COMBINATION OF [1] THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2] LET'S HAVE REALITY IN TRANSLATION [1] SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [VOL. 987A] I will give you insight and instruct you in the way you should go. I will give you advice with my eye upon you. Psalms 32:8 [New World Translation Revised: NWTr] When parents watch their children play, they are often amazed by the inborn abilities the young ones have. Can you confirm that from your personal experience? One child may appear to have natural agility or athletic ability, while a sibling seems more at ease with board games or some art or craft. But regardless of their children’s gifts, parents find pleasure in discovering their potential. Jehovah too takes a keen interest in his earthly children. He sees his modern-day servants as ‘And I will shake all the nations, and the precious things of all the nations will come in; and I will fill this house with glory,’ says Jehovah of armies. (Hag. 2:7, [NWTr] ) They are precious particularly because of their faith and devotion. TO LEARN MORE ABOUT RELIGION AND THE BIBLE, GO TO, 2)https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/religioustruths/ 3)http://religioustruths.boardhost.com/ 4)http://religioustruths.forumsland.com/ 5) https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/online-lessons/ 6)http://religioustruthsbyiris.createmybb3.com/ 7)https://religioustruths.forumotion.com/ To enjoy an online Bible study called “Follow the Christ” go to,http://www.network54.com/Forum/403209/thread/1417398076/last-1417398076/Digital+Book+On+18+Part+Follow+Christ+Bible+Study Your Friend in Christ Iris89 Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth. "Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today, and go toWWW.JW.ORG! [2] LET'S HAVE REALITY IN TRANSLATION: INTRODUCTION: The understanding with respect some scriptures in the Bible is badly clouded by translational errors caused either by the translator's bias, lack of understanding of idiomatic expressions, or lack of understanding of ancient writing styles. Many of these can readily be seen by careful readers as they do NOT jive with the remainder of the Bible and/or do not make any sense upon close examination. Some of these scriptures are those whose meaning is the most questioned and argued by Bible translators and/or scholars. Yet most show flawed meaning when they are closely examined in lack of agreement within themselves and/or with near by scriptures. To better grasp the subject we will examine the case of John 1:1 whose meaning is perhaps the most disputed of any in the entire Bible due to biased translational renderings in most Bibles in common usage. THE CONSTRUCTS: Let's first examine the most common constructs used for translating this scripture and then consider the facts and last some advanced translational items dealing with this scripture. The 10 possible constructs of John 1:1 that do NOT violate any rule of Koine Greek grammar with the exception of the fact is that THE-OS' (=God) is a count noun, not a mass noun or an adjective. As a count noun it MUST BE countable, i.e. either definite or indefinite (i.e. either "a god" or "the God") for two of the constructs:
<1> "and a god was the Logos." [example of Bible using, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jurgen Becker Harwood, 1979]
<2> "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God" [example of Bible using, Schonfield, 1976]
<3> "The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the word was." [example of Bible using, The New English Bible, NEB, 1961-present standard Bible agreed to by most denominations in the United Kingdom]
<4> "And the word was a god" [example of Bible using, The New Testament in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Achbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.]
<5> "and the Word was divine" [example of Bible using, The Bible: An American Translation, by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed. }
<6> "and the Word was God" [example of Bible using, American Standard Version, ASV] [note, this construct violates the count noun rule of Koine Greek]
<7> "He was the same as God" example of Bible using, Today's English Version.]
<8> "the Logos was divine" [example of Bible using, The New Testament: A New Translation, by James Moffat]
<9> "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all like God] [example of Bible using, Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1982]
<10> "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] [example of Bible using, Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 198
As we can see, here are ten different constructs possible without violating any rule of Koine Greek grammar except the count Noun rule. So, now, let's look at what follows in context in general format at John 1:2:
"The Word, then, was with God at the beginning," (The New English Bible, NEB)
"The same was in the beginning with God." (American Standard Version, ASB)
"The same was in the beginning with God." (Authorized King James Bible; AV)
"He was in the beginning with God." (Revised Standard Version; RSV)
"He was in the beginning with God." (The Confraternity Edition of the New Testament - Catholic)
As is easily seen, John 1:2 is substantially the same in all translations. However, in context it does not harmonize with some of the constructs used which do not violate any rule of Koine Greek grammar with the exception of the count Noun rule to be explained later.
However clearly some of the ten (10) or more basic constructs agree in context with John 1:2 and some do NOT. Let's look at the point where some do not agree or harmonize with the context of John 1:2:
John 1:2 plainly says that the Word, or Logos, who is Jesus (Yeshua) was with God in the beginning which would be impossible if Jesus (Yeshua) was Almighty God (YHWH) himself. This rules out constructs 6, 7, and 10, represented below, as impossible as they do NOT harmonize with context.
<6> "and the Word was God" [example of Bible using, American Standard Version, ASV] [note, this construct violates the count noun rule of Koine Greek]
<7> "He was the same as God" example of Bible using, Today's English Version.]
<10> "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] [example of Bible using, Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 198
And two of these constructs do violate the count Noun rule of Koine Greek; to wit, constructs 6 and 7.
Now exactly what is the count Noun rule of Koine Greek? It is as follows:
The fact is that THE-OS' (=God) is a count noun, not a mass noun or an adjective. As a count noun it MUST BE countable, i.e. either definite or indefinite (i.e. either "a god" or "the God"). The trinitarian argument hinges on stripping THE-OS' of its count-ability, so that it is purely qualitative. However, if a noun is PURELY qualitative, it is not a count noun. An adjective or a mass noun may fit their requirement for emphasizing qualitativness only, but a count noun MUST BE countable, for that is what *count* means when describing a count noun. If he accepts this rather elementary rule of English grammar, you can demonstrate that, as a count noun, THE-OS' may be translated either "the Word was God" (="the Word was The God", which is Sabellianism), or "the Word was a god". Since orthodox trinitarians reject "the Word was The God" (=Sabellianism), they are left with "the Word was a god" -- that is, if they remain true to English syntax (and English syntax is what ENGLISH translations are supposed to follow!). If one argues the point, let them provide an example of a non-countable *count noun* that is not used in a contrary-to-fact situation, such as a metaphor. I have yet to find anyone, trinitarian or otherwise, who is able to meet this challenge. Rolf Furuli, one of the two best living Koine Greek scholars, discusses this in his book, THE ROLE OF THEOLOGY AND BIAS IN BIBLE TRANSLATION, as does Greg Stafford, in his, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES DEFENDED: AN ANSWER TO SCHOLARS AND CRITICS. There are also some very good posts by Wes Williams on greektheology that discuss this issue. I suppose if you search the greektheology archives using the word "count" or the name "Wes" you will find much helpful information. [source - Kats]
"To preserve in English the different nuance of the-os' [god] with and without the article, some (Moffat) would translate 'The Word was divine.'"
Notice a literal translation of John 1:1,2:
"In the beginning was the world and the word was toward the god and god was the word. This (one) was in beginning toward the god."
In these two verses we see six nouns, three referring to the Greek word logos (word, which most recognize to be Jesus) and three referring to the Greek word the-os' (god). We notice each reference to logos (word) is preceded by the definite article "the", while two of the three times the word the-os' (god) occurs, it too is preceded by the definite article "the". For some reason, John does not provide the definite article with the-os' when it is associated with "The Word". We thus see two definite individuals mentioned in this verse. "The Word", Jesus Christ, and "The God", who is Almighty God Jehovah. John does not say "The Word" is "The God". In fact, most Trinitarian scholars would argue that if John had said the word was "ho the-os'" (The God), it would amount to sabellianism (the belief that Jesus is both the Father and the Son). As such, it is commonly agreed upon that John was not identifying Jesus as God but rather, was describing him as deity. But if John did not say "The Word" is "The God", then what did he mean by saying, "the word was god"?
In Greek, it is possible for a noun to act as an adjective when it is not accompanied by the definite article. Consider a Biblical example of this in John 6:70. "Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" (NIV)
Here the noun (devil) is not proceeded by the finite article (the). To reflect this most Bibles place the indefinite article (a) in front of it. Thus, Jesus was not identifying Judas as "THE Devil", he was saying Judas had the qualities of the devil. He was acting like the devil so he was A devil though not THE devil. This example helps us to see how the lack of the definite article can cause a noun to act as a predication rather than an identification.
Regarding this point, noted Bible scholar William Barclay writes:
"When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb to be and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it become more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class of the sphere to which the other belongs...
"John has no definte article before theos, God. The Logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs...
"This passage then [John 1:1] does not identify the Logos and God; it does not say that Jesus was God, nor doesit call him God; but it does say that in his nature and being he belongs to the same class as God."
Mr. Barclay's observations are duly noted in the example we considered with Judas Iscariot being "a devil".
Now let's consider what the Greek Scholar Jason BeDuhn from the Northern Arizona University has to say: "The Greek phrase is theos en ho logos, which translated word for word is "a god was the word." Greek has only a definite article, like our the, it does not have an indefinite article, like our a or an. If a noun is definite, it has the definite article ho. If a noun is indefinite, no article is used. In the phrase from John 1:1, ho logos is "the word." If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as "a word". So we are not really "inserting" an indefinite article when we translate Greek nouns without the definite article into English, we are simply obeying rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but must say "Snoopy is a dog."
Now in English we simply say "God"; we do not say "The God." But in Greek, when you mean to refer to the one supreme God, instead of one of the many other beings that were called "gods," you would have to say "The God": ho theos. Even a monotheistic Christian, who believes there is only one God and no others, would be forced to say in Greek "The God," as John and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament normally do. If you leave off the article in a phrase like John 1:1, then you are saying "a god." (There are some exceptions to this rule: Greek has what are called noun cases, which means the nouns change form depending on how they are used in a sentence. So, if you want to say "of God," which is theou, you don't need the article. But in the nominative case, which is the one in John 1:1, you have to have the article. So what does John mean by saying "the word was a god"? He is classifying Jesus in a specific category of beings. There are plants and animals and humans and gods, and so on. By calling the Word "a god," John wants to tell his readers that the Word (which becomes Jesus when it takes flesh) belongs to the divine class of things. Notice the word order: "a god was the word." We can't say it like this in English, but you can in Greek. The subject can be after the verb and the object before the verb, the opposite of how we do it in English (subject-verb-object). Research has shown that when ancient Greek writers put a object-noun first in a sentence like John 1:1 (a be-verb sentence: x is y), without the definite article, they are telling us that the subject belongs to the class represented by the object-noun: :"The car is a Volkswagen." In English we would accomplish the same thing by using what we call predicate adjectives. "John is a smart person" = "John is smart." So we would tend to say "The word was divine," rather than "The word was a god." That is how I would translate this phrase. "The word was a god" is more literal, and an improvement over "The word was God," but it raises more problems, since to a modern reader it implies polytheism. No one in John's day would have understood the phrase to mean "The word was God" - the language does not convey that sense, and conceptually it is difficult to grasp such an idea, especially since that author has just said that the word was with God. Someone is not with himself, he is with some other. John clearly differentiates between God from the Word. The latter becomes flesh and is seen; the former cannot be seen. What is the Word? John says it was the agent through whom God made the world. He starts his gospel "In the beginning..." to remind us of Genesis 1. How does God create in Genesis? He speaks words that make things come into existence. So the Word is God's creative power and plan and activity. It is not God himself, but it is not really totally separate from God either. It occupies a kind of ambiguous status. That is why a monotheist like John can get away with calling it "a god" or "divine" without becoming a polytheist. This divine thing does not act on its own, however, does take on a kind of distinct identity, and in becoming flesh brings God's will and plan right down face to face with humans.
DEEPER TECHNICAL FACTS ON JOHN 1:1:
For those who like to know the technical facts behind the translation, correct, of John 1:1, here they are:
But, first a definition, Jesus (Yeshua)-A Godlike One; Divine
Some salient Bible editions on the subject,
1808 ; "and the word was a god" , --- TheNew Testament, in An ImprQved Version, Upon , the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation:
With a Corrected Text; London,
1829, , "and the I,.ogos was a,gqd" -- The Monotessaron; or,The Gospel History, ,According to the Four Evangelists, , by John S. Thompson,
Baltimore. ,
1864 -- "and a god wasth~,Word" -- TheEmphaticDiagiott (.)'2\ lrlteriinear r.eading), by Benjamin V{ilsorl, New York an<;lLondon.
'
1935 "q,nd the ,Word was divine" -- 'l'he Bible-An American .Translation" by " J. M. P. Smith andE. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
1950 "and the Word was a god" -- New World Translation of the Christian Greek , Scriptures, Brooklyn.
1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"* -- Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, GOttingen, Germany.*
1978 "and godlike sort was 'the Logos"" -- Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes
Schneider, Berlin.*
1979 . "and a god was the Logos"" -- Das Evangelium nach Johannes, Jurgen Becker,
Wirzburg, Germany.*
* Translated from German.
These translations use such words 'as "a god," "divine," or "godlike" because the Greek word eEO<; (the-os') is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is 'riot preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous "the-os'". The God with whom the Word, or Logos, .was originally is designated here by the Greek expression Qedz, that is, "the-os'". ,proceded by the definite article ho. .This'is an articular, "the-os'". . The articular construction of the noun 'points' to an identity, a personality,; whereas a singular ,anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to,a quality about someone., Therefore, John's statement that the Word, or Logos,--was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify his as one and the same as God himself..
In the Greek text there, are many cases of a singular antarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as those listed in the accompanying chart. In these places translators insert the indefinite article "a" before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article "a" is inserted before the anarthrous "the-os'", in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read "a" god. The Sacred Scriptures Confirm the correctness of this rendering.
In his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15: 39 and John 1:1," published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, on p. 85 Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John l:1, "with an arthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of "the-os'". There is no basis for regarding the predicate "the-os'" as definite." On p. 87 of his article, Dr. Harner concluded: "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."
Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring. before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns, check the following Bibles for the following scriptures:
Scriptures, Mark 6:49, Mark 11:32, John 4:19, John 6:70, John 8:44, John 9:17,John 10:1, John 10:13, John 10:33, John 12:6, John 18:37 in the following translations, New World Translation (NWT), Authorized King James Bible (AV), New International Version (NIV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), and Today's English Version (TEV).
CONCLUSION:
Now many so called Christians point to John 1:1 to try and prove that Jesus (Yeshua) and his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) are one spirit being, an impossibility as one can NOT both be the son and the father at the same time as we all know. They use things to cloud the issue such as things are different in heaven or those are the words of men. In doing so they clearly forget that God (YHWH) used over 40 faithful man through divine inspiration to write the Bible as scribes that took the thoughts of men under divine inspiration and put them in the words of men so we could understand. Yet many biased translations say Jesus (Yeshua) is God (YHWH)such as the Authorized King James Bible (AV), "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." But even the translational constructs clearly show the bias and the error in translating John 1:1 this way. How so? Well as a starter, one can NOT be with someone and also be that someone, that is an impossibility. But getting past that, even if one is to accept this error there is yet another impossibility. What is it? To have a Trinity, one must have three of a kind, and no matter how you translate John 1:1 there is NO three of a kind, nor for that matter three of anything.
APPENDIX:
(1) How some Bible translators who did not have bias translated, i.e., were striving for translation fidelity and NOT to support this or that perception:
1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible-An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme. 1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
1979: "and a god was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jurgen Becker Harwood,
1768, "and was himself a divine person" Thompson,
1829, "the Logos was a god Torrey,
1961, "what God was,the Word was" Moffatt,
1972, "the Logos was divine Translator's NT,
1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature Barclay,
1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God" Schonfield,
1985, "the Word was divine Revised English,
1989, "what God was, the Word was Scholar's Version,
1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was" Madsen,
1994, "the Word was <EM>a divine Being" Becker,
1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a God/god was the Logos/logos] Stage,
1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being]. Bhmer,
1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being] Thimme,
1919, "Gott von Art war das Wort" [God of Kind/kind was the Word/word] Baumgarten et al,
1920, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] Holzmann,
1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought] Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word] Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology),
1945, "Ordet var av guddomsart" [the Word was of divine kind] Pffflin,
1949, "war von gttlicher Wucht [was of divine Kind/kind] Albrecht,
1957, "gttlichen Wesen hatte das Wort" [godlike Being/being had the Word/word] Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being] Menge,
1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war das Wort"[God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word) Haenchen,
1980, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch,
1982, "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all like God] Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk),
1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos" Schultz,
1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word]
(2) Amplification on How Some Bible Translators Translated John 1:1 And Why:
"And the word was a god" - The New Testament in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Achbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.
"and a god was the Word" - The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson.
"and the Word was divine" - The Bible: An American Translation, by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed.
"the Logos was divine" - The New Testament: A New Translation, by James Moffat.
"what God was, the Word was" - The New English Bible.
"He was the same as God" - Today's English Version.
"And the Word was a god" - New World Translation
LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION – BOTH TRUE AND FALSE – AT WWW.JW.ORG
