Comments on Mr. Day’s Post:
Mr. Day: “Absolutely there can only be one beginning for everything that had a beginning. Nevertheless, There was one beginning for the angels; there was another one beginning for the stars; there was another one beginning for the trees and the plants; there was another one beginning for the the various animals; and then there was the one beginning for the human race when Adam and Eve was created, indeed, each creative day had its own beginning, and there was also the beginning of my life when I was conceived, etc.”
Me: Yes, there are many “beginnings” to finite things. So if we want to see which finite thing is being referred to, we look at the context. If I am addressing the beginning of (i.e.) a tree, I will refer to it as the beginning of the tree. If I am addressing the beginning of my son, I will refer to it as his beginning. In the context of John 1, the beginning that is addressed is the beginning of “all things.” So when I say that “It makes no logical sense to have two beginnings for that which is finite,” that is exactly to what I am referring. Since John 1 says “all things came into being through Him, it means “all things that had a beginning.” It’s really quite clear. It doesn’t refer to some specific category within all things. It simply says “all” things.
Mr. Day: “Actually the context does show what beginning is being spoken of. John 1:10.”
Me: Yes, John 1:10 says, “…the world was made through Him.” So if one were to stop reading right there, one might think that there is evidence that verse 10 identifies the “all things” as “the world.” However, I don’t believe that you can find any place in John’s writings where he refers to “all things” specifically and wholly as “the world.” Therefore, there is a good chance that in verse 10, John is pointing to a very specific part of what the Word had created. He had created the world. What John says in this verse doesn’t eliminate other things from the “all things.” He refers, instead, to that part of the Word’s creative act that “did not know Him.” He is moving from an introductory statement about the identity of the Word, the One who from the beginning (1) eternally was, (2) who eternally was on a level of equality with God, (3) who eternally was God, (4) who created all things, (5) who is the source of life, etc.
Mr. Day: “Actually ‘panta’ does take into consideration the context all through the NT. ‘Panta’ simply means ‘all’ with reference to what is being spoken of; it does not mean ‘all things’, the word ‘things’ in John 1:3 has to be supplied by the translator, as it does not appear in the Greek.”
Me: Yes, the word “things” does not appear in the Greek. You are correct. The Greek doesn’t need to say “things.” It’s understood in the word, itself. Can you decline “panta”? Can you identify the word(s) it comes from? If you can, you will note that “panta” is of the neuter gender; a “thing.”
Mr. Day: “Westcott & Hort Interlinear as obtained from the Bible Students Library CD-ROM.
John uses another form of *pas* in verse 7:…If we add "things" as a qualifier to *pantes* here, this would make no sense. John is certainly not including the angels in this. Nor do we conclude that *pantes* would include the trees, the birds, the fish, etc. We go to verse 9 and see that John himself qualifies *panta* there with the word *anthrwpon* -- men. This shows that *panta* in itself does not mean "all things." So the context indicates that *pantes* in verse 7 could be qualified with "men" rather than "things", and thus many translations do add the word "men" in verse 7, even though it does not appear in the Greek, because that is what is indicated by the context.
Me: As Mr. Day makes each comment, it becomes readily apparent that he has no understanding of Greek. Here is why:
“Pas” is an adjective.
1. All adjectives have case, gender and number. So do all nouns (as well as other words).
a. “Case” refers to the function of a word in a sentence, i.e., the (1) subject, (2) predicate, (3) indirect object or, (4) direct object. “number” refers to it being either singular or plural.
b. “Gender” refers to the gender of the word. Is it a masculine, feminine, or neuter noun?
c. “Number” refers to whether the word is singular or plural.
2. Whatever the case, gender or number of a (i.e.) noun, the adjective must agree with it in all of these.
a. When modifying a nominative feminine singular noun (i.e., “church”) in order to say “every church,” the nominative feminine singular word for “everything” (pasa) must be used.
b. If I am referring to (i.e.) the direct object, “every man,” in Greek I would use the accusative masculine singular for the adjective and the noun. So, I would say “panta anthropon.”
c. If I wanted to make “all things” the subject of a sentence in Greek, remembering that there is no Greek word for “things,” I would use the nominative neuter plural form of the adjective in the substantive function (the “substantive function” means that a Greek word can function as both the adjective and the noun it is modifying without the noun having to be stated. It is simply understood). Therefore, I would say, simply, “panta.”
(1) “Panta” can be either accusative masculine singular or nominative neuter plural. Context will determine its declination. But this is something any 1st year Greek student learns.
3. Many Greek words, including nouns and adjectives, can be used attributively, predicately, or substantively.
a. The attributive function means that (in this case) the noun and its associated adjective are preceded by the article. There is an exception. If the adjective precedes the noun, only the adjective need have the article. For example, if I were to make the subject of my sentence “the good man,” I could say it attributively either, “ho (the) anthropos (man) ho (the) agathos (good),” or “ho agathos anthropos.”
b. The predicate function means that the (i.e.) adjective can function, without any noun being used with it, to refer to the predicate of a sentence. For example, if I wanted to say “truth is everything,” in its predicate form I would say, “he (the) alethe (truth) pasa (is everything).”
c. The substantive function means that the adjective need not have the implied noun with it. For example, “ho agathos” means the good man, “he agathe” means the good woman, and “to agathon” means the good thing. In the case of “all” or every,” I don’t even need the article. In the nominative form of a singular subject, I can simply say “pas” – every man, “pasa” – every woman, or “pan” – everything.
Now, look at the use of “pas” here in John 1:
1. In verse 9, “pas” is used thusly: “panta anthropon.” Since “anthropon is accusative masculine singular, “panta” must also be (and it is). In this sentence, it is translated as “every man.”
2. In verse 7, “pas” is used substantively (pantes) and is, therefore, translated quite simply as “all men.”
3. In verse 3, “pas” is used substantively again (panta). Now, one must decide if it is declined as either accusative masculine singular or nominative neuter plural. If it were in the accusative masculine singular, it would be the direct object of the sentence. However, it stands with the verb, “egeneto.” This verb requires the nominative case to complete its meaning. Therefore, “panta” is nominative neuter plural. It means “all things.”
How one ttranslates “pas” in its various forms depends upon its use in its contextual setting. It must first be declined to see (1) what noun it might go with or, (2) lacking a noun, is it functioning attributively, predicately or substantively? Any 1st year Greek student knows the rules of agreement and the three functions I have mentioned.
Mr. Day’s lack of understanding of Greek grammar shows in his comments. And having considered what I have offered above about the grammar of Koine, his grammatical ignorance becomes rather manifest in his following quoted statement:
“Most translations qualify the usage of panta in verse three by adding the word "things". The Greek word hen [one] is also usually qualified by adding the word "thing". However, if the qualifier many translations use in verse seven were also used in verse 3, it could read: "All [men] came to be through him, and apart from him not one [man] came to be." Nevertheless, this could not directly be applied to all men, as Jesus was not in the spirit realm during the time he was on the earth to cause every child that was being born to have life. Having been used of God to set in motion procreation in man in the first man, Adam, Jesus would be the one through whom all men have come to be. A better qualifier, however, could be: "All [these] came to be through him, and apart from him not one [of these] came to be: that which came to be...”
As I’m sure even the layman can see, Mr. Day interprets the Greek based on his theology. This is backwards interpretation. It is referred to as “eisegesis:” reading something into the text that is not there, rather than “exegesis:” understanding the Scriptures based upon its content. It is a shame that instead of seeing what saith the Lord who will judge all, people like Mr. Day have put their trust in man the sinner – i.e., the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
Hairdog