John 1:1- No proof!

Texas · Kitten Joined: 19 Dec 2007 Posts: 135 Location: Ontario

IF THE Trinity were true, it should be clearly and
consistently presented in the Bible. Why? Because, as the
apostles affirmed, the Bible is God's revelation of himself
to mankind. And since we need to know God to worship him
acceptably, the Bible should be clear in telling us just who
he is.
Joh 1:1- A mistranslation of the orignal Greek words, "
theon " VS "theos"
En arche en ho logos
In beginning was the word

kai ho logos en pros ton theon
and the word was toward The God
kai theos en ho logos
and god was the word
Joh 1:1 In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
the God, and a god was the Word. Joh 1:2 This was in a
beginning with the God.
John 1:1 has been used through out the history of the
Trinity
in an attempt to prove that Jesus is God.
In most translation you will see Joh 1:1 read this way :

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God." -KJV
This is usually the first verse that a Trinitarian will go
to.
But, let us take a close look at Joh 1:1
The original Greek text reads this way. (Transliterated)
"En arche en ho logos kai ho logos
en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos."

or with the interlinear reading would be:
En arche en ho logos
In beginning was the word

kai ho logos en pros ton theon
and the word was toward The God
kai theos en ho logos
and god was the word

Now we will only look at the last part of this verse,
the part that is in italics. It reads:
"kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos."
Or "and the Word was toward The God and god was the Word."

RevJP · Moderator Joined: 18 Apr 2003 Posts: 6845 Location: USA

(Analytical-Literal Translation)
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word [or, the Expression of [divine] Logic], and the Word was with [or, in communion with] God, and the Word was God [or, was as to His essence God].

(Young's Literal Translation)
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

Joh 1:1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

The problem you have is in translating 'pros' as 'toward' wherein the application of the meaning is actually 'with'.

'the Word was with God'

ragman13 · Labrador Joined: 07 Jul 2007 Posts: 322

Maybe you should ask yourself why John chose to change the word order in the sentence. If you look at the Greek text you will notice the flow and how it changes. Then maybe you should study why the word order is important.

1st clause

Ἐν ἀρχῇ = Adjunct
ἦν = Predicator
ὁ λόγος = Subject

2nd clause

καὶ = Conjunction
ὁ λόγος =Subject
ἦν = Predicator
πρὸς τὸν θεόν = Adjunct

3rd clause

καὶ = Conjunction
θεὸς = Complement
ἦν = Predicator
ὁ λόγος =Subject

RevJP · Moderator Joined: 18 Apr 2003 Posts: 6845 Location: USA

ragman, who are you addressing and what do you mean?

ragman13 · Labrador Joined: 07 Jul 2007 Posts: 322

Sorry Rev I was addressing the OP. I wanted to point out the different orders of the clauses. Normally Greek is written verb-subject-object. But here we have object-verb-subject.

Plotinus · Tiger Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 843 Location: Canada

A good old fashioned John 1:1 debate. What fun! Can I jump in?

Another aspect of the Greek (other than pros and subject - verb object issues) is the lack of a definite article for theos in "the Word was God." There are several ways of responding to this. One is to treat this as part of the fact that theos is the object and not the subject of the clause. Definite articles are commonly omitted in the objective as I understand it.

Another way is taken by the Watchtower Society in translating this as "the word was a god." Generally most biblical scholars have chosen the first interpretation and not that of the Watchtower Societies New World Translation. I have no reason to differ with the majority opinion in that respect. Context is everything. The context here is that Christianity was and is monotheistic. So anything that looks vaguely polytheistic is at least suspect.

However ...................

It must be said that either side can consistently hold its point of view. Greek scholarship tolerates both translations. Since I have defended the majority opinion -- I'm no greek scholar but I know what I like -- let me balance that out by pointing out that in Greek it is perfectly permissible to have theos in the objective case and translate it as "a god". A similar meaning even if not parallel grammar is achieved by Plato in his Laws when he wrote that "Everyone . . . who has not reached the utmost verge of folly is bound to regard the soul as a god." Plato is saying that the soul is a god in the same way that the Watchtower Society translates John's prologue. It would be the utmost verge of folly to translate Plato's remark as meaning "the soul is God" simply because it is the object of the verb. However, Plato was not a Christian. So "a god" is sensible.

Nevertheless ...............

the word "god" in Plato's context (and possibly John's) is best not translated as "a god" in my opinion. Zeus was "a god" and so was Hades. However, Plato (and possibly John) did not mean the word in this sense. The meaning is more clear if we understand "theos" with no definite article as a divine spirit that is the cause of movement -- something we now call energy. When Plato says the soul is a god, he meant that the soul causes the movement of the body. When Thales said that water is a god, he meant that water is the source of motion in our world. A god is the engine for the world's motion.

It is not impossible to infer that John meant to say that the Word is the divine source of the world's energy. This is supported by John 1:3.

JB · Wolf Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 529

Ragman13

You said:

Sorry Rev I was addressing the OP. I wanted to point out the different orders of the clauses. [b]Normally Greek is written verb-subject-object. But here we have object-verb-subject[/b]

Just out of curiosity, where did you get that idea (the area in bold)?

JB

RevJP · Moderator Joined: 18 Apr 2003 Posts: 6845 Location: USA

Hey Plot, interesting points and for the most part I agree, however in the case of the NWT ('a' god) the addition of the definite article in this writing is inconsistent with comparative writings and translations.

True that "Definite articles are commonly omitted in the objective" depending upon use and context, which in this case... isn't the case.

Joebob787 · Rattlesnake Joined: 26 May 2008 Posts: 435 Location: Nj

Hi peoples.

John 1:1
In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
the God, and The word was God.

Revelation19:11-16
11I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and [b]his name is the Word of God[/b]. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter."[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
[b] KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.[/b]

Mattathias · Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:42 pm Post subject:

Who is "the Word" and who is "God" in this verse? Would someone please define these terms for us?

JB · Wolf Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 529

Mattathias,

As Plontius suggested, this text can be seen several ways. So it will just be a battle of pride between the two different ideas. Why not select another verse of the argument for the trinity or against the trinity that will be more academic?

I believe that Jesus is God and you don't. Sounds like a stale mate.

JB

ragman13 · Labrador Joined: 07 Jul 2007 Posts: 322

Hello JB,

Mattathias · Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:05 pm Post subject:

JB · Wolf Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 529

Mattathias,

Some one is right and some one is wrong and both sides are sure they are right.

Interesting.

JB

MoJo · Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:14 pm Post subject:

Has anyone considered the following verses. I never see them referenced

Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it (my word) shall not return unto me void, but it (my word) shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it. (my word)
Isa 55:12 For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap [their] hands.
Isa 55:13 Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree: and **it (my word) shall be to the LORD (Jehovah) for a name,** for an everlasting sign [that] shall not be cut off.

Smile