. This language, like English but unlike Greek, has an indefinite article (what English speakers would typically think of as “a” or “an”). And it just so happens this indefinite article precedes the Coptic word for “god” (noute) in John 1:1c. JWs believe this evidence clearly supports their viewpoint: Jesus Christ is merely “a god”-not like Jehovah, the one true God, as previously mentioned. Thus, continuing the conversation above, they add: JW: “Although we may agree to disagree over the best way to translate the Greek, have you heard about the new evidence we now have for our translation? The evidence is from some of the earliest Christian missionaries, and it clearly refers to Jesus as ‘a god’ in John 1:1c. What are your thoughts on this evidence? Has anyone in your church shared this with you yet?”

[@ounkwon6442]

Note: All the religions, doctrines, creeds, teachings, rules, rites, and traditions are men-made. The Bible itself is not the Word of God; it is a product of men's work of translation. The Scriptures in the original languages is the vessel to hold the Word of God, which is not a Person. God's words are to be heard in spirit.

[@GreekForAll]

This is why we study original languages.

[@tongakhan230]

Here is John's testimony. John 1:34 And I have seen it, and I have given witness that this one is the SON OF GOD.” Trying to change John 1:1 to make Jesus into God would mean having to change many more scriptures. And the question would arise: WHY? In order to fool whom? 'and the Word WAS God' translation doesn't even make sense. It shows that Jesus WAS God at some point in time when he was WITH God. However, he ISN'T God now. The adage 'having the cake and eating it' comes to mind.

[@GreekForAll]

Apparently John himself call Jesus God and the Son of God. Does he also have the cake and eats it himself? 😆

[@tongakhan230]

@@GreekForAll : Please show us where John even hints that Jesus IS God? He clearly wrote in unambiguous terms: 'No man has SEEN God AT ANY TIME.' - 1 John 4:!2,20. John grew up with Jesus and was Jesus' beloved Apostle. He and tons of others SAW Jesus. So, how could Jesus have been God even for a millisecond?

[@GreekForAll]

@@tongakhan230 my friend, I kindly excuse myself from this task. I pray the Lord himself instructs you and deepens your understanding of his word.

[@tongakhan230]

@@GreekForAll : Taking on God's people and trying to ridicule them, always expect some flak. Stay with what the Bible DOES TEACH. Taking a verse out of a hat and giving it twists and grammar dissections won't change TRUTH. Jesus was NEVER God as he himself clearly stated (John 4:24, 8:40).

[@GreekForAll]

@@tongakhan230 “taking on God’s people and trying to ridicule them” - are you out of your mind? My friend, just to make it clear, there is a HUGE gap between us in terms of knowledge and understanding of the scripture. I can’t explain calculus to an elementary school student. I humbled myself and said that I don’t want to engage in the dialogue. You took it as a victory. Just incredible!

[@ravenousbird2213]

It does not say the word was the God but the word was God .Without the article "O" in john 1:1c it is now qualitative not a noun or state of being.If we will to accept that the term "God" there in john 1:1c is referring to God in nature or state being you will have a lot of problems in dealing the Whole Bible.There will be another God aside from God the Father.If you read the hebrew bible even the new testament there is ONLY ONE GOD THE FATHER ALONE.There is NO TRINITY in the Bible.( Isa.45:21,Mal.2:10,I Cor.8:6 ,John 17:1,3 etc..)🇮🇹

[@scripturaltruth7636]

ην is "I was" not "was"

[@GreekForAll]

ην cannot be "I was." If you would like to insert a personal pronoun it should be 3rd person singular "he/she/it was." When the subject is written, it is simply "was."

[@scripturaltruth7636]

@@GreekForAll That is some iffy stuff to consider looking at. It has me stumped

[@scripturaltruth7636]

@@GreekForAll That is three sources that say it means "I was"

[@scripturaltruth7636]

@@GreekForAll What came down on Jesus when John baptized him ?

[@GreekForAll]

@@scripturaltruth7636 1. I know that Greek grammar may look difficult. But what stumped you is a simple imperfect paradigm of the verb εἰμί. 2, I am not aware of any source that says that ην = "I was." On the other hand every single grammar book says ην is the 3rd person singular = he/she/it was. 3. As far as I remember, the Spirit came down on Jesus.

[@brucebarnard]

a god in John 1.1c really? you ask? Well you yourself in a comment here like the translation "the Word was divine" and the meaning of the adjective "divine" means "of or like God or a god." Hence yes, really theos of 1.1c is god not God. But why do you prefer to translate the noun theos by an English adjective? Why not translate it by a noun? If you did, and you have stated categorically here for a translation "divine" how can you disagree with translating it as the JW's NWT does? You can't! Still, what is the difference between "the Word was divine" "the Word was a divine being"? There is no difference is there? So now tell us the difference between "the Word was a divine being" and "the Word was a god"?? Thank you for the polite Christian discussion.

[@GreekForAll]

Hello Bruce, great observation and the logical flow of your argument. I am walking on the edge between being true to the text and also not to be misunderstood. I believe it should be translated "And the Word was God." When I liked the comment which said, "and the word was divine" I didn't mean that the Word was "a god" or even "a divine being." I lean toward linguists who view the 'theos" in 1:1c as qualitative, as the one who possesses ALL divine qualities of God which essentially means He is exactly like God (the Father). If we look at the Word and the Father, they possess the same qualities in everything. In short, it means that the Word is God in nature yet separate from the Father.

[@brucebarnard]

@@GreekForAll Thanks for your reply. But to consider the anarthrous noun theos as 'qualitative' one could not then go on to translate as "God" as that is a definite translation. If John wanted to mean that the Word was "God" he could have used the Greek article. But he didn't. And as the Word is not the ho theos of John 1.1b then he must be another theos. Otherwise John would be a modalist. Jewish writers writing in Greek could certainly use the noun theos for gods which were not the one supreme god, God nor false god and without any conflict with the belief and worship of the one true supreme theos. John did not write that the Word had all the qualities of God because he did not write ho theos but just theos. The Word then had the qualities of theos, god.

[@GreekForAll]

@@brucebarnard this is exactly what my video is all about: that the word theos (without the article) could easily be used to describe the supreme God (as I show in a few examples). So just based on the article alone we cannot interpret the word as "a god." Bruce, I'm afraid I am not fully grasped your final conclusions. Could you clarify what you think John meant by 1:1c?

[@brucebarnard]

@@GreekForAll But for you God is the Trinity is it not? But you do not think that the Word is the Trinity. Can you see your problem? You do not mean by the God in 'the Word is God' the Trinity. So you use the Word God but in two different senses without articulating clearly each time you do. Yes, you do look at theos without the article but not in the sentence structure as it is in 1.1c, a singular nominative predicate before the verb. Your examples of theos without the article looks at theos in a genitive construct and the article is not necessary in this construct to make theos definite. But the article IS required for theos to be definite in 1.1c as it is a singular nominative predicate before the verb. You are not comparing the same constructs.. Also, by your comment you show you have not read the NWT argument as they do not say just because theos lacks the article it then means god. As I said, it has to do with a certain sentence construct. Also, John does use theos with the article in both 1.1b and 1.2, sandwiching his anarthrous theos and this is significant. Also that the Word is pros ho theon with ho theos, rightly translated God. The Word is not that God then. What I meant is that John can use the word theos for another not ho theos without any conflict with monotheism. Also, as I said, translating theos in 1.1c as God is a definite translation but this would contradict 1.1b. Harner is against theos of 1.1c being definite.

[@GreekForAll]

@@brucebarnard If theos in 1:1c had the article it would become the "subject nominative" and the clause would read "and the God was the word." But this is not what John wanted to say. So I'm quite confused when you say that the article IS required in 1:1c. I also didn't understand this line: "Also that the Word is pros ho theon with ho theos, rightly translated God. " What do you mean?

[@heatcliffxjosu4413]

Church of Christ was right,

[@tdickensheets]

John 1:1 Is Jesus true God or false god?? Pick one!!

[@tdickensheets]

We have already established that there is ONE TRUE GOD by nature. Now we ask the JW's the key question: Is Jesus a true god or a false god? They will have to admit that Jesus is a true god. This forces them to believe in more than one true god! You can't believe in two true gods as the JW's. How many gods do JW's believe in? JW's answer "One and a half!" The explanation was of course, that they believe Jehovah (God) created Jesus (god), was at the same time the archangel Michael, so Jesus became "Sort of a hybrid being, a god/ archangel Michael" at the same time! This reasoning also makes them polytheists, as does their rendering of John 1:1 NWT.

[@Sirach144]

@@tdickensheets you err. The word God in the Bible is not restricted to the almighty. Angels, kings, Priests false gods, Abraham and Moses.

[@tdickensheets]

@@Sirach144 So Jesus is false god!! Is this true!

[@tdickensheets]

@@Sirach144 If Jesus is not God, then explain . . . Why Thomas calls Jesus God in John 20:28? (Note, Thomas addresses Jesus specifically). Why does God call Jesus God in Heb. 1:8? Why does John the apostle state that Jesus was the Word which was God that became flesh (John 1:1, 14)? Why is the phrase “Call upon the name of the LORD” (Hebrew, YHWH, i.e., Psalm 116:4) used only of God on the OT and translated into Greek in the LXX as “Call upon the name of the LORD (greek, “KURIOS”) applied to Jesus in the NT (1 Cor. 1:2) if Jesus is not God in flesh? Why does the apostle John say that Jesus was ” . . . calling God His own Father, making Himself equal to God.” (John 5:18)? What did Jesus say that caused the Pharisees to claim that Jesus was making Himself out to be God (John 8:58)? How was it possible for Jesus to know all things (John 21:17)? How can Jesus know all men (John 16:30)? How can Jesus be everywhere (Matt. 28:20)? How can Jesus, the Christ, dwell in you (Col. 1:27)? How can Jesus be the exact representation of the Nature of God (Heb. 1:3)? How can Jesus be eternal (Micah 5:1-2)? How can Jesus be the one who gives eternal life (John 10:27-28)? How can He be our only Lord and Master (Jude 4)? How can Jesus be called the Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6) if there is only one God in existence (Isaiah 44:6-8; 45:5)? How can Jesus be called the Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6) and “God” also be called the Mighty God in Isaiah 10:21? How was Jesus able to raise Himself from the dead (John 2:19-21)? How can Jesus create all things (Col. 1:16-17), yet it is God who created all things by Himself (Isaiah 44:24)? How can Jesus search the hearts and minds of the people (Rev. 2:23)? Why was Jesus worshipped (Matt. 2:2, 11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6) when He says to worship God only (Matt. 4:10)? (same Greek word for worship is used in each place.) In the OT God was seen (Exodus 6:2-3; 24:9-11; Num. 12:6-9; Acts 7:2), yet no man can see God (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18). It was not the Father that was seen in the OT (John 6:46). Who, then were they seeing? See John 8:58. Then why did Jesus claim the divine name, “I AM” for Himself in John 8:58? see Exodus 3:14. Then why did Jesus say you must honor him even as you honor the Father (John 5:23)? Then why is it that both the Father and the Son give life (John 5:21)? Then why did Jesus bear witness of Himself (John 8:18; 14:6)?

[@tdickensheets]

@@Sirach144 4 REASONS THE SOCIETY’S TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1 IS UNTENABLE 1. IS SATAN JEHOVAH? HE IS CALLED “THE GOD” AT 2 CORINTHIANS 4:4: “among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers.…”-New World Translation Doesn’t this passage undermine the Society’s rule concerning the definite article (the) being used to designate the true God from lesser “gods”? 2. JEHOVAH IS ALSO CALLED “A GOD” AT LUKE 20:37-38: “…when he calls Jehovah ‘the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob.’ He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him.”-New World Translation Since the term “God” is used of Jehovah without the definite article, doesn’t this discredit the Society’s claim that Jesus is not the true God because the term “God” is used in reference to Christ without the definite article? 3. CONSISTENCY IN TRANSLATION: If one is consistent in applying the Society’s rule of inserting the article “a” whenever the definite article (the) is not written in the Greek, the following verses would read this way: · JOHN 1:6:“There came a man, sent from a God.…” · JOHN 1:18: “No man has seen a God at any time.…” · MATTHEW 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of a God.” 4. SCRIPTURE CALLS JESUS “THE GOD” WHICH INDICATES HE IS JEHOVAH: · MATTHEW 1:23: “Look! The virgin…will give birth to son, and they will call the name of him Immanuel; which is being translated With us the God.” -Kingdom Interlinear Translation · JOHN 20:28: “Answered Thomas and he said to him The Lord of me and the God of me!”-Kingdom Interlinear Translation · JOHN 1:18: “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” · 1 JOHN 5:20; 1:2: “…we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.…the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us.…” · HEBREWS 1:8: “But of the Son He says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His Kingdom.’ ” KINGDOM INTERLINEAR NEW WORLD TRANSLATION HEBREWS 1:8:“toward but the Son The throne of you the God into the age of the age.…” HEBREWS 1:8:“But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever.…’ ” Throughout Hebrews 1-3, Christ is shown to be superior to creation as He is contrasted to the angels, the prophets, and Moses. At Hebrews 1:10-12, we read a passage taken from Psalm 102:25-28 that was written exclusively of Jehovah in the Old Testament but applied directly to Christ here in the New Testament. Incidentally, Hebrews 1:8-9 is a quotation taken right out of Psalm 45:6-7. Hebrew Parallelism occurs where the literary structure of one verse is seen to be identical to that of another verse. In this case, in the Septuagint, the literary structure of Psalm 45:6: “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever” is seen to be identical to the literary structure of the previous verse, Psalm 45:5: “Thy weapons, O Mighty One, are sharpened.” Therefore, the translation of “Thy throne, O God….” at Hebrews 1:8 is much more correct than the Watchtower Society’s New World Translation.

[@mitchellc4]

Hello Where is the word of God ever a person in the Old Testament? In the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with the Father and Jesus was the Father?? That won’t work The word is a personification of God’s word Similar to Wisdom in Proverbs Jesus is referred to by Paul as the Wisdom if God Does that mean a female spirit being named Wisdom transformed into a human named Jesus?? And the word did to? Two being transformed into a human? No Jesus is the embodiment of God’s word and wisdom Jesus is the Messiah The Son of God The Son of David The Son of man The man God has chosen to be his anointed king The man God will judge the world through The man God raised from the dead Jesus will return and rule the nations with believers in the kingdom of God on the earth Jesus has a God There is no triune god in scripture Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. - Acts 3 13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to release him. 14 But ye denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted unto you, 15 and killed the Prince of life; whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. Notice Jesus is NOT the God of Abraham

[@GreekForAll]

I never said that Jesus was the Father.

[@mitchellc4]

@@GreekForAll Nor did I ever claim you did?

[@GreekForAll]

@@mitchellc4 It seems that you did in the 2nd paragraph.

[@mitchellc4]

@@GreekForAll No no I’m saying if you insert Jesus for “the word” in John 1, that is what you’re going to get In the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with the Father and Jesus was the Father We both know that won’t work Who is Jesus’s God? Rom 15 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 2 Cor 11 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie. Eph 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, Eph 1 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, Col 1 3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, 1 Pet 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, Rev 1 6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Rev 3 12 He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name. John 20 17 Jesus said to her, “Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

[@GreekForAll]

@@mitchellc4 If it was just the name Jesus incited, it would work. But you also inserted the word Father. Then, it doesn't work, for it changes what the verse actually saying.

[@STROND]

Yes really !! In the beginning was the word (Jesus as the word or spokesman for God) and the word was WITH God...........so does not make sense to say that the WORD was Gd if the writer had just identified him (Jesus ) as being WITH God.... In English that is not good grammar and makes no sense.................Now in Koine Greek there is NO indefinite article, that is the word "A" however the context and the fact that John uses Theos in connection with Jesus and "Ho-theos" in connection with his father Jehovah shows that John was not identifying WHO the word was but rather WHAT the word was.... Well known commentator William Barclay writes explains it all in one paragraph. John did not identify the Word here but was indicating what the Word was. Finally John says that "The Word was God". There is no doubt that this is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because Greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which English speaks ...When John said 'The Word was God' he was not saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like." (Barclay, W. The Gospel of John, vol.1, The Dailey Study Bible Series, Saint Andrew Press, p. 39) Various translations "the Word was Divine" (Goodspeed, E.J. An American Translation N.T. 1923). "the Logos was Divine" (Moffatt, J. The Bible 1950). "And what God was, the Word was" (New English Bible 1961). "the Word was Divine" (Schonfield, H.L. Authentic N.T. 1956). "The Word was with God and shared his nature" (Translator's N.T. 1973). "and the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God" (Barclay, W. N.T. 1968). In addition to their comments below, W. E. Vine, Prof. C. H. Dodd (Director of the New English Bible project), and Murray J. Harris admit that this ("the Word was a god") is the literal translation, but, being trinitarians, they insist that it be interpreted and translated as "and the Word was God." Why? BECAUSE OF A TRINITARIAN BIAS ONLY! W. E. Vine - "a god was the Word" - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament. C. H. Dodd - "The Word was a god" - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Jan., 1977 and the Word was a god." New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. "and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson "and the Word was divine." The Bible-An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed Even Origen, the most knowledgeable of the early Christian Greek-speaking scholars, tells us that John 1:1c actually means "the Word [logos] was a god". - "Origen's Commentary on John," Book I, ch. 42 - Bk II, ch.3 PLEASE, accept the truth and PLEASE do not put Jesus into God's (Yehovah) place. God would expect you to accept the evidence and try not to fight against him, be like the apostle Paul who was willing to make changes when he needed to.......Only trying to help !

[@GreekForAll]

I'm pretty much agree with the first part of your comment. I say the same thing all the way until you started speaking about "a god." Please note that I never stated that Jesus and the Father are one person. Yet, they share the same divine nature and both could be called God (which you yourself support by providing all those quotes). ""And what God was, the Word was."

[@STROND]

@@GreekForAll So when you same they are two persons with with the same nature, can you explain ?

[@GreekForAll]

@@STROND God is not a name. It is a title. I and my wife are two different persons, yet each of us is human. Jesus and the Father are two different persons, yet each is called God.

[@STROND]

@@GreekForAll Also I notice on a number of occasions you say "in my opinion" and "I think" and herein lies the problem, you say "you think" it is, sounds like you are not to sure and are allowing your predetermined ideas to persuade you into a certain line of thinking !

[@STROND]

@@GreekForAll Yes, I understand that. All I am saying is that in Koine Greek it is acceptable grammar, after all most Bible do the same and use "a god" at Acts 28:6....see my latest posting on Acts 28:6

[@rodneylittle-ji9ke]

JWs are correct and you are wromg.

[@pacmanpirini]

Not only are you wrong... but you also spelt the word wrong incorrectly

[@rodneylittle-ji9ke]

​@@pacmanpiriniJWs are correct and you need to work on your syntax.

[@tdickensheets]

People don't believe Jesus is God in the flesh are going to hell!! Case closed!!

[@tdickensheets]

Subtracting From the Deity of Jesus The Bible is quite explicit when it states that Jesus was God incarnate. The first verse in the Gospel of John makes this point by stating “the Word [Jesus] was God.” Other New Testament writers also affirm, in their own way, that Jesus was fully God. These same authors are also quite forthright about Jesus’ humanity. Again, the Gospel of John states that this same “Word [Jesus] was made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:18). While the Bible clearly states that within Jesus’ unique nature He was both fully God and fully man, the cults disagree.

[@DjMakinetor]

After searching for the manuscripts and understanding Him for a long time, I found a special Hebrew manuscript where it says: "The Word divine ones" (Not Elohim!) Greek manuscripts never told the whole truth! they were often changed, modified and edited by scribes. only the Hebrew ones are reliable, because from them has been translated into Greek. You have to remember that in English you will never get too close to what Hebrew is!

[@DjMakinetor]

God is spirit, he cannot be a son of man! Strongest evidence: (Book of Numbers 23:19)

[@DjMakinetor]

More proof: (Ozeasza 11:9) "because I am God and not man",

[@tdickensheets]

@@DjMakinetor You going to hell!!