What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Absolute Deity of Jesus Christ in John Chapter 1

jaybo said:
I don't respect your knowledge of Greek. Instead, I respect those authorities that have given us the great Bible translations that we now have.

Are you actually claiming that the committees of scholars know less than you do? BTW, that lesson in humility is free.
Click to expand...

how much of Greek grammar do you personally know?

If you can prove what I write to be wrong, then please feel free to
 
SolaScriptura said:
here is a free lesson for you in Greek grammar

the noun θεος in John 8:54, is in the predicate of the sentence, ο πατηρ, is the subject. You will note that θεος does not have the definite article in the Greek, exactly as in John 1:1c. No one would ever translate John 8:54 as, "god", so WHY is θεος in John 1:1c, "a god" in the JW's???

It is because they have twisted the meaning to support their HERESY about Jesus Christ!

Now try to prove what I have said to be wrong!
Click to expand...


θεος υμων εστιν in 8:54 translates as "God (or 'a god') of you (he) is." Since God (theos) is a part of the phrase with the genitive "of you" (υμων)," the grammar alone cannot decide whether the anarthrous theos should be rendered into English as "a god" or "the god" (God). Context alone, as A.T. Robertson tells us, is the only clue the translator has in cases like this. It is an improper example for what you want it to mean because it is grammatically ambiguous. Yes context, not grammar, tells us it should be "God."

The nominative noun theos is the predicate noun of the clause. But the understood "you" (part of the verb itself) is the subject.

If you would have read my study, you would have learned all this and much more about the actual grammar used by John.
 
SolaScriptura said:
The ONLY reason that anyone would try to LESSEN the meaning of the Greek THEOS in John 1:1, is for THEOLOGY, and has nothing to do with what John actually writes!

As I have shown in the OP, the best and Original reading in John 1:18, is, "
“Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο”.
“God no one hath ever seen; the Unique God, who is always close to the Father; He has revealed”

Here we have GOD used for BOTH the Father, and Jesus Christ, the ONLY difference is that Jesus is called, "μονογενὴς Θεὸς", which has the meaning UNIQUE GOD, because Jesus as GOD, took upon Himself the very nature of humans, and verse 14 tells us!

When you are going to quote anyone, make sure you don't choose only the parts that suite your theology!

Here is what W E Vine says in FULL on THEOS in John 1:1

"There are, of course, exceptions to this, as when the absence of the article serves to lay stress upon, or give precision to, the character or nature of what is expressed in the noun. A notable instance of this is in John 1:1 , "and the Word was God;" here a double stress is on theos, by the absence of the article and by the emphatic position. To translate it literally, "a god was the Word," is entirely misleading. Moreover, that "the Word" is the subject of the sentence, exemplifies the rule that the subject is to be determined by its having the article when the predicate is anarthrous (without the article). In Romans 7:22 , in the phrase "the law of God," both nouns have the article; in ver. 25, neither has the article. This is in accordance with a general rule that if two nouns are united by the genitive case (the "of" case), either both have the article, or both are without. Here, in the first instance, both nouns, "God" and "the law" are definite, whereas in ver. 25 the word "God" is not simply titular; the absence of the article stresses His character as lawgiver"

the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their 1969 edition of their Interlinear NT, MISQUOTE in an appendix on John 1:1, when they refer to A T Robertson, Dana and Mantey, and Samuel Green.

In each case, these Greek authorities MISQUOTED by the JW's, as you do here with Vine, are very clear, that "καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος", is, "and the Word was God".

"John i.1: Θεoς ηv ο Λoγoς, the Word was God" (S Green; Handbook to the Grammar to the Greek Testament, p.178, section, 206).

"And the Word was God (kai theos ên ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos ên ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos)...Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality" (A T Robertson; Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. V, pp.4-5).

In 1974, Dr Julius Mantey actually wrote to the Watchtower, to inform them that their "evidence" of him supporting their reading, "a god", is FALSE, and they had LIED about what he says!

www.jehovahs-witness.com

Letter To WT By Julius Mantey

. . bangalore.
www.jehovahs-witness.com www.jehovahs-witness.com

Facts are facts!!!
Click to expand...
......................................................
“To translate it literally, ‘a god was the Word,’ is entirely misleading.”

But I wrote, “Trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Word”. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.”

What I wrote is true. The others I quoted correctly also and carefully explained that they preferred a different translation. Please show where I misquoted by quoting the parts I did.

“the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their 1969 edition of their Interlinear NT, MISQUOTE in an appendix on John 1:1, when they refer to A T Robertson, Dana and Mantey, and Samuel Green.

In each case, these Greek authorities MISQUOTED by the JW's, as you do here with Vine, are very clear, that ‘καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος’, is, ‘and the Word was God’.”

Again, I did not misquote Vine! And I did not say that he accepted the literal translation of John 1:1c.
I don’t expect any noted trinitarian translator or grammarian to admit that the literal translation of John 1:1c is acceptable.

Since I do not have Green’s work, please show me where the 1969 KIT misquotes Robertson and D&M.
................................................
The late Dr. Julius Mantey, noted NT Greek scholar and strong trinitarian, allegedly wrote a powerful attack against the accuracy and honesty of the NWT.

John 1:1

His first concern was with John 1:1. His complaint that the WT Society dishonestly used his book to support their translation is incredible! It’s undoubtedly true that he didn’t intend anything in that book to support a non-trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1. (The Watchtower Society never claimed he did.) But the fact is that it does support it nevertheless! The quote by the Society refers to an example used by Mantey in his book which is grammatically identical to John 1:1 (articular subject after the copulative verb and anarthrous predicate noun before the copulative verb) and which Mantey has translated as, “and the place was a market” - an exact parallel to the NWT’s “and the Word was a god.” - see NWT 25-28.

Mantey continues, “it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god’ [as in the NWT]. Word order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering.” If this were really true, then Mantey himself has been neither “scholarly nor reasonable” in his rendering of an identical word order in complete agreement with the NWT rendering of John 1:1.

As for the other inaccurate accusations by Mantey, I have refuted them in the past and can probably find them if you wish.
 
tigger 2 said:
......................................................
“To translate it literally, ‘a god was the Word,’ is entirely misleading.”

But I wrote, “Trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Word”. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.”

What I wrote is true. The others I quoted correctly also and carefully explained that they preferred a different translation. Please show where I misquoted by quoting the parts I did.

“the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their 1969 edition of their Interlinear NT, MISQUOTE in an appendix on John 1:1, when they refer to A T Robertson, Dana and Mantey, and Samuel Green.

In each case, these Greek authorities MISQUOTED by the JW's, as you do here with Vine, are very clear, that ‘καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος’, is, ‘and the Word was God’.”

Again, I did not misquote Vine! And I did not say that he accepted the literal translation of John 1:1c.
I don’t expect any noted trinitarian translator or grammarian to admit that the literal translation of John 1:1c is acceptable.

Since I do not have Green’s work, please show me where the 1969 KIT misquotes Robertson and D&M.
................................................
The late Dr. Julius Mantey, noted NT Greek scholar and strong trinitarian, allegedly wrote a powerful attack against the accuracy and honesty of the NWT.

John 1:1

His first concern was with John 1:1. His complaint that the WT Society dishonestly used his book to support their translation is incredible! It’s undoubtedly true that he didn’t intend anything in that book to support a non-trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1. (The Watchtower Society never claimed he did.) But the fact is that it does support it nevertheless! The quote by the Society refers to an example used by Mantey in his book which is grammatically identical to John 1:1 (articular subject after the copulative verb and anarthrous predicate noun before the copulative verb) and which Mantey has translated as, “and the place was a market” - an exact parallel to the NWT’s “and the Word was a god.” - see NWT 25-28.

Mantey continues, “it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god’ [as in the NWT]. Word order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering.” If this were really true, then Mantey himself has been neither “scholarly nor reasonable” in his rendering of an identical word order in complete agreement with the NWT rendering of John 1:1.

As for the other inaccurate accusations by Mantey, I have refuted them in the past and can probably find them if you wish.
Click to expand...

are you a JW?
 
SolaScriptura said:
how much of Greek grammar do you personally know?

If you can prove what I write to be wrong, then please feel free to
Click to expand...
How much of Greek grammar do you personally know?

Is there something abouyt this that you can't comprehend: I don't respect your knowledge of Greek. Instead, I respect those authorities that have given us the great Bible translations that we now have.
 
jaybo said:
How much of Greek grammar do you personally know?

Is there something abouyt this that you can't comprehend: I don't respect your knowledge of Greek. Instead, I respect those authorities that have given us the great Bible translations that we now have.
Click to expand...

then DON'T bother to read what I write or comment!!!
 
SolaScriptura said:
then DON'T bother to read what I write or comment!!!
Click to expand...
I know that you would prefer not to be corrected but I will continue to debate your position. To repeat, I trust the knowledge of qualified, experienced scholars over your personal opinion.
 
tigger 2 said:
θεος υμων εστιν in 8:54 translates as "God (or 'a god') of you (he) is." Since God (theos) is a part of the phrase with the genitive "of you" (υμων)," the grammar alone cannot decide whether the anarthrous theos should be rendered into English as "a god" or "the god" (God). Context alone, as A.T. Robertson tells us, is the only clue the translator has in cases like this. It is an improper example for what you want it to mean because it is grammatically ambiguous. Yes context, not grammar, tells us it should be "God."

The nominative noun theos is the predicate noun of the clause. But the understood "you" (part of the verb itself) is the subject.

If you would have read my study, you would have learned all this and much more about the actual grammar used by John.
Click to expand...
I notice that I made a mistake in my post #43 above. I meant to write "he" but instead wrote "you." It should have read: "But the understood "he" (part of the verb itself) is the subject." If we had a longer edit time on our posts, I would have just fixed the original post.
 
tigger 2 said:
I notice that I made a mistake in my post #43 above. I meant to write "he" but instead wrote "you." It should have read: "But the understood "he" (part of the verb itself) is the subject." If we had a longer edit time on our posts, I would have just fixed the original post.
Click to expand...

it is clear from what you write, you can quote from Greek scholars, but you have no idea on Greek grammar!
 
tigger 2 said:
nice distraction.
Click to expand...

lets see your Greek grammar for John 1:18

"Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο"

The first Θεὸς is for the Father, and the second for Jesus Christ. In either case there is not definite Greek article!
 
tigger 2 said:
And you have ignored all of posts #43 and #44 which are on point.
Click to expand...
Sola Scriptura: You have invited me to examine your post concerning John 8:54 and show any error in your post. I have done so, and you have ignored the truth I presented.

You have challenged me concerning quotes of several trinitarian scholars and a letter allegedly written by Dr. Mantey. I have responded to these, and you continue to ignore it.

Please actually read posts #43 and #44 and respond factually.
 
tigger 2 said:
Sola Scriptura: You have invited me to examine your post concerning John 8:54 and show any error in your post. I have done so, and you have ignored the truth I presented.

You have challenged me concerning quotes of several trinitarian scholars and a letter allegedly written by Dr. Mantey. I have responded to these, and you continue to ignore it.

Please actually read posts #43 and #44 and respond factually.
Click to expand...

my answer is very clear in #50
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top