i have a question (page 4)

GodisRight

It has been known for a long time that the word God and its use is not limited to the Supreme Being. When it is used of others then it cannot be said that we have two God’s (as if both are the Supreme Being) nor can it be said that some other scripture is violated or abused because this same word is used in that text. The context must be the same and in John 1:1 it is not. This simplicity of words with their multiplicity of meanings is common to many words in scripture such as heaven(s), spirit, and soul.

This is the way Strong’s defines theos or God:

1
) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities

2) the Godhead, trinity

2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity

2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity

2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity

3) spoken of the only and true God
3a) refers to the things of God 3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him 4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way 4a) God’s representative or viceregent 4a1) of magistrates and judges
And John 1:1-2 uses it this way: 1
I n the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
Therefore the Word was someone that was with God at the beginning of the human race and was put in charge of such human race or as John states “the Word was God” to such human race under discussion as this is what John is talking about in this introduction. This does not make two God’s or two Supreme Beings as commonly understood by many. The context or definition of this word is not the same for each use. The use of God as Supreme Being and God as Viceregent cannot be directly compared to some other text where God is used only in the sense of Supreme Being.

I agree 100%. That is why Satan is called god of this world and Moses was god to his brother Aaron and the Pharoah.
However, only Yah is God by nature. Every other person who is called a god, is one due to circumstances -- not by nature.

GodisRight

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

All of you should read this verse in Greek.

A word for word literal translation of the greek text is:

in beginning was the word and the word was with the god and god was the word

Note how the definite article precedes "god" in the first instance, but there is no definite article before the second "god". So the definite article must be used where there is one in the original Greek, but where there is no definite article in Greek, there is no definite article in English, so an indefinite article is inserted to maintain the specific thought expressed by the original author, as it is done in every other place in the entire Bible, to correctly translate it as in a beginning was the word and the word was with the god and a god was the word

Note now the difference between "the God", and "a god"...why has it been translated incorrectly in almost every Bible? Why, where the words are different in the Greek, are they translated the same in English?

Kristofer

JosephMalik!

How do you come about entering "Human Race" into the interpretation? That seems as bad as what the WT is doing.

Does anyone see a lot of faulty logic in these posts?

stevenyc

Crudell : It's like saying a child is both it's parents and itself. Not Logical

And talking donkeys are ?

steve

PS. welcome to JWD.

Judc

I read from Joseph that Jn 1:1 says "the Word was essentially God to you folks."

Of course a thread like this is not likely to change anyone's hard stance on this.

But what I get from the verse is that it's saying the Word was equivalent to God.

Say I put together an ant farm. The ants knew me as "The human". Then one day I decide to turn my son Charlie into an ant so he can live among the ants, just for kicks. Now my son Charlie, as an ant, causes quite a stir down in the ant farm. After this episode some ant is enlightened about the REAL story about this Charlie character and proclaims to the other ants that in the beginning of that there ant farm, this Charlie character was with "The human"...and in fact Charlie WAS human! No, Charlie wasn't THE HUMAN (that refers to me), but Charlie was HUMAN nonetheless!

GodisRight

I read from Joseph that Jn 1:1 says "the Word was essentially God to you folks."
Of course a thread like this is not likely to change anyone's hard stance on this.
But what I get from the verse is that it's saying the Word was equivalent to God.
Say I put together an ant farm. The ants knew me as "The human". Then one day I decide to turn my son Charlie into an ant so he can live among the ants, just for kicks. Now my son Charlie, as an ant, causes quite a stir down in the ant farm. After this episode some ant is enlightened about the REAL story about this Charlie character and proclaims to the other ants that in the beginning of that there ant farm, this Charlie character was with "The human"...and in fact Charlie WAS human! No, Charlie wasn't THE HUMAN (that refers to me), but Charlie was HUMAN nonetheless!

Great analogy, but I don't think some people will get the sense of it.

Narkissos

Mono-anthropist ants converted to poly-anthropism?

Judc

Mono-anthropist ants converted to poly-anthropism?

Narkissos, Please excuse my ignorance regarding the meaning of those terms. I have come to highly respect your level of knowledge, having read many of your posts. I just came up with that analogy on the fly as an illustration of my own personal understanding of the verse, which admittedly, is limited due to the fact that I don't know Greek. But I would really like to hear your take on it based on how you and/or other scholars view the meaning of that verse. I feel that this verse most definitely points to the deity of Christ which is a separate topic from the ontological relationship between Christ and the Father.

moggy lover

In my opinion a good illustration would go something like this:

"Linda was with John Smith and Linda was a Smith"

As can be seen, the final clause, while identifying "Linda" as someone who shares a commonality with "John Smith" ie the concept of being "Smith", nevertheless, she is also clearly not being identified as the same PERSON as ''John Smith"

Whatever the meaning of the word "Smith" [and it clearly means a surname] in that sentence, the imposition of an indefinite article does not create a shift in MEANING regarding the word Smith,[Linda is a Smith in the same meaning as John Smith] the shift is in a nuance of expression.

I believe John, at Jo 1:1 is agruing against such teachings as Sabellianism, or Modalism, which saw the Word and the Father as the one and the same Person, he is not arguing against any concept that would be construed as bestowing Deity on the Word

Cheers

Judc

similarly, in my illustration, the ants could view Charlie as either "human" or "a human". The addition of the article does not shift the meaning. The main point is that Charlie is human, being of the same nature as "The Human".

Later on, John qualifies himself by suggesting that the Father and Son are to be viewed as "one".

i have a question

Share this