The Logos and Theos in John 1:1

by stev 21 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  mdb,

  If, instead of the Bible, you were studying an anthology of English literature, what would be the point of turning to Shelley to explain Shakespeare, or saying "Keats cannot mean this because Wilde says that"? You can compare texts within a common culture, notice literary influences, coincidences, agreements and disagreements... but each text would ultimately have to stand by itself and be read for itself. Asking what the anthology "teaches" would be a pretty stupid question.

  Well, the Bible may be just that. An anthology. Providing for fascinating yet often misleading intertextuality. When you read a particular text such as the Gospel of John you should make sure you don't read a foreign notion (of "g/God," for instance) into it.
• 

  yaddayadda

  The fact is that there are a number of very reputable Greek scholars who argue that John 1:1 should not be translated as 'and the Word was God'. So John 1:1, trinitarians pet 'proof' text, is not a categorical statement but is open to debate.

  and goes against the context of the Scriptures as a whole

  Poppycock. Any objective person reading of the bible will tell you every time that the overall context of the scriptures weights completely against the trinity concept. There are only a small handful of scriptures that even sniff at a duality, let alone a trinity.

  There is indeed only one true God - the Father, YHWH, the God of the Jews - whom Jesus himself said was his God and who Jesus consistently and repeatedly put the emphasis on. Go back and read the 4 gospels again my son.

  You are correct on one thing - the bible does speak for itself and most certainly does not contradict itself. That is why the Trinity is so laughable.
• 

  Honesty

  
  You are correct on one thing - the bible does speak for itself and most certainly does not contradict itself. That is why the Trinity is so laughable.

  
  

  
  Let's see what the Bible says about Jesus and Jehovah, shall we?

  Will you read the following scriptures and tell me who is being referred to in each scripture?

  Or will you just ridicule that which you don't understand or believe?

  Jeremiah 32:18 ----- Jesus or Jehovah?

  Isaiah 9:6 ---- Jesus or Jehovah?

  Isaiah 43:10 ---- Jesus or Jehovah?

  John 1:1, 14 ----- Jesus or Jehovah?

  Isaiah 45:22 ----- Jesus or Jehovah?

  John 20:28 ------ Jesus or Jehovah?

  Isaiah 44:24 ----- Jesus or Jehovah?

  2 Peter 1:1 ---- Jesus or Jehovah?

  Genesis 18:1, 14 ------ Jesus or Jehovah?

  Titus 2:13 ---- Jesus or Jehovah?

  Jeremiah 23:6 ---- Jesus or Jehovah?

  Hebrews 1:8 ---- Jesus or Jehovah?

  1 John 5:20 ---- Jesus or Jehovah?

  I trust that you will reply to this post and its contents.
• 

  Honesty

  Here are a few more for you to contemplate on:

  Rev 17:14 ---- Jesus or Jehovah?

  Psalms 136:1-3 ---- Jesus or Jehovah?

  Rev 19:16 ---- Jesus or Jehovah?

  Deuteronomy 10:17 --- Jesus or Jehovah?

  1 Timothy 6:14-16 --- Jesus or Jehovah?

  Job 33:24 --- Jesus or Jehovah?

  John 1:3 ---- Jesus or Jehovah?

  Isaiah 40:28 --- Jesus or Jehovah?

  Col. 1:15-17 ----- Jesus or Jehovah?

  Genesis 1:1 ------ Jesus or Jehovah?

  Hebrews 1:10 ----- Jesus or Jehovah?
• 

  Honesty

  And a few more just in case you think the Bible is an anomaly when referring to God:

  1 Corinthians 10:4 ---- Jesus or Jehovah?

  Exodus 17:6 --- Jesus or Jehovah?

  Isaiah 8:14 --- Jesus or Jehovah?

  Isaiah 17:10 --- Jesus or Jehovah?

  1 Peter 2:6 ---- Jesus or Jehovah?

  2 Samuel 22:32 ---- Jesus or Jehovah?

  Deuteronomy 32:4 ---- Jesus or Jehovah?
• 

  Honesty

  Want any more of the few scriptures that even hint at duality or is this enough to keep you scrambling for a refutation from the celebrated works of the Faithful Discreet Slave?
• 

  TD

  The fact is that there are a number of very reputable Greek scholars who argue that John 1:1 should not be translated as 'and the Word was God'. So John 1:1, trinitarians pet 'proof' text, is not a categorical statement but is open to debate.

  
  

  I know when you take beginning and intermediate classes in NT Greek, the subject won't be open for debate. Your textbook will read something like this:
  

  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  But I have an American's love for both the underdog and a good debate. So my question would be, What scholars?
• 

  fahrvegnugen

  
  TD--Not sure if I understand you here. Are you claiming that this passage as diagrammed in this introductory grammar to NT greek somehow settles the issue of whether the predicate noun--theos--is used qualitatively or not?

  If so, I would humbly suggest that you are mistaken. There is nothing illustrated here that speaks to that issue at all, other than the fact that they give the standard English translation as one would expect them to do since this is an instructional grammar and not some sort of an in-depth commentary on the book of John.

  In fact, in their comment they clearly state that the fact--logos--is accompanied by the definite article shows manifestly that it is the subject whereas--theos--is a predicate noun. Although they don't comment on the fact, this clearly leaves open the possibility that it is qualitative in nature. This takes us back to where we started--there is no smoking gun in this passage--it can be translated either way. One has to examine the context and make a determination as to what the author intended.
• 

  TD

  Hi fahrvegnugen,

  TD--Not sure if I understand you here. Are you claiming that this passage as diagrammed in this introductory grammar to NT greek somehow settles the issue of whether the predicate noun--theos--is used qualitatively or not?

  No, I don't think it settles the issue and that was not my point. I was questioning the degree of debate on the subject.

  The scan from Essentials of New Testament Greek, a very common student textbook in America, was intended to show that when you study NT Greek at the beginning and intermediate level, you're pretty much stuck with Summers, Mounce, et al and you're taught that there is only one correct way to translate John 1:1c. (That's my experience at any rate. My first professor was so rabid a Trinatarian that he would mark your excercises down by 1/2 if you failed to capitalize, "Son" when it referred to Jesus.) I don't remember the Johannine Prologue ever coming up again in advanced classes, as it was regarded as pretty basic and the emphasis at that point had shifted away from grammar and to a degree, from the Bible itself.

  My curiosity about this "debate" was piqued on another thread. One participant claimed that "no reputable scholar" would translate John 1:1c as, "and the word was God." Yaddayadda's post was not specific, but (to me) implies a robust degree of debate that I am frankly curious to plum the depths of if it exists. I've followed B-Greek for years and years. My memory is far from perfect, but the only participants I remember promoting alternate readings of 1:1c were Rolf Furuli, Greg Stafford, and John Albu. Maybe there were more and I missed them. (?)

  Like I said, I have an American's love for the underdog and a good debate. If there are more than a very tiny handful of mavericks with religious biases of their own, let alone, "Reputable scholars" who disagree with the traditional rendering, then I am honestly interested in reading what they have said.
• 

  fahrvegnugen

  Ahhh, now I see. You are probably correct. Seeing as how the trinity doctrine is nearly universally accepted, I would guess that most translators/scholars would render it the traditional way.