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!
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
We've been through this. They drop it because it is awkward in English. There is only one true God, so as far as the Christian faith goes, it doesn't matter whether it says "the Word was with God" or "the Word was with the God," except that the latter is simply not how we speak in English.
What in that context makes you think that this is speaking of "The Word," Jesus?
Because it isn't a definite article. It is really before names of people, and places. The absence of the article is the definitive case, not the other way around.
The verbs are third person and assume an object of he, she or it. This is something unique somewhat to Greek and Hebrew.
There are 2 LOGOI in those verses.
Hebrew 11:13 talks about the children of the patriarchs and doesn't make sense as the patriarchs in verse 14,15, 16. It is definitely a demonstrative else pronoun.
It is the other way around, that is rather the whole point of definite articles. This is why likely no translation would agree with you, even the terrible NWT. In addition to all of my resources agreeing with what I have given, which is what the majority of, if not all, translation agree with, here are some online resources:
Do they? Can you provide support, particularly in this case to support the use of "it" in translating to English when no Bible version does so?
There is only one Logos. The whole point of John's prologue is to introduce who the Logos is. Verse 2 just repeats, for emphasis, what was stated in verse 1. He is consistently talking about the one Logos who "became flesh and dwelt among us." To say there are two creates mass confusion as to who or what each Logos is and which became flesh.
I don't understand what your point is here.
"the afflicted of the flock"
I still don't see anything to suggest that it is talking about The Word. The flock were watching the prophet turned shepherd who states he will no longer be their shepherd. After breaking his staff to annul the covenant, he then says that they "knew that it was the word of the LORD," that is, they knew that the LORD had spoken.
The other way alows for one-count plurals in Greek which is absurd.
Rodney Decker says it isn't a definite article in his grammar, and then introduces one-count plurals and adjectives.
Yes, because all main verbs that are neither participle nor infinitive have 1 of 3 persons singular or plural.
The inflection λογοι is used 9x times in the standard Textus Receptus: λογοις 17x times, λογων 8x times, λογους 23x times per The Blue Letter Bible.
Yes; all through the Old Testament we can see references to GOD, even "an angel of the Lord" can be understood to refer to the very Spirit of GOD; HIS Power and Will.
Well, that's just the way it is. The definite article is "the." To say that this is the proper translation: "In the beginning, it was a word, and a word it was with a God, and the God it was. A word," is to literally makes nonsense of what John is saying and defeat the whole purpose of his prologue. Which God? It would teach polytheism, so how many Gods are there? Which word? How many words? How do we know who is who and what the point is?
Have you taken a formal course in koine Greek or just done your own study? I am certain you are mistaken. Everyone and everything I look at, every source, including William Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, says it is the definite article. To say that the article makes it indefinite and the lack of any article makes it definite makes no sense. It would make a mess of the NT. Definite articles are there for a reason.
Again, can you provide a legitimate, scholarly source to back this claim up?
But, again, what is your point? What does this have to do with John 1:1-3?
But the Holy Spirit isn't the Father. That is consistently and continually made clear.
Is that so?
Every grammar of Greek and Hebrew says to this effect main verbs have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person as well as singular or plural. The verb (η)ην is (perfect?) past tense singular 3rd person.
ουτοι is used of the descendants of the patriarchs. They were others like their forefathers.
I do not agree. Genesis 1:2-3 doesn't make your case.
It is very much so. Please read the verses mentioned above. Perhaps you will see what I mean.
I never said it did but it doesn't make yours either. Gen 1:26-27, on the other hand, do support my case.
There is YWHW and his Spirit by which he says he inspired the former prophets in what to speak. The "word of the LORD" is just that, the words that God speaks through his prophets by the Spirit--usually regarding the law, sin, and judgements.
Nothing you gave showed what you were saying.
And it never will to any who chooses to compartmentalize things of faith and refuses to see the bigger picture. There is no distinction to be made. Read Isaiah. You insist on three. Why? What is your motive? Are you gathering or dividing?
No it doesn't because monotheism means trust in one unique to the exclusion of others. There is only the one who created the planet, and it isn't Jesus the Christ.
Verse 10? And yes, because John the apostle was as obtuse as Heraclitus the Stoic. But it is clear one word could be Jesus, and the other the God YHWH.
But GOD did speak all things into being through HIS Word. Is that in agreement with what you've deduced in your scholarly endeavors?