Greek Propositions

JB · Grizzly Bear Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 730

In my advanced Greek studies I have come up against a study on Greek Propositions in the Nominative Case. In John 1:1 we read In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

Is the phrase " the Word was God" a subset proposition or a convertible proposition and why.

JB

Mattathias · Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:40 am Post subject:

I'm no expert on Greek. (I survived one brutal semester.) Would you care to lay out the pros and cons of each option for our consideration?
_________________
"The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.'" (Galatians 3:8 NASB)

JB · Grizzly Bear Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 730

Mattathias,

The Word was God. In a subset proposition, the phrase may be convertible but if the idea isn't equivalent to the subject it cannot be converted.

Option #1 If we interpret the Word as a quality of God then we cannot convert the phrase to say "God was the Word" and it must remain the "Word was God". The reason for this idea is the fact that an attribute isn't equal to the larger category. In this case the larger category would be God.

Option#2 If we interpret the Word as another form of the definition of God then it would be equivalent and then the proposition would be convertible.

What it boils down to is how we interpret the meaning of "Word"

JB

Mattathias · Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 4:04 am Post subject:

JB · Grizzly Bear Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 730

Mattathias,

You said:

It seems to be a very fine line to me. How can we separate God (or man) from His (or their) logos?

That is the problem. Is the Logos all there is to Jesus or is the Logos an attempt to define an attribute of Jesus?

I don't have the answer and I am not sure that it is a simple one.

JB

Mattathias · Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 5:37 pm Post subject:

JB · Grizzly Bear Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 730

Mattathias,

Thank you for your effort. I will be taking my placement exam and I am sure that this will be on it.

God Bless

JB

Mattathias · Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 5:51 pm Post subject:

Daystar · Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:42 am Post subject:

John 1:1 is mistranslated in an obvious attempt to promote the Platonic trinity. The trinity doctrine was introduced to Christianity through the philosopher Plato who discovered it through his travels.

In the Greek the term is "kai theos en ho logos" which can accurately be translated as "and the word was a god (or godlike, divine)." Theos is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and it isn't preceded by the definite article. It is what is known as an anarthrous theos. The God with whom the Logos or Word was comes from the Greek ho theos, the theos is peceded by the definite article ho. That is an articular theos. The articular construction of the noun indicates an identity, a personality, but the singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb indicates a quality about someone.

In other words John wasn't saying that the Word or Logos was the God with whom he was because that would be silly.

In his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in Joh 1:1, "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite." On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."

The question then becomes if the translators of the NWT are so inferior why did they get it right while most of the other translators didn't. And that is the funny thing, you see ... the other translators do get it right when the same structure is used elsewhere so long as it doesn't interfere with the pagan trinity doctrine. As complicated as the above lesson in Greek may seem it is actually a simple one which can been seen in places throughout the BIble where it is used.

For example ...

Mark 6:49

New World Translation - an apparition

King James Version - a spirit

An American Translation - a ghost

New International Version - a ghost

Revised Standard Version - a ghost

Today’s English Version - a ghost

Mark 11:32

New World Translation - a prophet

King James Version - a prophet

An American Translation - a prophet

New International Version - a prophet

Revised Standard Version - a prophet

Today’s English Version - a prophet

John 12:6

New World Translation - a thief

King James Version - a thief

An American Translation - a thief

New International Version - a thief

Revised Standard Version - a thief

Today’s English Version - a thief

Those other translators seem to have understood the Greek language enough to get it right except for that one verse. John 1:1. I wonder why? Trinity? Yeah.

Here are 5 more translations who got it right.

"and the word was a god" - The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London. 1808.

"and the Word was divine" - The Bible - An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago. 1935.

"and a god (or, of a divine (Das Evangelium nach kind) was the Word" - Johannes, by Siegfried - Schulz, Göttingen, Germany. 1975.

"and godlike sort was (Das Evangelium nach) the Logos" - Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin. 1978.

"and a god was the Logos (Das Evangelium nach)" - Johannes, by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany. 1979.

Daystar · Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:51 am Post subject:

JB · Grizzly Bear Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 730

Daystar,

You said:

In the Greek the term is "kai theos en ho logos" which can accurately be translated as "and the word was a god (or godlike, divine)." Theos is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and it isn't preceded by the definite article. It is what is known as an anarthrous theos. The God with whom the Logos or Word was comes from the Greek ho theos, the theos is peceded by the definite article ho. That is an articular theos. The articular construction of the noun indicates an identity, a personality, but the singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb indicates a quality about someone.

You obviously are a JW or some other misinformed religious follower. Your assessment of the Greek is poor at best. But I have learned long ago that I cannot help JW's. I apologize for that.

JB

Mattathias · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:07 pm Post subject:

JB · Grizzly Bear Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 730

Daystar,

Let's put this one to rest quick.

The New World Translations is broken. The use of the indefinite article a is a serious breach of Greek construction.

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

In the last part of the verse και θεος ην ο λογος theos is predicate nominative. It is anarthrous and comes before the verb. Therefore it fits Colwells construction., though it might not fit the rule. Whether it is indefinite, qualitative, or definite is the real issue .

John 1:1 c as an indefinite article.

If theos were an indefinite article, we would translate it as, a god. If so the theological implication would be some form of polytheisim, suggesting that the word was a secondary god in a pantheon of deities.

The grammatical argument that the PN or predicate nominative here in this text indefinite is a very weak argument. The only argument that these people offer is that it is anarthrous. Yet they are inconsistent in their use of that idea.

If we take this discussion to other anarthrous terms in Johanine writing, we notice other inconsistencies in the NWT (New World Translation) This text renders theos as a god on the simplistic grounds that it lacks the article. This is surely an insufficient argument.

If we say that anarthrous = indefinite that would make αρχη a beginning instead of in the beginning. In John 1:4 ζωὴ would be a life but they didn't do that.

In verse 6 based on that translation approach we would have to say that Ἰωάννης· a John instead of John.

In verse 18 θεον would have to be interpreted a god. It isn't.

Not once does the NWT do that. That is a contradiction to their base argument for John 1:1.

Here is another argument against the indefinite article. If it were indefinite in John 1:1 it would be the only anarthrous pre-verbal PN in John's Gospel.

The indefinite proposal by the JW's for the anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative is at best very poor. Also in addition to that the context of John 1:1 suggests that it isn't very likely. The Word existed in the beginning. He was already there.

Contextually and grammatically, it is an impossibility that logos could be a god according to John. And my last thought for now at least is that it conflicts with the rest of John's writing.
(John 5:23, 8:58, 10:30, 20:28) and there are more.

JB (the village idiot) Very Happy

Mattathias · Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:04 am Post subject:

JB · Grizzly Bear Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 730

Mattathias,

There is obviously a problem with every generation of translation. And it seems that John was no exception. It seems to be a difficult passage. But not for me.

Here are some texts that seem to have it right.

The Bishops Bible 1568 AD
In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God.

Geneva Bible 1560 AD
In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God

I could post many others. I guess I can't give you a reasonable answer for their screw up in translation.

JB