by Wonderment 33 Replies latest watchtower bible
<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->
In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum -- Latin
In beginning was Verb and Verb was with God and God was Verb.
En arche en ho lógos, kai ho lógos en pros ton theón, kai theós en ho lógos
I n beginning was the logos and the logos was toward the G od, and god was the logos.
– (John 1:1) – GREEK
Now, which of these two readings appear closer to the one found in most bible versions today?
What is the point you are trying to make? Let me ask two questions: Does Latin have definite and indefinite articles? How would it look in Latin to say "The Word was a god"?
Language is the servant of the people and not visa versa.
So ultimately, other verses in the Bible will always impact on what John meant to imply by what he said.
So what, really, is John trying to tell us?
One part of the interpretation of John 1:1 that I note is that John tells us that the word was with God. So you can intrepret that in and of itself of John qualifying his calling Jesus "god." It's a qualifier.
It's like saying everything was created by Jesus. Well, does "everything" include himself and God? No. Or in one place you see that the Bible says ther there is "only ONE god" but elsewhere it talks about other gods, false and true. The angels are also called "gods." So is this a contradiction? Or is it the use of language in context.
So regardless of how absolutely you wish to translate John 1:1, there will always be the issue of "context" with what else John and the other gospels say about Jesus Christ.
For me, though, on the issue of whether or not John 1:1 insinuates there is a trinity, I feel it does not because John notes that the Word was WITH God. When doing that, I see John making a exception of God to the concepts of the godliness of Christ. Thus I think John 1:1 is accurately translated as:
"In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the word was god."
Which means, there are two gods at this point. The father and the son. I think if John understood that Christ was part of God, part of a trinity, he would have stated: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was within God, and the Word was God." There's a big difference between "with" and "within."
In the meantime, Jesus being "a god" or "god"(a position) does not contradict other scriptures that call Jesus God's SON. In no way would a son be equal to the father or the same person as the fature in the natural world. So while John 1:1 might be a confusing verse, other scriptures define Jesus Christ and his relationship to his father sufficiently to know Jesus is Michael the archangel, the son (not symbiotic triplet) of God, the creator.
So the focus should be an emphasis on the definition of "son" rather than "god." The relationship between Jehovah and Jesus Christ is: father and son. You build and expand from there. John 1:1 is not an isolated text to be taken out of context.
John 1:1 simply indicates that both Jehovah and Jesus held the title/position of "god". That is, Jehovah created Jesus in the form of a god, not a plant.
LS
With God refutes oneness/modalism/Sabellianism, NOT trinitarianism. Was God refutes WT/JW Arianism. The verse is fully consistent with a triune understanding. The grammar will not allow any other interpretation. It is not a matter of being able to twist the verse based on other verses. The grammar, context, comparison with other verses all support the Deity of Christ. This verse cannot be made to support Arianism without violating the inspired grammar (why do JWs always think they are refuting trinity when they refute modalism?! Word with Father (ho theos) is fully trinitarian, anti-modalism. Jesus being true God vs false god is polytheism, contrary to Jewish-Johannine monotheism. Son of God is also equality with the Father since they share the same nature, though personally distinct.
Latin and Greek agree, as do KIT, but not NWT. The issue is Greek since this is original, unlike Latin, German, French, Chinese translations.
Leolaia:
As you suggested or pointed out, Latin lacks both the definite (the) and indefinite article. But Greek lacks only the indefinite article (a).
My point is that because Latin lacks both the definite and indefinite articles, one cannot say "the Verb was a god." But in Greek, you can
make a distinction between the God and the Word being "god."
Thus, it is my belief that English translations are either confused or influenced more by the Latin than what most folks believe. It is known
that early translators, KJV, Reina-Valera, Luther, were more comfortable with the Latin than they were with the Greek.
Today, I find most bible translators are translating the spirit of the latin Vulgate, rather than the Greek. The Greek does show a difference
and it is the job of the translator to reflect that somehow in their translations. Verse 2 indicates a distinction, why not reflect that in v. one?
The early Coptic text (c. 200) used the indefinite article in their translation of John 1:1c.
By the way, I like your carefully submitted posts.
http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dwallace
Dr. Wallace influences students across the country through his textbook on intermediate Greek grammar. It is used in more than two-thirds of the nation’s schools that teach that subject. He is the senior New Testament editor of the NET Bible and coeditor of the NET-Nestle Greek-English diglot.
Some of the most brilliant minds the world has ever seen have argued this on both sides and considered their opponents "wrong".
What can we add or take away?
The book of John is clearly the writing of a mystic.
Mysticism does not use language the way we use langauge.
The Mystic uses words the way a painter uses color; that is, to imply, suggest and evoke rather than describe.
There is no "information" in John 1:1. It is a painting.
There is no "information" in John 1:1. It is a painting.
I'm drawing a blank on the Impressionist artist I'm thinking of. His paintings look good from a distance...gets all blurry when you get up close...
Jn. 1:1 is interpreted based on inspired grammar. I have never heard of the mystic theory that negates any sense of revelation in the context. All the greatest grammarians in the world (masters) agree with Wallace's view. I have even seen an atheistic scholar agree with trinitarians against JWs despite his unbelief in trinity/God.
There is no "information" in John 1:1. It is a painting.
I'm drawing a blank on the Impressionist artist I'm thinking of. His paintings look good from a distance...gets all blurry when you get up close...
The pointillist painter Seurat, perhaps? Little dots of color side by side (the precursor of offset printing technique!) when viewed from afar seem
to coalesce to form tertiary images.
