- Apr 2, 2003
The statement in bold is contradictory--an author's usage necessarily includes the context. The grammar simply cannot be in contradiction to the context, but that is precisely what we see with your position.You have absolutely no basis whatsoever for making somewhat ambiguous grammar overrule the context. While the grammar is somewhat ambiguous, it is necessarily so, so the context then brings out and makes clear what John is saying:When a friend questioned the traditional translation, I began my original in-depth study of it. It wasn't until I had completed that study (after several years), that I was finally convinced "a god" was the intended meaning by John.
Yes, context is important when in doubt about differing interpretations, but the author's usage is more important. And John's grammar and usage is what I have carefully examined (unlike the poor and incomplete examination by commentators and translators).
1. The Word cannot be "a god" because there is and only ever has been one True God. There are no lesser gods. One God. Monotheism.
2. Verse 3 completely does away with any notion that the Word is a created being.
3. John compares the existence of the Word who was already in existence in the beginning, that is, when the beginning began, with his entering into time and taking on human flesh in verse 14.
There is no way to misunderstand what John is saying--that the was with God prior to the creation of everything that has been created, thereby being himself un-created, and therefore is God. This is why the typical translations make perfect sense.