T4
4. "Proof"
texts ( including the John 1:1 controversy )
- Proof texts quoted by
trinitarians
- Coptic texts
- How Greek is handled and
misunderstood
- Use of logic to show trinity
doesn’t exist
(a) Proof texts quoted by
trinitarians.
Let us look at John 10:30
"I and [my] Father are one."
Does this mean
they are the same person? For starters let us look at the previous verse:
“My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is
able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand.” ( John
OK, so here we have Jesus saying
his father is separate to himself. This alone is strong evidence against the
trinity.
“Then
the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good
works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone
me?
The
Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for
blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jesus
answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
If he
called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be
broken;
Say ye
of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou
blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
If I do
not the works of my Father, believe me not.
But if
I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and
believe, that the Father [is] in me, and I in him.” ( John 10:31-38 )
So in John 10:36 we have Jesus
saying "I am the Son of God". That is very clear.
But many people say "Ah,
but in John
Well scripture must hamonise -
so lets look at other scriptures and see what other evidence we can find.
“These
words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour
is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
As thou
hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as
many as thou hast given him.
And
this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus
Christ, whom thou hast sent.
I have
glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to
do.
And
now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had
with thee before the world was.
I have
manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine
they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. “ ( John
17:1-6 )
Ok - so here
Jesus is talking about "they" ( the Apostles ) as referred to in the
passage here - they are given to Jesus by God.
Keep this in mind as we read the
rest of the passage :
“Now
they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
For I
have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received
[them], and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed
that thou didst send me.
I pray
for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me;
for they are thine.
And all
mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come
to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given
me, that they may be one, as we [are].
While I
was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me
I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the
scripture might be fulfilled.
And now
come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my
joy fulfilled in themselves.
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they
are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
I pray
not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest
keep them from the evil.
They
are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Sanctify
them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
As thou
hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
And for
their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the
truth.
Neither
pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through
their word;
That
they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they
also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent
me.
And the
glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we
are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that
the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast
loved me.
Father,
I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that
they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before
the foundation of the world.
O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee,
and these have known that thou hast sent me.” ( John 17:7-25 )
Ok.....so here we have
"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee,
that they also may be one in us"
So this logically means that as
God is in Jesus then the apostles must be in God and Jesus.........boy its
getting crowded in that trinity.......
This is
similar to other scriptures like eating Jesus body regards his Last Supper
where Jesus was talking in metaphor/meaning, not literally.
Here in this case we see God is
"in" Jesus IN PURPOSE - a common purpose in preaching
Gods word.
This logically is all it can mean.
It also means that to use this as a "proof text" is grasping at
straws since the context of the passage is totally ignored by trinitarians.
Additionally, we see this
scripture:
“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but
[that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same
judgment.” (1 Cor
Now for 1 John 5:7.
1 John 5:7 is a significant
scripture, namely because of its so-called support of the trinity. But does it?
In the KJV we see this text:
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” ( 1 John 5:7 - KJV
)
Well on the surface you would think
case closed / its a done deal / all over red rover - correct?
Well no.
Bear in mind the KJV is but one
translation and as we have seen context of scriptures can influence meaning.
Some Bible texts have also been wrongly translated. This comment of "all
these three are one" is generally recognised by Bible scholars as a
deliberate addition by trinitarians in the middle ages. Most Bibles have
removed this , as rightfully they should.
In context lets also look at 1
John 5:8
“And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the
water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” ( 1 John 5:8 )
So is spirit, water and blood a
trinity too? No.
But lets look at what scholars
have to say about what the KJV translation is based upon:
"5:7 For there are three that testify, 5:8 the Spirit and the water
and the blood, and these three are in agreement." --
Now lets look at this article ( some of it shown below ) http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1186
“Before toV pneu'ma kaiV toV
u{dwr kaiV toV ai|ma, the Textus Receptus reads ejn tw'/ oujranw'/, oJ pathvr,
oJ lovgo", kaiV toV a{gion pneu'ma, kaiV ou|toi oiJ trei'" e{n eijsi.
5:8 kaiV trei'" eijsin oiJ marturou'nte" ejn th'/ gh'/ ("in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8
And there are three that testify on earth"). This reading, the infamous
Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King
James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is
decidedly against its authenticity. Our discussion will briefly address the
external evidence.1
The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century
Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the
Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text
used by the Roman Catholic Church.
The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum)
made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of
pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516),
there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to
defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no
Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by
one
and......
“Significantly, the German translation done by Luther
was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV
translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of
the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’
third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for
the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground
for English-speaking Christians more than for others.”
End of quote.
So we can see historically, the 1 John 5:7 has no leg to
stand on.
The score so far - Common sense 2, trinity 0.
Now lets look at other translations - of these , 4 of 14
are similar to the KJV translation, which means 10 aren't:
1 John 5:7
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
For there are three that testify:
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
There are three witnesses:
King James Bible
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
American Standard Version
And it is the Spirit that beareth witness,
because the Spirit is the truth.
Bible in Basic English
And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit
is true.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And there are three who give testimony in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
Darby Bible Translation
For they that bear witness are three:
English Revised Version
And it is the Spirit that beareth witness,
because the Spirit is the truth.
Tyndale New Testament
(For there are three
which bear record in heaven, the father, the word, and the wholy ghost. And
these three are one.)
For there are three that give testimony-- the
Spirit, the water, and the blood;
Webster's Bible Translation
For there are three that bear testimony in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.
World English Bible
For there are three who testify :
Young's Literal Translation
because three are who are testifying in the
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three --
are one;
2001 Translation
So, there are three [things] that testify [about
him], 8 the Breath [of God], the water, and the blood, and all three agree.
"The passage (1 John 5:7) is absent from the
manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic,
Arabic, Slavonic) except the Latin; and it is not found in the Old Latin in its
early form, or in the Vulgate as issued by Jerome...The earliest instance of
the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a
fourth century Latin treatise."
-- A Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament, 2nd Edition, by Bruce M. Metzger, United Bible Societies, 1994, page
648.
As we note above, this verse is not in the Sahidic
Coptic New Testament, nor in any other really ancient version. It is an
unauthorized addition to the Scriptures. It is found in no Greek text earlier
than the 10th century CE, where it is found as a variant reading.
"The passage is quoted by none of the Greek
Fathers, who had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the
Trinitarian controversies."
-- (Metzger, page 648)
"That these words are spurious and have no
right to stand in the New Testament is certain."
-- (Metzger, p. 647)
So........... if 3 people all agree on one thing, does
this mean all 3 are the same person? No. Of course not.
Certainly they are of the same idea or similar
persuasion or think similarly, but the same person? No.
As we have seen so far, history and common sense are
slowly discrediting the trinity as a logically supportable idea.
Given the Bible never ONCE mentions the trinity, why
would a loving God of order create a hard to understand mystery this churches
proclaim as "essential to salvation"?
Heres one scripture that Trinitarians say
"proves" God and Jesus are one and the same.
This being John 8:56-59
"Your father Abraham
rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." The Jews therefore
said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen
Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before
Abraham was born, I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him;
but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple.
Well its obvious that Jesus was around prior to Abraham
as we see at Collossians 1:15 :
“Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus,
and of the love [which ye have] to all the saints,
For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven,
whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
Which is come unto you, as [it is] in all the
world; and bringeth forth fruit, as [it doth] also in you, since the day ye
heard [of it], and knew the grace of God in truth:
As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fellowservant,
who is for you a faithful minister of Christ;
Who also declared unto us your love in the
Spirit.
For this cause we also, since the day we heard
[it], do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with
the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all
pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of
God;
Strengthened with all might, according to his
glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness;
Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us
meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness,
and hath translated [us] into the kingdom of his dear Son:
In whom we have redemption through his blood,
[even] the forgiveness of sins:
Who is the image of the invisible God, the
firstborn of every creature:
For by him were all things created, that are in
heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be]
thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by
him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all
things consist.
And he is the head of the
body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in
all [things] he might have the pre-eminence. ( Collossians 1:4-18 )
So, logically then, being firstborn of every creature
means that "before Abraham, I was/I am " makes logical sense.
Jesus helped God make the world, and the making of the
world was before Abraham existed, so Jesus was there before Abraham.
Also, if Jesus was the firstborn of all creatures, then
if he had a beginning, he cannot be part of God because God is eternal.
OK, so we see Jesus had a beginning.
So now how do we understand that Abraham saw Jesus day (
the day of his birth )? Obviously Jesus was born some years after Abraham died.
Let us look at translations of John 8:56 :
(1) From The Complete Biblical Library (John),
"Jesus' words
indicated that Abraham rejoiced even at the prospect of seeing Jesus' day. 'My
day' places the emphasis on 'my.' 'My day' is the grand and glorious day of
Messiah. This was the very time the Jews were witnessing but rebelling against.
The phrase '(Abraham) saw it' refers to the atoning work Jesus was to
accomplish at
(2) From scholar Raymond E. Brown in his commentary on
the Gospel of John (Anchor Bible series, volume 29):
"When he saw it". If an incident in
Abraham's life is meant, it may be the birth of Isaac which was the initial
fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham, the first in a chain of actions that
would ultimately lead to the coming of Jesus. This fits the theme of joy."
(page 360)
( Please see the scripture at Matthew 1:1-16 for
the complete linage of Jesus directly back to Abraham. )
( Please see the scripture at Gen 12:1-3 where
God says all families of the earth will be blessed ( by Jesus ) through Abraham
)
(3) From The New Testament in
the Language of the People, by Charles B. Williams, Sprawls Educational Publishing,
John
(4) The
John
(5) The New Testament in the Language of Today, by
William F. Beck, Concordia Publishing House, Saint Louis, Missouri, 1964
edition.
John
So we can see that some
translations are either not accurate or plain wrong. The translations above
make logical sense.
(6) Other translations:
GWT: Your father Abraham was pleased to see that
my day was coming. He saw it and was happy."
KJV: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day:
and he saw it, and was glad.
BBE: Your father Abraham was full of joy at the
hope of seeing my day: he saw it and was glad.
DBY: Your father Abraham exulted in that he
should see my day, and he saw and rejoiced.
WEY: Abraham your forefather exulted in the hope
of seeing my day: and he saw it, and was glad."
WBS: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day:
and he saw it, and was glad.
YLT: Abraham, your father, was glad that he might
see my day; and he saw, and did rejoice.'
We should also consider the greek word often translated
as "see" ( "see" is one of many translations for the Greek
word )
From Strongs Greek Dictionary -
eido (i'-do) ( Strongs number 1492. )
A primary verb; used only in certain past tenses, the
others being borrowed from the equivalent optanomai and horao;
properly, to see (literally or
figuratively); by implication, (in the perfect tense only) to know, be aware,
behold, X can (+ not tell),
consider, (have) know(-ledge), look (on), perceive, see,
be sure, tell, understand, wish, wot.
So what is translated as
"see" may suit a theology, but in context of what the birth of Isaac
provided was proof of God bringing Jesus Christ as Messiah to the earth.
Consequently, Abraham would have seen/percieved Jesus' day because Issac was
the first step to the coming of Jesus Christ, as God said all nations would be
blessed ( because of Jesus Christ ) from Abrahams seed ( Isaac ).
Now lets look at John 1:1
John 1: 1is the heavy duty so-called proof of the
trinity. This is THE text usually trotted out to "prove" the trinity
is rock solid.
But is it?
Lets look at some translations
New American Standard Bible - In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
GOD'S WORD® Translation- In the beginning the Word
already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
King James Bible - In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
American Standard Version - In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Bible in Basic English - From the first he was the Word,
and the Word was in relation with God and was God.
Douay-Rheims Bible - IN the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Darby Bible Translation - In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
English Revised Version - In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Tyndale New Testament - In the beginning was that word,
and that word was with god: and god was that word.
Webster's Bible Translation - In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
World English Bible - In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Young's Literal Translation - In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
Now on the surface of it you *could* say "case
closed, Jesus is God".
But hang on - why would Jesus be God, and so be with
himself ( "the Word was with God").
Doesn’t that sound just a bit illogical?
Lets look at this in the cold hard light of logic.
We have so far demonstrated in scripture that :
(a) Jesus was created as the firstborn of all creation,
so Jesus is an independent and separate to God.
(b) Jesus did his Fathers will.
(c) God has declared Jesus to be His son, of whom God (
his Father ) approves.
(d) Jesus has said his Apostles were given to him by
God.
We have seen that many translations of the bible are
based along theological lines, not necessarily being accurate.
This means if people wanted to prove the trinity existed,
they would translate a bible to support that idea.
Outrageous? No. Many bible translators have done this (
legal reasons means I cannot mention which ones )
Consider the following translations of John 1:1 from
other translators:
(1) In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
the God, and a god was the Word. Diaglot 1865
(2) Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine
person"
(3) Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"
(4) Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god
(5) Goodspeed, 1939, "the Word was divine
(6) Torrey, 1947, "the Word was god
(7) New English, 1961, "what God was,the Word
was"
(8) Moffatt, 1972, "the Logos was divine
(9) Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a
god"
(10) Simple English Bible, "and the Message was
Deity"
(11) Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, [A]s a god the Command
was"
(12) Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a
God"
(13) Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary)
"[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"
(14) Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was a
god"
(15) Charles A.L. Totten, 1900, "the Word was
Deistic [=The Word was Godly]
(16) J.N. Jannaris, 1901, [A]nd was a god"
(17) George William Horner, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the
word"
(18) Ernest Findlay Scott, 1932, "[A]nd the Word
was of divine nature"
(19)
(20) Philip Harner, 1974, "The Word had the same
nature as God"
(21) Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974,
"The Word was divine"
(22) Siegfried Schulz, 1975, "And a god (or, of a
divine kind) was the Word"
(23) Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God
and shared his nature
(24) Barclay, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the
same as the nature of God"
(25) Schneider, 1978, "and godlike sort was the
Logos
(26) Schonfield, 1985, "the Word was divine
(27) Revised English, 1989, "what God was, the Word
was
(28) Cotton Parch Version, 1970, and the Idea and God
were One
(29) Scholar's Version, 1993, "The Divine word and
wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was
(30) Madsen, 1994, "the Word was <EM>a divine
Being"
(31) Becker, 1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a
God/god was the Logos/logos]
(32) Stage, 1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen
Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being].
(33) Bhmer, 1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden,
ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself
divine Being/being]
(34) Thimme, 1919, "Gott von Art war das Wort"
[God of Kind/kind was the Word/word]
(35) Baumgarten et al, 1920, "Gott (von Art) war
der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]
(36) Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der
Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]
(37) Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das
Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word]
(38) Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945,
"Ordet var av guddomsart" [the Word was of divine kind]
(39) Pfaefflin, 1949, "war von gttlicher Wucht [was
of divine Kind/kind]
(40) Albrecht, 1957, "gttlichen Wesen hatte das
Wort" [godlike Being/being had the Word/word]
(41) Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig
vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being]
(42) Menge, 1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war
das Wort"[God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word)
(43) Haenchen, 1980, "Gott (von Art) war der
Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]
(44) Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "r war
bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all like God]
(45) Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of
the category divinity)was the Logos"
(46) Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art)
war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word].
(47) William Temple, Archbishop of York, 1933, "And
the Word was divine."
(48) John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631,
"The Word of Speech was a God"
(49) Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, "the
word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"
(50) Ervin Edward Stringfellow
(Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word
was Divine"
(51) Robert Harvey, D.D., 1931 "and the Logos was
divine (a divine being)----
(52) 21st Century Version of the Christian Scriptures
[NCMM] "In [the] beginning the Word existed, and the Word faced toward The
God, and the Word was divine."
(53) New Simplified Bible "In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was like God (God-like)."
(54) 2001 Translation "In an ancient time there was
the Word. The Word was with God and the Word was powerful."
So we have :
12 translations saying Jesus = God
54 translations saying Jesus = Word/Jesus/divine.
Well, you might say, so what? Anyone can translate a
Bible.
Ok, lets look at this : in 200 -300AD ancient Egyptians
spoke the Coptic language, and translated the Bible into their own language.
But the Nicene Creed did not appear until 325 AD, some 25-125 years AFTER the
Coptic translations of the Bible appeared. The most well known Coptic text is
the Bodmer II P66.
Now - here is a critical point to understand - the
Coptics translated from Koine ( common ) Greek into Coptic.
In 200-300 AD,
The Coptics would have understood and translated the
MEANING of the scriptures correctly.
In the Sahidic dialect of Coptic we see John 1:1 as
folows: ( all references here refer to Sahidic Coptic ) :
Transliteration
1:1a Hn
tehoueite nefshoop nci pshaje
1:1b Auw
pshaje nefshoop nnahrm pnoute
1:1c Auw
neunoute pe pshaje
Now Coptic has an indefinate article "p" ( in
English, this is "a" ) so the Coptics could accurately express
complex things.
Translating John 1:1c from Coptic to English we have :
1:1c "and was a god the Word".
auw ne-u-noute pe pshaje
auw = "and"
ne = verbal prefix denoting past tense,
i.e., "was (being)"
u = Coptic indefinite article,
"a"
noute = "god" ( Note that
"penoute" = "God", but we see "neunoute" here )
pe = Coptic particle meaning
"is" or "this one is"
p = Coptic definite article,
"the"
shaje = "word"
In the book, The Text of the New Testament (Eerdmans,
1987), Kurt and Barbara Aland, editors of critical Greek New Testament texts,
state:
"The Coptic New Testament
is among the primary resources for the history of the New Testament text.
Important as the Latin and Syriac versions may be, it is of far greater
importance to know precisely how the text developed in
The Coptic expression for "was a god,"
ne-u-noute pe, is the same Coptic construction as found above in John 18:40,
where it says of Barabbas that he ne-u-soone pe, "was a robber,"
accurately rendering the Greek original, en de ho barabbas lestes, where the
word for "robber" lestes, is anarthrous: "a robber."
Then cried they all
again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber. ( John
So if the same grammatical structure of Coptic is
accepted by trinitarians for John 18:40, and the same structure is used at John
1:1, then logic would say we have a theological issue if people translate John
1:1 one way and John 18:40 another way.
How Greek is mishandled and misunderstood
We see below how Greek can be mis-translated. When we look
at the kindly donated article below on the translation of "was a god"
from Greek, we can see the possible pitfalls, but also how if we carefully and
consistently translate with the same rules all the time, we get an accurate
rendering.
Interestingly, as with comparing John 1:1 and John
John 1:1c
Greek English
Και θεος ην ο λογος
"and"
"deity" "was" "the/this etc." "Word / Divine
Expression"
kai theos
nv ho logos
2532 2316 1510 3588 3056
Acts 28:6
Greek English
αυτον ειναι θεον
"himself"
"am/was" "a deity"
autos einai theos
846 1511 2316
We see similar grammar structures in John 1:1 & Acts
28:6. If Acts 28:6 is accepted as correct, then logically John 1:1 should be as
well.
Now lets think about this for a second -
και θεος
ην ο λογος "and" "deity"
"was" "the/this/that etc." "Word"
kai theos
nv ho
logos
For "theos" if we put in "a god/
goddess" we get the rendering above. This sounds logical ( although we
know Jesus was male,therefore not a goddess ). But as Jesus was Gods son and
was created by God ( and we know that Jesus is not God Himself ) then yes,
technically speaking, Jesus is "a god", but he is not God Himself.
Interestingly the Greek scriptures were often
written in CAPITAL LETTERS.
So we would read:
Now if we insert each member of the "trinity"
into this scripture we get :
For "theos" if we put in - " "God
the father as part of the trinity" was the Word" - this sounds odd.
For "theos" if we put in - " "Christ
as part of the trinity" was the Word" - this also sounds odd
For "theos" if we put in - " "Holy
Spirit as part of the trinity" was the Word " - this also sounds odd.
The logic in this case is this - trintarians will say in
this case - "Ah but "a god" means God/Jesus/Holy Spirit as all
persons of the trinity Godhead are co-equal and co-eternal." Its kind of
like saying "my car is so small, it can be folded up and stored in its own
boot/trunk". What nonsense.
No wonder people are confused and people are told that
"God is unknowable".
Lets look at the whole scripture in context, and also
decide if it harmonises with the Bible. As All scripture is inspired of God and
useful for teaching....then all scripture must harmonise. And if God can build
a planet and universe, getting His Word, which is important to Him such that
"it will never pass away " to read in a harmonious manner should be
straight forward for Him to do.
John 1:1c
Typical Common English Translation
In the beginning was the
Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God
Transliterated from Greek
en arche en logos kai logos en pros ho theos kai
logos en theos
Written Greek
εν αρχη
ην ο λογος και ο
λογος ην προς
τον θεον(1) και θεος(2)
ην ο λογος
Our translation into clear English
IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE
WORD,
Yet here we see the primary usage of the second
"theos" in this passage as "god". But the first usage (1)
is "ho theos" which means "the god" ( or God Himself). The
second usage above (2) is "diety" or "a god". But hang on -
why dont most Bibles say "THE GOD" for "ho theos"? This
would be correct.Which then means that "theos", which means
"DEITY"/"GOD" is very different to "ho theos"
which means "THE GOD" i.e. "THE GOD" = Yahweh, the one and
only God of all creation.
OK, now since many greek manuscripts WERE WRITTEN IN
CAPITAL LETTERS ( called Unical ), if we connect it all together and use
capital letters, we get :
"IN THE BEGINNING
WAS THE WORD,
( where I have added "A" in [] brackets to
show what would be added by a Greek-English translator to allow it to make
sense to an English speaker)
The sentence in capital letters above now takes on a
whole different meaning. Remember that in the Greek , not having an
"a" in front of a noun does NOT mean it implies a definite article. A
definite article is "the". So in this case, "GOD" doesn’t
mean "THE GOD" it means "A GOD".
"THE GOD" which refers to Yahweh ( God )
Himself.
"GOD"/"DEITY" is Jesus ( the Word ).
But hang on - what right do I have to say - "[A]
GOD" or "[A] DEITY"?
This is a fair question.
About one page further down you will see references on
which my case is based. Please be patient and keep reading. :-)
Now it is clear from Johns writing that "THE
GOD" is not "GOD"/"DEITY" in this case. This
difference is obviously deliberate. John was making sure that he separated God
and the word / deity / god / Jesus, while making sure people knew Jesus was
divine/a god, but was *not* The God ( Yahweh / Jehovah / YHWH ).
Now because English capitalises important peoples names
or titles, we would write: for THE GOD = "The God" and
"GOD" = "god/deity" - because we would not give a lower
deity ( Jesus ) a capital "G" , because "God" that is Gods
title alone, keeping things correct within the context of the whole of the
scriptures here.
We can also see how Bible translators might become
confused or alter the meaning , through a lack of understanding of ancient
greek etc. And because many Bibles written in English, if you saw the word
"GOD" you would assume YAHWEH / JEHOVAH / YHWH.
So lets now look at what would happen if we included the
Divine Name in place of "THE GOD" in the translation.
"IN THE BEGINNING
WAS THE WORD,
We know that Jesus is The Word, so our translation would
look like this :
"IN THE BEGINNING
WAS JESUS,
This would make sense too - Jesus was with Yahweh and
the beginning of earth. There is nothing to say specifically when Jesus was
created, but we can tell it was prior to the creation of the earth at least.
Jesus would have existed, as Jesus was the first born of all creation, and
Yahweh's only begotten son:
"No man hath seen
God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he
hath declared [him]."( John
"For God so loved the world, that he gave
his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but
have everlasting life." ( John
And we know Jesus was WITH YAHWEH during creation of the
earth, and is Yahwehs firstborn of all creation, and is Yahweh's son, Jesus:
‘In an ancient time, there was the Expression of
a thought. This Expression was with God and the Expression was Powerful. He was
with God long ago. Everything came into existence through him. Life came into
existence through him and the life was the light of men.’ (John 1:1-3 )
‘The only-created god
(gr. monogenes theos), who is the Father’s favorite [son], has explained him.’
(John
‘I tell you
the truth, I existed before Abraham was born.’ (John
‘And
knowing that the Father had put everything in his hands, and that he came from
God and was returning to God, he got up from the meal and laid his outer
clothing aside.’ (John 13:3, 4 )
‘The
Father cares for you, because you cared for me and you believed that I came as
the Father’s representative. I am from the Father and I came into the world. I
am also leaving the world and returning to the Father.’ (John 16:27, 28 )
So, now Father, glorify me beside You with the
glory that I had beside You before there was a world.’ (John 17:5 )
‘He’s the
image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation (gr. protokos pases
ktiseos – first/taken all creation). Through him, everything in heaven and on
the earth was created, both the things that are visible and those that are
invisible. Everything has been created through him and for him, regardless of
whether they are thrones, or rulerships, or governments, or powers. He was
before everything and everything came into existence through him.’ (Colossians
1:15-17 )
‘And write
this to the messenger of the congregation in
IMPORTANT POINT - The early Christians didn’t view Jesus
as the God - this is supported by the fact that Christians still worshiped at
the Temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem until shortly before it was destroyed in
70-C.E. (see Acts 3:1-3). This is because Christian Jews didn’t consider
Christianity to be a new religion with a new god, but rather, that it was the
natural outgrowth of the old, and Jesus was the promised ‘Messiah’ or ‘Anointed
One of God’ who was to assume ‘the throne of David his father.'
Comment on Greek manuscripts - many Greek manuscripts
from approx
"The logos ( word/divine expression ) was with the
god ( God Himself ) and a diety ( a god / a divine being / but not God Himself
) was the logos."
Its worth remembering that angels are divine beings,
Jesus is a divine being, and God Himself is a divine being.
But Jesus is not actually said to be God Himself.
This harmonises with the Bible, as Jesus Christ always
says he is inferior to his Father, Yawheh ( God ), and went to be in heaven
with his father once he was resurrected. Since we know "16 All Scripture
is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training
in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for
every good work., ( 2 Tim 3:16-17 ).
From Spiros Zodhiates's
book "Complete Word Study New Testament", we find under
"grammatical notations" :
5. Anarthrous (an) refers to a word or group of
words which appear without a definite article ( ho,he,to'[3588],the). Greek has
no indefinite article, "a" or "an" in English. Sometimes it
is best to translate an anarthrous word by supplying "a" or
"an" before it. In fact, due to reasons of English style or Greek
idiom, the word "the" is even an appropriate translations in some
cases. However, there are many times when supplying an article would be
incorrect. Anarthrous constructions are most often intended to point out the
quality of something: Toigaroun kai hemeis tosouton echontes perikeimenon hemin
"nephos" marturon, " Wherefore, seeing we also are compassed
about with so great "cloud" of witnesses" (Heb 12:1). See also
Notation 24.
The "Definite Article" in Greek is
sometimes translated with the English definite article "the."
However, the function of the two is quite different. In English, the definite
article serves merely to particularize, to refer to a particular object. In
Greek, however, it serves to emphasize, in some way, the person or thing it
modifies. Hence, in most cases, the definite article in Greek serves to
identify: di hupomones trechomen ton prokeimeonon hemin agona, " and let
us run with patience "the" race that is set before us" (Heb
12:1). The term "articular" refers to a word or group of words which
appear with a definite article (ho,he,to [3588], the). There is perhaps no
other part of Greek grammar where the Greek idiom differs so greatly from the
English. For instance, an English grammarian would never place the definitie
article before a proper noun (e.g., the "Thomas"), though in Greek it
is very common. Rcognizing the significance of the presence or absence of the
definite article requires the most intimate knowledge of the Greek language.
Contrast the use of articular constructions with anarthrous constuctions which
refers to quality. See also notation 5
Another article supporting our argument is shown below .
TO confirm the content was accurate, I personally contacted Dr BeDuhn at the
From http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2003-July/025847.html
The following URL (Web page) has a lengthy
statement by Jason Beduhn re: John 1:1. There are some typos (likely by the
person who typed the Web
page), but Beduhn's name at the end suggests that
this entire extract, and not just what was put in quotes at the beginning, is
his comment on
John 1:1. This should give some idea of his
knowledge of or expertise in Greek and his qualifications to make scholarly
statements about
translations and the Greek text - which is what
your query seemed to be about.
http://www.geocities.com/yhwhbible/nwt.htm
What about John 1:1 in the NWT?
Well, I will let Greek Scholar Jason BeDuhn from
the Northern Arizona
University answer this one:
"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 indefeinite 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 beleives 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.
I hope this helps.
Best wishes
Jason Beduhn
Northern Arizona University
Department of Humanities Arts and Religion
My comment -
Again, this means Jesus ( the Word ) IS NOT God, he is
SEPARATE to God.
This destroys the trinity by understanding of Greek
grammar rules alone.
Many many times God has said he will never share His
Glory with anyone else. This is in the Bible.
So here we find that a scholar confirming that according
to Greek grammar , "the Word was God" is not a possible translation
of John 1:1c.
Rather, the more likely translation, based on greek
grammar, was "the word was a god" or "the Word was divine".
Its worth remembering that much scholarly debate has occurred over John 1:1 ,
which is fine. However the basic situation does not change, which is that
"THE GOD" and "GOD" are different, and the fact that John
wrote it like that is in-your-face significant.
Its like the rules of arithmetic, that is 1+1=2 . ( please excuse the unintended pun )
However, some scholars argue from a theological point of
view that 1+1= 3.
We reason from a fact based
this-is-how-Greek-grammar-works stand, and as such the translation of John 1:1c
its not an argument, it is a plain statement of the facts.
Another thorough explanation of the translation of John
1:1 based on the logic is below.
( This has been reproduced by kind written permission by
the owner of http://www.greeklatinaudio.com )
Does John 1:1 Indicate that God and
Christ (the Logos) are One-And-The-Same?
(greeklatinaudio.com Austin TX June 2000)
Satisfactorily resolving this question requires that one
have a clear understanding of THREE basic, simple, yet rarely-understood,
concepts relating to the exercise of language translation in general; and Greek-to-English
translation in specific. These are:
|
Concept A: |
These three concepts and how they relate to one another (and to a proper
understanding of John 1:1) will be explained fully in this narrative.
To this end, and...
to keep issues clear and manageable for the reader...
this narrative is presented in 5 progressively-developed segments below, with each
segment providing a clear and solid foundation for its successor segment - with
the end result being a coherent and easily-understood presentation of the
question at hand.
Although the language translation concepts presented here are applicable in
many language translation contexts, they are discussed here specifically in the
context of translation from Greek to English.
There will be short illustrative passages of Greek presented here. However,
this need NOT cause any concern, because these passages are fully translated
and clarified such that, even those who know no Greek will have no problems
following the concepts presented...
Thus, one need NOT be a scholar, a linguist, a Greek
grammarian, etc., to follow along. It is absolutely unreasonable to think that
God would impose such requirements on anyone who is seeking to get to the truth
of the matter under consideration here. (Matthew 18:1-6) Furthermore, inasmuch
as God undertook very personal and painful measures to open the way to accurate
knowledge concerning himself and his son Jesus Christ, (John 17:3) one may
safely presume that such knowledge is fully intended to be attainable and
clearly understandable.
The 5 progressively developed segments comprising this
commentary are summarized as follows:
|
Segment 1: |
SEGMENT 1:
A clarification of the question introducing this commentary, and WHY the
question is even asked: Does John 1:1 indicate that God and Christ (the
Logos) are one-and-the-same?
John 1:1 in the original Greek follows:
en arch hn o logoV kai o
logoV hn proV ton qeon
kai qeoV hn o logoV
|
An
acceptable variation of the most common English translation of this verse is: |
The not-so-subtle difference between the above opposing
translations is:
- The former suggests that Christ (the Logos) is God himself.
- The latter suggests that Christ (the Logos) is a god (i.e., NOT God
himself, but one like God)
Obviously(!) the implications raised by these opposing translations of John 1:1
are enormous. One is, therefore, absolutely justified in asking: "Which
one is correct?"
And, in actuality, the
The issue raised, of course, has to do with getting to know the very nature of
God and his son Jesus Christ. (They are either one-and-the-same...or they are
not!) The warning raised by the apostle Paul at 2nd Thessalonians 1:6-8
attaches a mortal tempo to this issue.
The remaining 4 segments of this narrative deal with the little red "a" and the propriety or impropriety of its presence in
the English translation of John 1:1. (Once this minor logistics problem is
solved, everything else falls into place.)
SEGMENT 2:
A discussion of Concept A:
The comparative use of DEFINITE and INDEFINITE articles in translation from
Greek to English.
[The little red "a" mentioned in the previous segment is known grammatically as an
"article." More specifically, it is an "indefinite article." Because the controversy being discussed here cannot be
apprehended intelligently without having a clear understanding of articles and
their role in English and Greek expression, the following is provided...]
Webster's dictionary defines an "article" as
"...the words "the" and "a," (or "an") in English, that are linked to nouns and that
typically function in identifying nouns as nouns and in indicating definiteness
or indefiniteness of reference."
As mentioned here, English has two articles: The DEFINITE article "the," and the
INDEFINITE article "a." (or "an") These articles are invariable in form, i.e., they always
occur as "the," and "a." (or "an") They do not change.
Greek, on the other hand, has only
Thus, in both English and Greek, the article, as Webster's definition above
suggests, simply assigns the notion of grammatical "definiteness" or
"indefiniteness" to associated nouns.
In the material immediately following, we will
examine the difference between HOW English and Greek use their respective
articles to assign the notion of grammatical "definiteness" or "indefiniteness"
to associated nouns.
English first...
Notice the subtle shades of meaning generated by use of these articles in the
sentences below as they express grammatical "definiteness" and
"indefiniteness" with regard to the man and the woman being discussed...
|
"A man
married a woman." |
Regarding the 4 examples above, there is
absolutely nothing foreign or mystical about their meaning. They simply
illustrate HOW the English language uses its definite and indefinite articles
to express notions of "definiteness" and "indefiniteness."
Now, Greek...
In the Greek language, however, there is a
different variation on this theme: As stated above, Greek has only the definite
article. IT DOES NOT HAVE THE INDEFINITE ARTICLE! Therefore, although Greek can
use the same grammatical mechanism as English to express definiteness, it MUST
obviously (!) use a DIFFERENT grammatical mechanism to express indefiniteness.
This will be clearly illustrated in the following examples. These examples will
take advantage of the park wedding scenario given above. However, we will
experience it from the Greek perspective, via the accompanying word-for-word
LITERAL English translations. Note that, because we are thinking in Greek,
AGAIN, remember that, because Greek DOES NOT HAVE AN INDEFINITE ARTICLE, its
grammatical mechanism for expressing the notion of "indefiniteness"
will be seen here to be DIFFERENT from English.
ALSO,
WITH THIS IN
|
anqrwpoV
egamhse gunaika |
At this point the reader should see clearly that, inasmuch
as Greek does NOT have an INDEFINITE article, it nevertheless perfectly
expresses the notion of "indefiniteness" by simply NOT using its
DEFINITE article! This mechanism is very typical of Greek in its elegant
efficiency of expression.
However, as seen in our examples above, this peculiarity of Greek, if conveyed literally in English
translation, presents aesthetic problems to English speakers. This is simply
because English utilizes a different grammatical mechanism for expressing
"indefiniteness," and the failure to employ that mechanism in
translation to English (i.e., by NOT using the English indefinite article where
necessary) is quickly "sensed" by the English speaker, such that he
feels something is "incomplete." There is an aesthetic glitch which
must necessarily be fixed by the translator before his job is done.
This necessary fix is discussed in the next segment, SEGMENT 3.
SEGMENT 3:
A discussion of Concept B:
The necessity of varying degrees of "LITERALNESS" in language
translation in general, such that aesthetics may be maintained without
compromising accuracy.
Given the park wedding scenario illustrated in the previous segment, we saw
that, as it pertains to "indefinite" expressions, conveying LITERAL
Greek thought in English leaves a bit to be desired.
With this in mind, it is important to understand
that, in general, NO word-for-word literal translation of thought from one
language to another will do aesthetic justice to the source language (e.g.,
Greek) when conveyed thus in the target language. (e.g., English) Therefore,
the concept of "literalness" with regard to language translation must
be understood as a relative concept.
In view of this, it should be clear that, even the best "literal"
English translation of the Bible is only relatively literal. If it were word-for-word
literal, then its English would sound strange and "incomplete" to the
English reader, as was the case in our Greek park wedding scenario above.
To avoid this, translators must ROUTINELY exercise their considerable expertise
to balance literalness with aesthetics by the application of a connective
linguistic "glue"...
This linguistic "glue" is quite simply the addition of
"connective" language to (or the omission of
"disconnective" language from) a base literal translation such that,
the result is a relatively literal translation which conveys full aesthetic soundness
to the target language speaker, WITHOUT compromising accuracy.
This application of linguistic "glue" is a very serious matter in the
realm of language translation. And it occurs in many varied and complex
circumstances. In this commentary, however, we are discussing ONLY its application
to the problem of transferring correct notions of definiteness and indefiniteness from Greek thought to English
thought - via the proper use of articles.
To see examples of this, we will recall the park wedding scenario above with
its Greek expressions and their literal English translations. All articles, as
previously, will still be high-lighted in blue
. In addition, however, we will now include a 2nd
English translation for each Greek expression. This 2nd translation will
illustrate the use of the linguistic "glue" necessary to make the 1st
translation (the word-for-word literal translation) sound correct to the
English speaker. You will notice that the "glue" in this case is
simply the application of the indefinite article (the little red "
a ") where appropriate...
|
anqrwpoV
egamhse gunaika |
Notice that in the 2nd translation for each Greek
expression above, (except the last) English indefinite articles (i.e., little
red "a"s) were
added to provide the linguistic "glue" which gives proper sound and
feeling to the English translation. NOTE that these English indefinite articles
were added by the translator, EVEN THOUGH NO SUCH ARTICLES EXIST IN THE GREEK
EQUIVALENT. Remember! Greek has no such (indefinite) articles.
This translational practice is perfectly acceptable, ROUTINE, and indeed
necessary, if the translation is to convey correct thought in correct English.
As a matter of fact, bearing the above concept
in mind, it should be clear to the reader that EVERY TIME HE SEES THE
INDEFINITE ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH
Now, as a formative conceptual exercise, please open your English Bible and
browse randomly through the New Testament and contemplate the number of times
you encounter the indefinite article. (i.e., the little red "
a ") And REMEMBER! That little "a " has NO
literal equivalent in the Greek language! It is necessary linguistic
"glue" added by the translator to help convey Greek thought in palatable English without
compromising translational accuracy. Thus, the little red "a" has an honored, necessary, and abundant place in the
process.
HOWEVER!
The translator's job is still not complete! We must now consider a sterling
rule of conduct in language translation which has critical applicability to our
discussion:
This sterling rule of conduct states, in essence, that aesthetics MUST take a back seat to accuracy of meaning IF accuracy of
meaning is critical...ESPECIALLY if it affects doctrinal understanding!
With this rule of conduct in mind, and applying what we have learned thus far,
we will again recall JOHN 1:1 in Greek and this time provide the word-for-word
literal translation in English.
We will also apply the color scheme introduced earlier to modify our optic of
the language of JOHN 1:1. (At the moment, we will be looking at this verse from
the Greek perspective. So REMEMBER: Greek has only the DEFINITE article! There
is no indefinite article. Therefore, our color scheme (as above) will
high-light the definite article in blue .)
|
John 1:1 in the original
Greek: |
Note that, because we are dealing with actual Greek along
with a word-for-word literal English translation to express the equivalent
Greek thought, the only articles we see high-lighted are DEFINITE articles.
The 1st irregularity:
"in beginning" sounds a little strange to an
English speaker.
The 2nd irregularity:
"with the god" also sounds a little strange to an English speaker.
The translator must, therefore, apply his linguistic "glue" to these
two irregularities such that they may sound aesthetically proper to the English
speaker.
So what did the Apostle John mean when he said "en arch?" (that is, "in beginning")
He was thinking in Greek, therefore he was thinking of an indefinite "beginning" because he did NOT use the Greek definite article here. Based on what
we learned earlier, the translator must, therefore, put the little red "a" before "beginning." to convey accurately what John (thinking in Greek!) meant,
e.g., "in a beginning."
But that STILL sounds strange to an English speaker! However, if the translator
puts the DEFINITE article "the" before "beginning," then it sounds correct. (e.g., "in the beginning")
But this is NOT what John said or meant!
So... If the translator leaves the "the" there for aesthetic purposes, will it compromise critical
meaning?
Surprisingly enough, NOT REALLY! This is because the difference in meaning can
be shifted semantically in English to mean what John said anyway.
Thus, even though a very subtle difference in meaning is conveyed now to an
English speaker, (a meaning which John did not really intend) it is,
nevertheless, aesthetically sound,
"with the god" which also sounds a little strange to an English speaker.
What did John (thinking in Greek) mean by "with the god?" He used
the Greek Definite article. Therefore, he meant his God, the one and only God
Almighty. (In the
Therefore, the translator may again apply his "glue:" "with * god." (The red asterisk here simply reminds us, for the sake of
this discussion, that "glue" was applied, by virtue of the omission
of a definite article.)
At this point, we have satisfactorily dealt with the two irregularities
mentioned above, and the resulting English translation, with linguistic glue in
place, now appears as follows:
|
in the beginning was the word and the word was with * god |
However, having thus dealt with these two irregularities, we have touched upon
yet a 3rd irregularity, far more subtle, which is the subject of our next
SEGMENT...
SEGMENT 4:
A discussion of Concept C:
The subtle treatment which language accords to common titles of intimacy, and
how this must be handled in language translation from Greek to English.
It was demonstrated in the previous SEGMENT that English speakers ROUTINELY
refer to God Almighty as simply "God" (without a definite article)
and, in so doing, leave no ambiguity as to WHO is meant.
This peculiar mode of address in English is at the crux of the controversy
swirling around John 1:1. (And English is certainly not the only language which
evokes this controversy!) To appreciate the subtle translational disaster which
this causes with regard to understanding John 1:1 properly, we must carefully
contrast the way that English treats the following three forms of nouns when assigning
notions of "definiteness" or "indefiniteness" to them via
articles...(or the LACK of articles):
These three forms of nouns are:
|
1.
TITLES, |
Let's be clear on what these are:
TITLES are special nouns which convey a categorical or functional notion to
the subjects which they "tag." For example, the following are TITLES.
Notice how these titles clearly convey category or function to those who might
be "tagged" by them...e.g., Mayor
Smith. (Mr. Smith is "tagged"
with the title of mayor. (We know his category (of office) or function by
virtue of his TITLE. The same applies to the other TITLES in this list.)
|
mayor |
COMMON NOUNS are nouns which are slightly more generic than TITLES. We need only
understand here that there is considerable conceptual overlap between these two
types of nouns, (e.g., all of the above are common nouns as well as titles...)
Some examples of other common nouns are:
|
dog |
PROPER NAMES are nouns which uniquely "tag" their subjects as
identifiable in a crowd of like nouns of the same category or function. For
example,
|
Tom |
Now notice carefully in the following sentences how
differently English treats some of the nouns taken from the above lists -
particularly, with regard to assigning notions of "definiteness" and
"indefiniteness" to them via articles...(or the LACK of articles)
|
The dog
bit mayor. |
Notice that, in English, the 1st three victims of the dog
require either an indefinite or a definite article before them in order to meet English aesthetic
standards, e.g.,
|
The dog
bit (a/the) mayor. |
Contrastingly, however, the last four victims of the dog
require no such "articular" intervention to meet English aesthetic
standards! (Note particularly, that one of these victims is God.) WHY do these nouns not need an article?!
Theories and variations of theories abound on matters such as this. The bottom
line, however, is that such nouns or titles
Now note another subtle peculiarity regarding
such titles of intimacy:
As stated, they
|
The dog
bit Mother. |
The sole purpose of this little exercise is to show the
special status which such titles of
intimacy enjoy in the English language
context.
To illustrate this clearly using the pattern of examples immediately preceding,
and applying it to the title of
intimacy "god," in JOHN 1:1,
notice what happens:
[Following are Greek variations on the JOHN 1:1 theme, with literal
translations into English:
(Note that the 1st of the following examples is the actual ending of John 1:1
in Greek, which incorporates the title of intimacy, "god" (qeoV). The other three
examples are clones of the 1st example. These clones use nouns which are NOT
titles of intimacy.)]
|
kai qeoV hn o logoV |
Regarding the preceding examples, as well as those
which follow, continue to bear in mind TWO things:
1. Based upon our discussion in Segment 2 above, the literal English translations given here
represent PROPER Greek thought, strange as it may sound.
2. Based upon our discussion in Segment 3 above, because the Greek definite article was NOT used
with the 1st noun in each of the preceding phrases, (i.e., qeoV, telwnhV, maqhthV, paiV (god, tax collector, disciple, child; respectively)) we understand that the Greek thought
assigned to these nouns is therefore indefinite. Thus, the translator MUST convey this indefiniteness
correctly in translation to English by applying his linguistic "glue,"
i.e., the little red "a." This must ESPECIALLY be done
in the 1st example using qeoV even though it does not
appear necessary. e.g.,
|
kai qeoV hn o logoV |
DO WE APPRECIATE THE
As observed earlier regarding such titles and the effect of applied
"articular" intervention on them, the title "god" has now
lost a degree of intimacy -
|
in the beginning was the word and the word was with * god |
This brings us to our final segment in this
commentary...
SEGMENT 5:
Review and obvious conclusion.
Distilling the essence of the previous 4 segments, we recall the following:
SEGMENT 1:
The original Greek of John 1:1 has commonly been translated to suggest that God
and Jesus Christ (the Word) are one-and-the-same, e.g.,
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God
Contrastingly, this verse has far less commonly been translated to suggest that
God and Jesus Christ (the Word) are distinct and separate beings - that the
Word is "a god," or a god-like (or divine) one, e.g.,
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was a god
The very valid question is then posed: Which of these translations is correct?
Or, more succinctly: Does the little
red "a"
belong there or not?
SEGMENT 2:
Because the critter in question (the little red "a") is an indefinite article, a discussion of the
concept of the comparative use of DEFINITE and INDEFINITE articles in Greek and
English was presented.
We learned that, although English has BOTH a definite and an indefinite
article, Greek has ONLY a definite article. Therefore, the mechanisms which
both languages use to convey the notion of indefiniteness MUST, of necessity,
be functionally different. This difference was clearly demonstrated via the use
of literal Greek to English phrase translations in which it was illustrated
that when Greek omits its single definite article
with respect to a related noun, it (Greek) is indicating that noun's
INDEFINITENESS.
SEGMENT 3:
We learned that these nouns in literal translation necessarily cause aesthetic
irregularities which must be fixed by the translator via the judicious and
honest application of "linguistic glue" in English...
SEGMENT 4:
And finally, we learned that this is true particularly with regard to titles of intimacy
(such as god)
which, if NOT tagged properly with the English INDEFINITE article, can freely
bounce back and forth between Greek and English, switching their noun status
from indefinite to definite, WITHOUT even being noticed, while at the same time
significantly altering intended meaning.
However, if the translator does his duty and
"catches" this quick "in-transit costume-change" by
applying the little red "a" like he's supposed to, then the apostle John's intended meaning at
John 1:1 is accurately conveyed to the English reader, i.e., THAT JESUS CHRIST
IS A GOD-LIKE ENTITY DISTINCT
ADDENDUM
Some applicable material which applies to the arguments presented in this
commentary:
Following is a short list of translations whose translators have understood the
issues inherent in correctly translating John 1:1:
The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop
Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text
1808, LONDON
Rendering: "...and the word was a god"
The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History, According to the Four Evangelists
1829, BALTIMORE (by John S. Thompson)
Rendering: "...and the Logos was a god"
The Emphatic Diaglott
1864,
Rendering: "...and a god was the Word"
The Bible - An American Translation
1935, CHICAGO (by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed)
Rendering: "...and the Word was divine"
New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures
1950, BROOKLYN (by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.)
Rendering: "...and the Word was a god"
Das Evangelium nach Johannes
1975, GOTTINGEN (GERMANY) (by Sigfried Schulz)
"...und ein Gott (oder, Gott von Art) war das Wort"
Rendering: "...and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"
Das Evangelium nach Johannes
1978, BERLIN (GERMANY)(by Johannes Schneider)
"...und goettlichen Wesens war das Wort"
Rendering: "...and god-like sort was the Word"
Das Evangelium nach Johannes
1979, WURZBURG (GERMANY) (by Johannes Schneider)
"...und ein Gott war das Wort"
Rendering: "...and a god was the Word"
The preceding list is by no means exhaustive, but it is sufficient to indicate
clearly that debate concerning the matter is alive and well.
The following incident recorded in the Book of Acts, Chapter 28, lends
interesting insight into the fact that translators are CLEARLY aware of the
issues discussed in this commentary, but in the case of John 1:1, most choose
to ignore them:
VSS 1-6 of Acts 28 relate the apostle Paul's encounter with a venomous snake on
the island of Malta. He is bitten by the snake, and the Maltese residents
present at the time expect that Paul will surely die. When he does not die,
then according to most translations, the residents "began saying that he
was a god."
|
The original Greek for this
phrase follows: |
Notice
that there is no definite article before qeon. ("god") Therefore, the
Greek writer (as in John 1:1) intended indefiniteness, which indefiniteness
MUST be conveyed in English via an indefinite article. (the little red "a")
Translators have ROUTINELY demonstrated that they CLEARLY understand this by
correctly translating this phrase as follows:
|
they were saying he was a god |
Yet,
if they applied the same faulty mentality to this verse as they ROUTINELY do to
John 1:1, then they would INCORRECTLY translate this verse (as they have at
John 1:1) as follows:
|
they were saying he was
god |
Remember!
Because the word "god" has special status as a title of intimacy, the translator could easily get away with this and
nobody would notice...It sounds and looks natural, despite the obvious
alteration in meaning! (Ironically, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference
here because we're talking about Paul and NOT Jesus Christ. (i.e., If the
Maltese islanders want to think that Paul is "God;" or if they want
to think that he's "a god," it's not a doctrinal issue of the immense
proportions of John 1:1.) )
-
FINIS JOHN 1:1 -
So we can see from the article above, that based on the
logical application of Greek grammar and rules of the Greek language, we can
see john 1:1 *does* support the translation of "was a god" or
"was divine", rather than "was God".
(d) Lack of scriptural evidence for the trinity.
Let us ask a simple, logical and powerful question about
the trinity :
(i ) God is a God of order, as revealed in His laws,
methods, and the methodical way He created the earth , and;
(ii ) He is wise, fair and loving, and;
(iii ) He sent His son, Jesus Christ to personally walk
the earth to explain Him and His kingdom to all men, and;
(iv) He left His word preserved in the Bible as declared
directly from Jesus Christ and His Apostles, and;
(v ) There is NO mention of a trinity by word or direct
teaching anywhere in the Bible , and;
(vi ) God is Truth and cannot lie, and;
(vii) He warned us through Jesus Christ that we should
avoid the doctrines of men and test all we hear to make sure it is scripturally
sound.
......then how, in any logical
way, with our reasoning based on the Scriptures, can we expect the dogma of the
trinity to be any part of the Christian faith?
- No where in the Bible is the word "Trinity"
ever mentioned. Not once.
Once we understand that :
(i) Gods breath ( or commonly wrongly translated as
"spirit" from the latin word "espiritu" ) - is an active
force. The word "pnuema" in greek means breath or wind.
Consequently, Gods breath is an enabler.
Notice in Genesis how God breathes into Adams nostrils
to make him a living soul:
"And the LORD God
formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath
of life; and man became a living soul." Gen. 2:7 ( KJV )
The Breath of God achieves Gods
purposes, and that Jesus Christ is the first born of all creation and the Son
of God ( not God Himself ). It is not up to us to invent ideas as to how God works,
rather it makes sense to read the Bible that God has given us , and learn. If
you have an instruction manual for something, wouldnt it be smart to read it
rather than just making things up?
(ii) Jesus is the first born of all creation , the first
begotten Son, God's son. He has a distinct identity, separate from God Himself.
"He’s the image of
the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Through him everything in
heaven and on the earth was created, both the things that are visible and those
that are invisible. Everything has been created through him and for him,
regardless of whether they are thrones, or rulerships, or governments, or
powers.He was before everything and everything came into existence through him.
He’s the head of the body of the congregation." ( Coll 1:15-17 ) ( 2001
Translation )
"And lo a voice from
heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." ( Matt
3:17- KJV )
Note that just because Jesus existed before everything
like angels and the earth, this doesn’t mean he is the same age as God.
Logically, If God is infinitely old ( has no beginning
or end ) , and Jesus was, lets say, created even 1 year before the earth or
universe was created, then Jesus was created before all things, but is still
younger than God. So Jesus is very old, but not as old as God. But Jesus still
had a beginning. To "beget" something means to make/produce it.
"Jesus said to him,
"Go away, Satan! Scripture says, 'Worship the Lord your God and serve only
him.'" ( Matthew
....now if Jesus WAS God as the Trinity doctrine says,
Jesus would have said to Satan to worship him ( Jesus ). But he didn’t.
No-where in the Bible does Jesus or the Apsotles ever say that worshipping
anyone but God is acceptable in Gods eyes. The first Commandment makes this
VERY clear.
And I John saw these
things, and heard [them]. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship
before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto
me, See [thou do it] not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the
prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. ( Rev
22:8-9)
Obviously God alone is to be worshipped , as the Angel
says. Note - no mention of Jesus.
And as Peter was coming
in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped [him].
"But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man." (
Acts 10:25-26 )
Thus the Apostles rejected any form of worship.
"Exalt ye the Lord
our God, and worship at his footstool; for he is holy" (Psalms 99:5).
Again, no mention of Jesus.
(iii) God alone is worthy of Worship.
"Then Jehovah said all of this: ‘I am
Jehovah your God who brought you out of the
So, you must have no gods other than Me.
‘You must not make images
for yourselves of anything in the skies above, on the earth below, or things
that live in the water under the earth. You must not bow before them or serve
them, for I Jehovah your God am a jealous God, and I bring the sins of the
ancestors upon the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of those
who hate Me.
But I am merciful to the thousands who love Me
and keep My Commandments." ( Exodus 20:1-6 )
Its very clear.
God alone is God, and its is He alone who is to be
worshipped. This would have been a perfect time to mention His son as being
worthy of worship, but He didn’t.
The twenty-four older
ones fell down in front of the One who is sitting on the throne and worshiped
the One who lives for ages of ages. Then they threw their crowns before the
throne saying, 11 ‘Jehovah our God, You deserve all glory, honor, and power,
because You created everything… they were created and exist because of Your
Will.’ ( Rev 4:10-11)
"Jesus said to him,
"Go away, Satan! Scripture says, 'Worship the Lord your God and serve only
him.'" ( Matthew
Very clear inst it? Jesus saying DIRECTLY that we
worship God ONLY.
And we see an angel saying to give praise to God alone:
And after these things I saw another angel come
down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his
glory. ( Rev 18:1 )....................And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed
[are] they which are called
unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he
saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God. And I fell at his feet to
worship him. And he said unto me, See [thou do it] not: I am thy fellowservant,
and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the
testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. ( Rev 19:9-10 )
Who shall not fear thee,
O Lord, and glorify thy name? for [thou] only [art] holy: for all nations shall
come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest. ( Rev 15:4 )
"There is one God and there is one mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (I Tim. 2:5).
Note we see that God alone is to be worshipped. Jesus
while being divine, is an advocate with God, not God Himself.
"If any one does sin, we have an advocate
with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous," ( 1 John 2:1).
Again, same thing. God
alone is to be worshipped.
"My glory I give to no other: (Isa. 42:8),
So, you must have no gods other than
By now it should be very clear - God alone is to be
worshipped - no one else.
And as this is the situation, scripture and logic do not
support the trinity - otherwise we would see God saying to direct worship to
Him and Jesus and His breath - but obviously this is not the case. Even if
people said "Well, God is Jesus and God is His breath, then it makes no
difference". Well, we have seen that Jesus and Gods breath are two other
distinct things. Jesus is a separate being. Gods breath comes from God, but is
not a person - its an enabler. And God says nothing about His breath having a
personality in His word.
The trinity is purely a man-made doctrine/dogma without
any credible logical or scriptural evidence. Gods word does not support such an
idea. When we look at poor Bible translations, we find incorrect word usage and
poor translation, which can be twisted to support an man made doctrine. The
next section deals with