Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Dear Forum, can you verify my research? | John 1:1 | survivor | 134101 | ||
I put this on display for Forum critique: Per the Strong's Concordance at http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/index2.htm: ho (the) logos (word) en (was) pros (with) tou (his) theos (God) kai (and) theos (god[ly] en (was) ho (the) logos (word). Theos: a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively, a magistrate; by Hebraism, very:--X exceeding, God, god(-ly, -ward). The Greek 3588 referred to is "ho". "Tou" is the genitive of "ho". The first "theos" is THE God, his (Jesus' God). The "logos" is THE Word, but not THE God, rather as indicated in Strong's dictionary of the original Greek, god or godly. |
||||||
2 | Dear Forum, can you verify my research? | John 1:1 | Morant61 | 134111 | ||
Greetings Survivor! You wrote: "The first "theos" is THE God, his (Jesus' God). The "logos" is THE Word, but not THE God, rather as indicated in Strong's dictionary of the original Greek, god or godly." It is not the case that Jesus is 'a god' or 'godly'. He is God. Here is what some well known scholars have said on this subject! ************************************** Part I John 1:1 and the new world translation: what do the greek scholars really say? A. T. Robertson: "So in Jo. 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, not God was the Logos." A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, by A. T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, 1977), p. 279. E. M. Sidebottom: "...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for theos en ho logos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to John." The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S. P. C. K., 1961), p. 461. E. C. Colwell: "...predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context and in the case of John 1:1c this is not so." "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20. C. K.Barrett: "The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity." The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p.76. C. H. Dodd: "On this analogy, the meaning of theos en ho logos will be that the ousia of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos...That this is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham, the Father) goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase. "New Testament Translation Problems II," The Bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), p. 104. Randolph O. Yeager: "Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate '...and the Word was a God.' The article with logos, shows that logos is the subject of the verb en and the fact that theos is without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of theos demands that we translate '...and the Word was God.' John is not saying as Jehovah's Witnesses are fond of teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely the opposite." The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), p.4. Cont.... |
||||||
3 | Dear Forum, can you verify my research? | John 1:1 | survivor | 134117 | ||
Thanks for the comments. This one struck me: E. C. Colwell: "...predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context and in the case of John 1:1c this is not so." "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20. It seems to me that the predicate noun "theos" should be considered qualitative as "demanded by the context" since the Word is said to be with THE God. The apostle would not confuse his readers by saying the Word was "with" God and "is" God. This is especially obvious when one gets to a consistent theme of John as stated in verse 18 - "no one has seen God." Of course his readers had seen Christ. Similarly, Paul, quoting first Isaiah 40:13, states: "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." (1 Cor 2:16) The context demands a qualitative usage such as: divine, godly, godlike, or literally,a god. While the other comments are more difficult to decipher, Mr. Yeager's comments clearly misrepresent opposing arguments in order to stir emotions and mislead his audience. |
||||||
4 | Dear Forum, can you verify my research? | John 1:1 | Morant61 | 134125 | ||
Greetings Survivor! Not one of the experts in Greek agrees with your position my friend! :-( Here is a repost of mine concerning the context of John 1:1: ************************************ Again, I just read Nolan's post and he did and excellent job of pointing out other passages that demonstrate that Jesus is fully God. In one of my previous posts, I include others. However, allow me to deal with your specific question about John 1:1. John is a Gospel. This is stating the obvious, but it is useful to remember why he was writing this book. His reason for writing was given in his own words, "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31) Therefore, John is trying to convince his audience, both Jews and Gentiles, that Jesus is God and that He alone is the source of salvation. With this in mind, John opens his Gospel with a prologue (1:1-18) which appeals to the current thoughts and ideas of both Jews and Gentiles. Jews at this time had personified the "Word" of God to a new level of meaning - it was God’s creative power. Greeks had a philosophical concept of the "Word" as the creative, rational force from which all things spring. Thus, John creatively says things about Jesus (notice that he doesn’t tell us that the ‘Word’ is Jesus until v. 14) that would appeal to the religious and philosophical views of both Jews and Gentiles. William Temple describes John 1:1-14 in this way. The Logos, he says, "alike for Jew and Gentile represents the ruling fact of the universe, and represents that fact as the self-expression of God. The Jew will remember that ‘by the Word of the Lord were the heavens made’; the Greek will think of the rational principle of which all natural laws are particular expressions. Both will agree that this Logos is the starting point of all thing." However, John’s purpose is to take them beyond this point and demonstrate that Jesus Himself is both the ‘Logos’ and God. Thus, throughout John escalates the statements made about the Word. Each one revealing more about the true identity and nature of Jesus. 1) In the beginning was the Word - v. 1: The Word was eternally existent. He did not come into being at any particular point in time. He has always been. 2) The Word was with God - v. 1: Not only is the Word pre-existent, but the Word is in an intimate face to face relationship with God. 3) The Word was God - v. 1: Not only is the Word pre-existent, not only is the Word in an intimate face to face relationship with God, the Word is God. 4) The Word is the Creator of all things - v. 3. 5) The Word is the source of life and light for all men - v. 4. 6) The Word was not recognized by the World - v. 10. 7) The Word was not received by His own creation - v. 11. 8) The Word makes those who do receive Him Sons of God - vv. 12-13. 9) The Word is Jesus, God incarnate - v. 14. Thus, there are two answers to your question about how the Word can be with God and God. a) The statements simply escalate our knowledge of Jesus. There is not necessarily any significance to be made to His being both with and being. John is simply bringing people along slowly to a higher understanding of who Jesus is. b) The statements make complete sense in the context of the Trinity. Most Christians believe that within the One Godhead, there are three distinct Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.) If this is the case (which I believe it is), then the Word can both be with and be God at the same time. ************************************* John simply reveals the true nature of Christ, a nature that is not evident to men because of the incarnation. Yes, people had seen Christ! But, they had not 'seen' His true nature. They had only seen God incarnate. Further, Scripture makes it abundently clear that there is only one God. Therefore, Jesus cannot be 'a god'. He must be Jehovah God, or Jehovah lied in Isaiah 43:10: "'You are my witnesses,' declares the LORD, 'and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. 11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior." The JW's claim to be Jehovah's Witnesses, but they are false witnesses who ignore Jehovah's very own words! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||