NAILING DOWN the fraud of John 1:1 by demonstration (page 2)

Magnum

Thank you. Can't wait to watch this. I've given a lot of thought to Joh 1:1 over the years.

leaving_quietly

I have the texts of Wescott and Hort and the Textus Receptus in PDF format. They BOTH say "God was the Word"

Wescott & Hort:

Textus Receptus:

Wonderment

As leaving_quietly aptly observed, both the WH and TR Greek texts read similarly.

The professor, as it true of most Trinitarians, want to make theós in Jn 1.1c the subject of the clause. He says the Greek requires it. It does not. He even said so, when he said ‘unless the context requires the indefinite article, the noun theós should be rendered without one, as if it was the subject.’ Colwell said something similar about the context.

The subject in Jn 1.1c is the Word, not theós. I will give u two reasons: First, the Word Logos has the article before it, indicating it is the definite subject, and theós does not. Normally, in Greek, nouns placed before the verb are indicative of character or quality, not personality. Even Colwell admitted that nouns in this emphatical position may rule out his grammatical rule that they must be definite.

Secondly, this verse speaks of two individuals (the Word was with the God), so by ommiting the article before theós in the third clause, the noun becomes adjectival, and having the Logos with the article makes it clearly the subject. The Logos was the one with God.

The same grammatical structure is found in Acts 28.4, where virtually all translations render the similar noun with an indefinite article.

Literal Greek of Acts 28.4, "murderer is the man." Compare this with: god was the word." The man (Paul) is said to be, supersticiously, by the islanders, "a murderer," (NOT the murderer, or Murderer) for having survived a viper bite. They are describing the kind of man Paul must have been for not swelling up from the bite. The same with Jn 1.1c.

New American Bible (Catholic): "This man must certainly be a murderer."

NIV ("Evangelical"): "This man must be a murderer."

Thus, providing the list of scholars in the website, "Let us reason" only proves that most Trinitarians agree with the professor at John 1:1c. However, I bet those same Trinitarian scholars will accept the fact that in Acts 28:4 the noun before the verb and subject, should be rendered with an indefinite article. Why? Simple! Christ is not involved in the description, so they can see normal Greek grammar at work, but at Jn 1.1, they cannot see it. It's all about theology, not grammar!

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }a:link { }

suavojr

Very interesting video. I learned more about the origin of these manuscripts in less than 2 hours, than 2 weeks at the pioneer school.

scary21

Thanks for posting this. I find this stuff very interesting.

TD

The TR vs. W&H debate is practically approaching the status of a straw man in view of how long Nestle Aland has been the standard. .

smiddy

I just like to read the " Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Christian Greek Scriptures" published by the WTB&TS a word for word translation......" the Word was with God and the Word was God"

smiddy

WheninDoubt

This argument was used in the 70’s by people that converted to “Born again Christian’s”

Reborn to make assertions that somehow by doing this, they could themselves become the light and the way to salvation. God like, since they mistakenly believe that Jesus is the True God spoken in the bible.

Ignorance that has been filtered thru misconception on how one reads the bible.

People continue to think, by taking away or changing a syllable will somehow change the entire understanding of what the bible expresses, or it's intent.

I myself had the opportunity to discuss this with an active member from the Born again sect. A simple question that I posed could not be answered if indeed they felt Christ was God.

MY question was: If you really believe Jesus is God, Then when he was being sacrificed or crucified, then to whom was he speaking to in Matthew 27:46, when he looked into the heavens, and Said” my God my God why have you forsaken me”

If he is God or as you people place him here in this forum, A GOD, then he would not have had a need to speak out and just do what he came to do, to become the sacrificial lamb for all mankind. Hay!!!

But wait, he wouldn’t have to have done that either.

The interpretation of the Bible from the old codex of many languages that were and in some instances still are, are no perfect. If a religion needs to be as close to the correct meanings, then they strive to learn the correct meaning. Theology as in science is finding the answer, not by debate but by actions.

Something this forum lacks. Knowledge.

With this, then you understand what John meant in 1:1, he drew parallels to the phrase “in the beginning” referring to Jesus being the first born of our heavenly father, and creation by our father in heaven, and how that contrast would be intertwined from the old testament to the new so it could be fully understood by the generations to come.

So the ideal of the Westcott and Hort Greek text or even the Textus Receptus is convoluted to the distortions of the video.

Keeps in mind however you view the bible, there is always someone attempting to disprove it, and that goes within religion. This is what some people say about Westcott:

Westcott, Hermes & the Occult

While advocates of the King James Only position have hurled a myriad of accusations at Brooke Foss Westcott, none is perhaps more serious in nature than the assertion that he was a practitioner of the occult. The first bit of evidence produced by Gail Riplinger in support of this thesis is his membership in a student association at Cambridge University named the Hermes Club

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.

Webster's Bible Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Weymouth New Testament
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;

New International Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New Living Translation
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

English Standard Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New American Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and 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.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Proverbs 8:23
I was formed long ages ago, at the very beginning, when the world came to be.

Luke 24:53
and they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.

John 1:2
He was with God in the beginning.

John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 8:58
"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary “ Born again Christian”

1:1-5 The plainest reason why the Son of God is called the Word, seems to be, that as our words explain our minds to others, so was the Son of God sent in order to reveal his Father's mind to the world. What the evangelist says of Christ proves that he is God.

Different interpretations or thoughts.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

In the beginning was the word, That this is said not of the written word, but of the essential word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, is clear, from all that is said from hence, to John 1:14 as that this word was in the beginning, was with God, and is God; from the creation of all things being ascribed to him, and his being said to be the life and light of men; from his coming into the world, and usage in it; from his bestowing the privilege of adoption on believers; and from his incarnation; and also there is a particular application of all this to Christ

Not to give us any abstract information about certain mysterious distinctions in the Godhead, but solely to let the reader know who it was that in the fullness of time "was made flesh." After each verse, then, the reader must say, "It was He who is thus, and thus, and thus described, who was made flesh."Joh 1:1-5 The Divinity of Christ.

Meyer's NT Commentary

John 1:1. Ἐν ἀρχῇ] John makes the beginning of his Gospel parallel with that of Genesis;[61] but he rises above the historical conception of בְּרֵאשִׁית, which (Genesis 1:1) includes the beginning of time itself, to the absolute conception of anteriority to time: the creation is something subsequent,

HASTING’S

Great Texts of the Bible

The Word

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.—John 1:1.

1. The text seems speculative and hard to understand. But St. John wrote the Fourth Gospel with a practical aim, and in language which he meant to be intelligible. What his aim was he states in the end of the twentieth chapter—the chapter with which his Gospel originally ended (he himself seems to have added the twenty-first at a later time). He says: “These are written, (1) that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and (2) that believing ye may have life in his name.” No doubt his language was more familiar to his Jewish readers than it is to us.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

1–5. The Word in His own Nature

1. In the beginning] The meaning must depend on the context. In Genesis 1:1 it is an act done ‘in the beginning;’ here it is a Being existing ‘in the beginning,’ and therefore prior to all beginning. That was the first moment of time; this is eternity, transcending time. Thus we have an intimation that the later dispensation is the confirmation and infinite extension of the first. ‘In the beginning’ here equals ‘before the world was,’ John 17:5. Compare John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4; and contrast ‘the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ,’ Mark 1:1, which is the historical beginning of the public ministry of the Messiah (John 6:64): ‘the beginning’ here is prior to all history. To interpret ‘Beginning’ of God as the Origin of all things is not correct, as the context shews.

Etc, etc, Etc.

EdenOne

Marked

galaxie

Each will interpret and reason according to their own bias...The relevancy of any scriptural meaning convoluted from the ' prima facie ' serves only to bolster dogma.

Why the writings and subsequent workings (physical and interpretation )of ancient and NOT original manuscript exites argument to the point of division amongst modern people who can clearly see the harmful consequences throughout history of such division is perplexing,given that our evidential and tangible world is imo by far more wonderful and worthy of our precious time.

NAILING DOWN the fraud of John 1:1 by demonstration

Share this