The Godhead in one verse

Zathrus · Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2002 6:29 pm Post subject: The Godhead in one verse

A lot is being said about the trinity vs. other understandings of the Godhead. I admit I haven't read all the discussion, because there just wouldn't be time. But I'd like to bring up a verse I don't think anyone's brought up yet.

Some of us seem to be looking for a definitive statement by one of the writers of the new testament summing up the Godhead in a nutshell. Maybe the writers never made that a priority.

I have found only one verse that seems to be an attempt by a writer to describe his concept of the Godhead. The focus in John 1:1 is more on who Jesus is. But in 1 Corinthians, Paul contrasts his concept of God with the concepts of dieties that the pagan religions had. He says "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

OK, before you point out that the the Holy Spirit isn't mentioned, let me suggest that He is in there, just not mentioned by that title. Jesus, speaking of the Comforter in John 14:23, said "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."

Also look at verses 17 and 18 of that chapter: 17 "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you."

I don't think I'll be able to fully comprehend the nature of the Godhead in this life. God is a Spirit, and attempts to explain Him by natural analogies are bound to fall short. But these passages have shed some light on the topic for me, so I pass them on for your consideration.

iris89 · Pit Bull Joined: 16 Nov 2002 Posts: 359

Hi Zathrus:

Go to my husband's Discourse on John 1:1 + appendix and learn the real truth:

A discourse on understanding John 1:1.

This discourse will not go down into an in depth explanation of the translating challenges provided by the rather unusual construction of the Apostle John's original writing in Koine (ancient) Greek. Sufficient to say the ancient Greek language had a certain amount of ambiguity as does modern English. Most English translations including the Authorized King James Version (AV), The New American Bible (Catholic) (TNAB), New world Translation (NWT), Goodspeed, Torrey, New English of 1961, Moffatt of 1972, International English Bible (IEB), International Bible Translators N.T. 1981 (IBT), Philip Harner of 1974, Translator's NT of 1973 (TNT), Scholar's Version of 1993, etc. have all made an effort to make the scriptures easier to read and have tried to remove ambiguity of the original text. For example, if the literal text were to say: "The love of God". The translator may decide to translate the text: "God's love for you", or he might translate it: "Your love for God". The reader can interpret the original text either way. when the translator chooses one of the ways to translate a text and eliminates the ambiguity, you miss the opportunity to view the text in other ways. The reader must (if objectivity is to be maintained) keep in mind that the translators of any Bible version were believers in one of the doctrine or beliefs with regard how God Almighty (YHWH), Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves), and the spirit or Holy Ghost relate to each other of which there are five principle beliefs, Oneness Theology, Trinitarian Theology, Arian Theology, Unitarian Theology, and Sabellianism Theology. Therefore, bias will and does exist in translation depending on the translator's theology. This is especially true with respect John 1:1 because of its unique and ambiguous grammatical structure it allows for translators to translate it at least nine different ways that all have equal validity from the language structure point of view, in that none of these can either A discourse on understanding John 1:1.
This discourse will not go down into an in depth explanation of the translating challenges provided by the rather unusual construction of the Apostle John's original writing in Koine (ancient) Greek. Sufficient to say the ancient Greek language had a certain amount of ambiguity as does modern English. Most English translations including the Authorized King James Version (AV), The New American Bible (Catholic) (TNAB), New world Translation (NWT), Goodspeed, Torrey, New English of 1961, Moffatt of 1972, International English Bible (IEB), International Bible Translators N.T. 1981 (IBT), Philip Harner of 1974, Translator's NT of 1973 (TNT), Scholar's Version of 1993, etc. have all made an effort to make the scriptures easier to read and have tried to remove ambiguity of the original text. For example, if the literal text were to say: "The love of God". The translator may decide to translate the text: "God's love for you", or he might translate it: "Your love for God". The reader can interpret the original text either way. when the translator chooses one of the ways to translate a text and eliminates the ambiguity, you miss the opportunity to view the text in other ways. The reader must (if objectivity is to be maintained) keep in mind that the translators of any Bible version were believers in one of the doctrine or beliefs with regard how God Almighty (YHWH), Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves), and the spirit or Holy Ghost relate to each other of which there are five principle beliefs, Oneness Theology, Trinitarian Theology, Arian Theology, Unitarian Theology, and Sabellianism Theology. Therefore, bias will and does exist in translation depending on the translator's theology. This is especially true with respect John 1:1 because of its unique and ambiguous grammatical structure it allows for translators to translate it at least nine different ways that all have equal validity from the language structure point of view, in that none of these can either be proven totally correct or incorrect, i.e., a translator's nightmare. In an unusual case like this the translator can only fall back on related text with similar structure and his own belief system, BIAS.

Now, let's look at the original Koine Greek writing as shown in the work of Westcott & Hort Interlinear (John 1:1-3):
[[The Bulletin Board can not handle Koine Greek, if you want to see it send me an email, iris89@uymainl.com]]

Now let's look at the three most common renderings of John 1:1 into modern English with a brief mention of some of the Bibles that follow each:

1. " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1 AV)
This style rendering is found in most of the Bibles translations made by believers in the Trinitarian Theology and include the Authorized King James Version (AV), The New American Bible (Catholic) (TNAB), etc.

2. "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (John 1:1 NWT)
This style rendering is found in most of the Bible translations made by believers in the Arian theology
And many translators of no particular theology and include The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin 1883, NWT, Belsham N.T. 1809, Leicester Ambrose, 1879, Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary), Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983,etc.

3. "In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God. The Message was deity." (John 1:1 International Bible Translators N.T. 1981).
This style rendering is found in most of the Bible translations made by believers in the Unitarian Theology and by some of Arian Theology And many translators of no particular theology and include the International Bible Translators N.T. (IBT), Translator's NT of 1973, Goodspeed of 1939, Moffatt of 1972, Simple English Bible, etc.

Now a short summary of the various beliefs of the varies theological views with respect the nature of God Almighty (YHWH), Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) and the spirit or Holy Ghost and how each views the relationships between each:

five principle beliefs, Oneness Theology, Trinitarian Theology, Arian Theology, Unitarian Theology, and Sabellianism Theology.

ARIAN THEOLOGY
They believe that there is one God, and that God is one. That God is called the Heavenly Father (YHWH). That we have one Lord who is not God, Jesus Christ (Yeshua or YHWH saves), who is the son of God (son of YHWH). And they believe the holy Spirit is the influence of God's power. The Father (YHWH) and Son (Yeshua or YHWH saves), are separate beings and the Father (YHWH) is superior in power, wisdom and authority. Jesus is God's express image and was given all power on heaven and earth.

Uniqueness - They believe that there is but one God (YHWH) who is one person who is the Father.. That His son, Jesus Christ (Yeshua or YHWH saves), was his first creation and through His son created all of creation.

ONENESS THEOLOGY
They believe that the Father (YHWH), the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) and the Holy Spirit are the same God with no distinction in person or being. That only one God simply manifests himself in these three ways at different times.

Uniqueness - They believe that they are unique in that they conform strictly to the objective of having only one God where as others have more than one God.

SABELLIANISM THEOLOGY
God is three only in relation to the world, in so many "manifestations" or "modes." The unity and identity of God are such that the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) did not exist before the incarnation; because the Father (YHWH) and the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) are thus one, the Father (YHWH) suffered with the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) in his passion and death.

Uniqueness - They believe that God is one in earthly manifestations, but not heavenly. [Branham's Bible Believers, Inc.][ to Branham's 1189 page book "Conduct, Order, Doctrine of the Church," the "First thing is to straighten out you on your 'trinity' Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. "God is like a three-foot rule... The first twelve inches was God, the Father; the second twelve inches, God, the Son, the same God; the third twelve inches was God, the Holy Ghost, the same God," (pp.182 & 184). Branham clarifies his position in a speech given October 2, 1957 when he exclaims, "See, there cannot be an Eternal son, because a son had to have a beginning. And so Jesus had a beginning, God had no beginning," (Ibid, p.273).]
[[Note, this has much in common with Oneness Theology]]

TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY
They believe that there is one but God made up of three separate and distinct persons of but one indivisible essence. That these three persons existed from eternity, and are co-equal in power and substance. These individuals are known as Father (YHWH), Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) and the Holy Spirit. The undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons. The Church (Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestants) confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man.

Uniqueness - They see a distinction in the persons of God, but hold that there is but one God. It is a mystery, i.e., they are not able to explain it.

UNITARIAN THEOLOGY
They believe that there is one God, the Father (YHWH), and one Lord, Jesus Christ (Yeshua or YHWH saves). Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) became God's son at his birth on earth but had not exist previously. The holy Spirit is God's power.

Uniqueness - They do not believe that their beliefs are similar to Arian, but believe that Jesus's existence began with his earthly birth.

Note: for more details see: The Encyclopedia Britannica; The Great Debate Regarding The Father, Son & Holy Spirit by Roger Wagner (on line at http://reslight.addr.com/greatdebate.html ); The Two Babylons by Rev. Alexander Hilsop (on line at http://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/default.htm ); http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const1.txt (minutes of the Council of Constantinopile in 381AD); http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/monarchi.htm ; http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Sabellianism ; http://www.sandiego.edu/~baber/research/sabellianism.html ; http://members.aol.com/davecrnll/corrupt4.html ; http://www.yashanet.com/library/antisem.htm ; http://www.webzonecom.com/ccn/cults/sabel.txt ; etc.

Now that we have considered who believes what, let's consider the meaning of John 1:1. The believers in the Trinity Theology of course translate it to make it appear that the Almighty God Father (YHWH) and his, Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) are one and the same, but is this reasonable when considered with other Bible text? No it is not as Almighty God's (YHWH's) son ,Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) is clearly shown to be a lesser one than his father, consider, " Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (John 14:28 AV) where the same writer of John 1:1 clearly shows the Father (YHWH) as being greater as he does again at " Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (John 5:19 AV) where the Apostle John quotes Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) as saying, "The Son can do nothing of himself." These two verses both in the same book as John 1:1 make it clear that whereas grammatically speaking John 1:1 could be rendered as in the Authorized King James Version it can not be correctly rendered this way due to the contents of the remainder of the Book of John. The writings of Paul even make this clearer, " And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:28 AV), " But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (1 Corinthians 11:3 AV), "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." (Philippians 2:5-8 AV). All these scriptures show Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) was obedient to his father (YHWH) and subordinate to his father (YHWH). Clearly this shows the error of Oneness Theology, Trinitarian Theology, and Sabellianism Theology.

But let's for argument sake say that the Father and the Son are one God as these three groups claim, we are left with a gap that can not be closed in their theories and the way their biased Bible translators translate John 1:1. Even if we are to accept the way these biased translators translated John 1:1, this verse can in no way be interpreted to justify a "triune" God. Let's do a little analysis, it is immediately obvious from reading this verse translated with a Trinitarian/Oneness/Sabellianism bias that at most we are speaking of a "duality" and not a "triune" God. Even the most resolute Trinitarian/Oneness/Sabellianism believer will never be able to be able to find any mention in this verse of any "merging" of a Holy Ghost with God and with "the word." So even if we accept at face value the rendering in the Authorized King James Version, and have faith, even then, we find ourselves commanded/directed to believe in a "duality" and not a "trinity." In the original ancient (Koine) Greek, manufscript, "the word" is described as "ton theos" (divine/a god) and not as being "ho theos" (the Divine/the God). In my opinion, the writer of this discourse, this verse should be translated something like the following, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was divine." You will note Word was NOT capitalized in this as no indication or grammatical structure in the original would indicates it should be capitalized; of course this is NOT in accordance with any of the common Bibles such as the Authorized King James (AV), The New American Bible (Catholic) TNAB, the New World Translation (NWT), The New Testament, An American Translation, Goodspeed's Translation, Moffatt's Translation (which uses Logas instead of Word), etc.

Another point to consider, is other verses using "ho theos" in the Bible in the original Koine Greek; such as " In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (2 Corinthians 4:4 AV) We find the same word ("ho theos") being used in John 1:1 to describe God Almighty (YHWH) is now used to describe the Devil, then why should it be changed from simply translating it as "the god" when referring to the Devil while "divine" is translated as "God" when referring to "the Word"? Also, as previously dealt with, why is Word capitalized? The term god can be applied to anyone with an elevated position as shown by " I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." (Psalms 82:6 AV). In fact, The Catholic New World Dictionary to the New American Bible, 1970 candidly admits, "In the New Testament, the Greek Theos with the article (The God) means the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (see Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; etc.). Thus God is almost the name of the first person of the blessed Trinity. Without the article, God designates the divinity, and so is applicable to the pre-existing Word (Jn. 1:3). The term God is applied to Jesus in only a few texts, and even their interpretation is under dispute (Jn. 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1)." This clearly proves the point that the translators with a Trinitarian Theology bias have little or no support for their way of translating John 1:1.

Yet another point to consider is the meaning of Father and of Son, "The Doctrine of The Trinity defies the universally accepted and historically always held meaning of the words for father and son. Not only does it defy the meaning of these words, it destroys their meaning! This fact is important to realize for God gave us language. It was not invented by man as the evolutionist tries to say. Thus, we are not destroying man made terms, but God-given terms! These terms, as given to us by God, require that the father exists before the son, and for the son to be brought into existence by the father. This universally accepted and recognized definition is what these terms have meant from the beginning of this creation. Therefore, who has given anyone the authority to change these God-given terms now? In fact, The Lord Jesus Christ verifies the meaning of these terms when he says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." John 13:16 "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." John 14:28. Here, he establishes that God is his lord, that he was sent by his lord, that God is his Father, and that his Father is greater than he himself. How could any of these declarations be true if the Doctrine of The Trinity is true? It is clearly impossible for these declarations of The Lord Jesus Christ to be true and the Doctrine of The Trinity to be True! It is easy to see that these words of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Doctrine of the Trinity are mutually exclusive and opposing views!

Now notice that " And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him." (Luke 2:40 AV) and " And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." (Luke 2:52 AV) require that this special son has to learn the difference between good and evil. If he was God, then how could such a statement apply? Isn't God omniscient? Isn't this passage teaching us that this special son would have to go through a learning process like every other normal natural human being? Isn't it telling us that he at one time did not know the difference between good and evil? Isn't it teaching us that he would have to learn to refuse the evil and choose the good? The answer to these questions is obviously yes! It doesn't take someone with a doctorate degree to answer them. In fact, the only too obvious answer to all of these questions destroys The Trinitarian concept of this special son. Furthermore, this conclusion from this passage is verified by what is said about The Lord Jesus Christ in The New Testament. Consider the following passages:
And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. Luke 2:40.
And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. Luke 2:52.
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. Matt. 24:36.
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Mark 13:32.
For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. John 5:20.
And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. Acts 1:7
The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John. Rev. 1:1.
At this point, let us briefly look at the implications of the above listed passages. We will take them in the order in which we quoted them." ( an excerpt from a letter of Bro. Scaramastro).
Now as can be readily seen from the foregoing, John 1:1 can definitely be translated at least nine different ways that all have equal validity from the language structure point of view, in that none of these can either be proven totally correct or incorrect; however, by reasoning and looking at other text using the same word, we can see even if we accept translations having a "triune" God bias there is only a "duality" shown, but the same word used elsewhere indicates this is not the way it should be translated. Since this discourse is meant for ordinary readers and not translators no in-depth details of translation are dealt with; however, for those wanting more detail with respect translation see:
See Appendix on John 1:1: http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/germans.htm [probably the best in-depth translation detail anywhere on the subject]; http://www.riverpower.org/John/C01v01-3.htm ; http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/John%2011.htm ; http://www.seekgod.org/bible/chapters/1john1.html ; http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch1.2.2.6.html ; http://web.fares.net/w/.ee7f254 ; http://bibles.datasegment.com/weymouth/1%20John/1 ; http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/JohnChapterOneCorrected.html ; http://reslight.addr.com/john1.html [excellent background source]; http://www.vocationsvancouver.com/scripture_1_john_1_1_4.htm; http://www.christianeducational.org/faq/v1i3.pdf; http://www.christianeducational.org/bookpromo.htm [source for interesting book with more information on Trinity] ; http://reslight.addr.com/john20-28.html (source for books and facts on Trinity); http://www.tellway-publishing.com ("Jesus-God or the Son of God?" by Brian Holt - one of the best)

Special Translation Appendix on John 1:1:

This is a short introduction on the translation of the word 'god' in its various forms, for a much more detailed explanation go to http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/germans.htm.

Item 1) 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 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.

Item 2) The fact is that THEOS (=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 THEOS 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, THEOS 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 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]

Item 3) How some Bible translators who did not have bias translated:

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]

Item 4) 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

We notice that these Bibles do not translate John 1:1 with the simple expression "The Word was God" like most Bibles do. Why is that? The footnote to John 1:1 in The New American Bible states the following reason:
"Was God: lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification."
What the footnote is saying is that first time "God" appears in the verse, "was with God", there is a definite article before God so it literally reads "was with THE God". The second time God appears, "was God," there is no definite article (the). This signifies "God" may be used as a predicate and not as an identification.
Regarding this fact, the Anchor Bible states:

"To preserve in English the different nuance of theos [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 theos (god). We notic each reference to logos (word) is preceded by the definite article "the", while two of the three times the word theos (god) occurs, it too is preceded by the definite article "the". For some reason, John does not provide the definite article with theos 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 theos" (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 efinite 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".

Your friend Iris

------------------
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."

Van · Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2002 8:32 pm Post subject: The Godhead in one verse

I think 1 Corinthians 8:6 is an excellent verse. Some will say that all things did not come through our Lord Jesus, but instead God created Jesus, and then everything else came through Jesus. It really does not matter what verse you quote, they are ready with an interpretation to support their view.

Jesus is the first except they will assert that he wasn't because Yhwh was first and Jesus is not Yhwh.

[This message has been edited by Van (edited 12-10-2002).]

Ryck · Lion King Joined: 05 Dec 2002 Posts: 1094

By Zathrus:

quote:

I admit I haven't read all the discussion, because there just wouldn't be time.

Welcome!

Well, there has been a lot of material posted. I'm sure you'll find it an interesting read if you get the time.

You can jump on the fast-track by considering my post "Paul and the Trinity".

quote:

Some of us seem to be looking for a definitive statement by one of the writers of the new testament summing up the Godhead in a nutshell. Maybe the writers never made that a priority.

More likely is that it was always their stict monotheism that God is the Father only.

Thanks for sharing your view.

[This message has been edited by Ryck (edited 12-10-2002).]

Zathrus · Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2002 3:02 pm Post subject: The Godhead in one verse

quote:
Originally posted by Ryck:
More likely is that it was always their stict monotheism that God is the Father only.

That's an excellent point, Ryck. And by the way, I did read most of your "Paul and the Trinity" post today, and saw Beisners comments on 1 Cor. 8:4-6. Extremely interesting.

I essentially agree with your reasoning regarding the distinction between God the Father and Jesus. However, I think the fact that God the Father has made Jesus Lord also gives Jesus the quality of being Divine, or deity. Jesus did not claim to be God in and of Himself, but said that He had received all that He had from the Father.

I believe Jesus is God because God the Father declared Him to be God.

Peter said "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."

The writer of Hebrews wrote "...He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." I think he meant that name was GOD.

This idea was presented in the book of Exodus chapt. 23:20 and 21: "Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him."

Paul later wrote that Christ was the Rock that went with the Israelites through the wilderness.

Iris, I thank you for replying but apologize for not having sufficient time or attention span to read all of your post. However, the following quote caught my eye:

quote:
Originally posted by Iris89:
"This passage then [John 1:1] does not identify the Logos and God; it does not say that Jesus was God, nor does it call him God; but it does say that in his nature and being he belongs to the same class as God."

I think Mr. Barclay's reasoning is perfectly sound, and it is encouraging to read others coming to similar conclusions as I, since it reassures me I'm on the right track. He puts it so well when he says Jesus "in His nature and being belongs to the same class as God". That is my understanding exactly. I believe, as I stated above, that Jesus received the quality of deity when God the Father declared Him to be Lord.

This settles any questions in my mind of how Jesus refers to God the Father as His God in Revelation 3:12, yet is Himself called God in Hebrews 1:8. And how He, being a Divine being (God), still speaks of the Father as being greater than He.