Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What is the Holy Ghost? | NT general Archive 1 | Leox | 106607 | ||
Hi Tim, Well for starters, let's take John1:1. This is a Trinitarian's favorite place to run when trying to defend the Trinity. First of all, when one reads the entire chapter where a Trinitarian directs you, you may get a completely different picture. Read John 1:18 which says "No man has seen God at any time". Next, if you look at John 1:14, it says "So the Word became flesh and resided among us". Men had the chance to see the Word (Christ) in person. Yet the Bible states that "No man has seen God at any time". If Christ is God, then John chapter 1 is contradicting itself. John 1:1 is a classic case of the Bible translator allowing his/her doctrinal bias to dictate how they render certain words in English. The Greek word being used for God here is Theos. Yet the plural form of this word is translated "gods" by most Bible translators in John 10:35. Why do Bible translators render Theos as God in some places and "god" in other places? Please bear in mind that in Greek (or more specifically Koine Greek), there is no indefinite article. By indefinite article, I mean the word "a" or "an" in English. The indefinite article is understood based on context. In John 1:1 where we read "and the Word was with God", the Greek words ho Theos are used to represent God. The next set of words read "and the Word God". Here the Greek word Theos stands by itself without the definite article ho. Think of it another way. If someone were to say to you that "The Man" wants to see you. You would think to yourself that someone really important needs to speak to you. However, if they stated that "a man" wants to see you. You wouldn't automatically assume that it was someone important. Likewise, when the words ho Theos are used in the NT, we are speaking of Almighty God. When Theos appears by itself, it more than likely is referring to simply any deity. Many Bible translators have chosen to render John 1:1 according to their religious beliefs rather than translating what they see in the ancient manuscripts. A number of other Bible translators have chosen to render these words more accurately. Some translations for example, render the latter part of John 1:1 as "and the Word was Divine". So to say that Jesus is Divine is to put him on a level that is higher than the angels. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that he is God. |
||||||
2 | What is the Holy Ghost? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 106610 | ||
Greetings Leox! Thanks for the reply my friend! You wrote: "Likewise, when the words ho Theos are used in the NT, we are speaking of Almighty God. When Theos appears by itself, it more than likely is referring to simply any deity." However, this simply isn't true! I studied Greek in college for several years, and I have been translating koine Greek for about 17 years now. Nouns without out the definite article in Greek are not necessarily indefinite. There are others factors which must be taken into consideration. Context is one, but there are also grammatical constructions, such as John 1:1, where the definite article should not be used. The reason 'theos' does not have a definite article is because 'logos' is the subject, not 'theos'. Further, 'theos' with the article does not necessarily always refer to Almighty God. For instance, consider 2 Cor. 4:4. Now, back to your quote, there are a number of instances where 'theos' occurs in the nominative case and without the definite article, yet refers to God, not some indefinite deity. Allow me to quote from a former post: ************************************** There is significance to the fact that ?theos? does not have a definite article. But, the significance is not that ?theos? thus becomes an adjective. Allow me to demonstrate a number of times in the New Testament where ?theos? is used without an article, yet remains a noun. 1) Lk. 20:38 says, ?He is not the God of the dead??. Yet, ?theos? has no definite article. 2) Rom. 8:33 says, ??It is God who justifies?. Yet, ?theos? has no definite article. 3) 1 Cor. 8:4 says, ??that there is no God but one?. Yet, ?theos? has no definite article. 4) 2 Cor. 1:21 says, ??and God anointed us?. Yet, ?theos? has no definite article. 5) Others include: 2 Cor. 5:5, 2 Cor. 5:19, Gal. 6:7, Eph. 4:6, Phil. 2:13, 1 Thess. 2:5, 2 Thess. 2:16, 1 Tim. 2:5, and Rev. 21:7. These are just the examples where ?theos? is in the nominative case. There are other examples involving other cases. Now, check out your NWT and see if any of these verses translates the anarthrous ?theos? as ?divine? or ?a god?. The significance of the anarthrous ?theos? in John 1:1 is very simple. If both ?theos? and ?logos? had the definite article, John 1:1 would be saying that the ?logos? and ?theos? were the same person. Yet, John has already said in John 1:1 that the ?logos? was with God. The doctrine of the Trinity does not teach that Jesus is the same Person as the Father, or that the Father is the same Person as the Holy Spirit. What it does teach is that Jesus is fully God. The Father is fully God. And, the Holy Spirit is fully God. There are three distinct Persons, but only one God. This is why John does not use the definite article before ?theos? in John 1:1. Jesus is not the Father, but Jesus is fully God. Now, assuming for the moment that the JW?s are correct about their translation (which I reject), then Jesus is another God. Yet, in Is. 43:10, Jehovah Himself says that there are no other gods before Him, nor after Him. There are also other verses in Scripture which teach that there is only ONE God. Rom. 8:30 ? ?since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.? 1 Tim. 2:5 ? ?For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,? Eph. 4:6 ? ?one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.? So, the JW?s translation of John 1:1 in their NWT directly contradicts these Scriptures by teaching there are in fact at least two Gods. Which is true? Is there only One God, or are there more than one Gods? *************************************** The simple fact is that there is no direct correlation between the usage of the definite and indefinite articles in English and in Greek. It is much more complex than the JW's pretend it to be. As for the question of what John meant when he said that no one has seen God, go to post # 104171. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | What is the Holy Ghost? | NT general Archive 1 | Leox | 106612 | ||
Hello Tim, You’re assuming that I’m a JW… I’m not and I also have never read the NWT version. I can see how you came to that assumption, but I don’t agree with the majority of their doctrines. What I do believe, probably as strongly as you believe in the trinity, is this. Both God and Logos (Word) who became Christ existed before the universe was created. That the Holy Spirit emanates from God the Father by which He is omnipresent and omniscient. For myself there is only one God, not three in one. My studies now are on Logos being the first created being by God. This is a new but scripturally supported truth that I am currently embracing. However, I am very appreciative of your edification on Greek. I will study your last response. Thank you. |
||||||
4 | What is the Holy Ghost? | NT general Archive 1 | JCrichton | 106618 | ||
Hi, Leox! When you conclude your study (Logos being the first created being), please post your findings. I am a believer that God does not lie and I am interested in the findings of someone that could prove Him wrong! Maran atha! |
||||||
5 | What is the Holy Ghost? | NT general Archive 1 | Leox | 106679 | ||
Hi, Tim! The wise one discerns his or her truth and accepts it...and comes to accept others viewpoints. For in learning of the other ways of seeing and believing one comes to strengthen one's own beliefs and accept the others as that person's truth. It's an individual quest. Debating and defending our beliefs is fine but religous intolerance or putting it more mildly 'judgment' on another path or belief is simply wrong. |
||||||