Jesus Is God (John 1:1)

by JesusISJehovah 45 Replies latest watchtower bible

onacruse

Insofar as the predicate anarthrous kai yeov hn o logov is concerned, Dana and Mantey point out (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 140):
Surely when Robertson says that yeov, as to the article, "is treated like a proper name and may have it or not have it" (R. 761), he does not mean to intimate that the presence or absence of the article with yeov has no special significance. We construe him to mean that there is no definite rule governing the use of the article with yeov , so that sometimes the writer's viewpoint is difficult to detect, which is entirely true. But in the great majority of instances the reason for the distinction is clear. The use of in Jn. 1:1 is a good example. prov ton yeon points to Christ's fellowship with the person of the Father; yeov hn o logov emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature. The former clearly applies to personality, while the latter applies to character. This distinction is in line with the general force of the article...The articular construction emphasizes identity; the anarthrous construction emphasizes character.

Archibald Robertson says (Word Pictures in the New Testament):
And the Word was God ( kai yeov hn o logov ). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying o yeov hn o logov . That would mean that all of God was expressed in o logov and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article ( o logov ) and the predicate without it ( yeov ) just as in Joh 4:24 pneuma o yeov can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1Jo 4:16 o yeov agaph estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say.

Oscar Cullman says (The Christology of the New Testament, p. 265-6):
Thus the third phrase of the prologue can actually proclaim kai yeov hn o logov ( and the Word was God ). We ought not to reinterpret this sentence in order to weaken its absoluteness and sharpness. There have been and still are many attempts to do this . yeov has been interpreted as if it were yeiov : 'The Logos was like God.' This interpretation is hardly possible, and R. Bultmann too has rejected it in his commentary on John (p. 17). If the author had intended to say this, the adjective yeiov was at his disposal; it occurs elsewhere in the New Testament (Acts 17.29; II Peter 1.3).--It is also not feasible to weaken the statement as Origen attempted to do by arguing that in omitting the article before yeov , the author intends to say that the Logos is not actually God but only of divine nature, a divine emanation.
Forcing the use of some grammatical "rule" (Colwell's, for example) would actually work against what John was here saying, and would not enhance the claim for the Deity of Christ. Nor does the absence of the article diminish that claim.
Craig
PS: Welcome to the board, JIJ and BJ.
Edited by - onacruse on 30 December 2002 21:35:33
JesusISJehovah

May I ask then, every time the name Jehovah or its equivalent is used in the OT is it translated as "I Am"?
I already said, Yahweh is a DERIVATIVE of "to be", when God is referred to as "I AM" as in Exo 3:14, it is translated that way.
IslandWoman

JesusISJehovah,
I already said, Yahweh is a DERIVATIVE of "to be", when God is referred to as "I AM" as in Exo 3:14, it is translated that way.
Yes, but why is it that the word "Yahweh" is not translated as "I AM" or "To Be" all the other times it occurs in the OT, for instance the Psalms. Why is it when we read the Psalms the word "Yahweh or Jehovah" is there rather than "I AM"or "To Be"?
Please explain. Are all the translations of the OT in error?
When I address God are you saying I should say: "I AM" or "To Be" please hear my prayer? When Jesus taught his disciples to pray "Let your name be sanctified (or hallowed)", was he saying they were to sanctify the words "I AM" or "To Be"? How would one sanctify such names, would they never use the words "I am" in everyday or profane language? Or the words "to be"?
IW
Gizmo

IW
I don't know who you are or where you are from...but you are one savvy lady...I have read many of your replies, and i don't know what your association with the JW's is now...but you are a very clever lady.
onacruse

Island Woman:
hwhy ( Yahweh) is a noun derived, as is almost always true in the Hebrew language, from a verb root, in this case the verb hyh (hayah) ("to be, exist").
It is thisverb that is used twice in Ex. 3:14, not the noun. This verb, as used in Ex. 3:14, is in the simple active imperfect form, suggesting uncompleted action...therefore "I shall prove to be" is better than "I am."
The noun hwhy ( Yahweh) may (or may not) capture the essential meaning of that verb, but is itself a stand-alone word and, used as a name, is best left transliterated.
Craig
IslandWoman

Hi Elderrepents,
Thank You!
Onacruse,
What do you think is the meaning of the noun "hwhy"? For instance if I were to use the noun "hwhy" in a common phrase or sentence what meaning would it have, or what words in English would be the equivalent of that Hebrew noun as opposed to the verb.
Thanks.
IW
Earnest

"Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article" This is from the article [ Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass/Count Nouns at http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/topics/colwell.htm] you recommended.

That is just restating Colwell's Rule. In the article it evaluates Colwell's Rule and lists five problems with Colwell's method of investigation including:
Third, Colwell appears to be responsible, because of his application to John 1:1, for laying the groundwork of a logical blunder. Colwells rule Definite predicate nominatives that precede the verb usually lack the article came to be seen as Anarthrous predicate nominatives that precede the verb are usually definite. We have affirmed, based on our study, that Colwells original rule is valid but the converse of his rule is inductively falsifiable. In fact our study confirms that within the NT as a whole, this semantic category (definiteness) is certainly not the expected nuance of the construction, and not the predominant sense when it comes to singular count nouns as well. Thus this converse is neither true of the whole nor of its parts. So although definiteness is a possible semantic category, it is certainly not the probable one regarding anarthrous constructions. In addition, although the converse of Colwells rule is not formally illogical, it is inductively falsifiable.
Fourth, Colwell seems to have misunderstood what a definite semantic to the noun entailed linguistically. His improper method of prescription, based on his analysis, led him to commit a category mistake by foisting a semantic upon a certain group of nouns (pre-copulative PNs) that he failed to appreciate on their own terms. Because of this, and apparently without considering the ramifications of what the semantic suggested, he applied it to John 1:1c and argued against the indefinite or qualitative sense. But this was an improper use of his own rule, for his rule was only to be applied post hoc to nouns clearly understood to be definite from context. ... In short he begged the question by making his rule prescriptive rather than descriptive of the majority of cases involving definite nouns preceding the copulative verb.
Where he regarded his rule most important, in the area of translation and interpretation, is exactly where it is in fact most irrelevant yet ironically most dangerous, especially the latter. When his rule is applied prescriptively in the fashion he and others since him have, it is most damaging to the semantics of the pre-copulative anarthrous construction as a whole. For when it is determined that most pre-copulative anarthrous PNs are in fact not definite, then one has to ask what use the rule serves at all in determining such. It is one grand question begging venture, therefore, to cite his rule for ascertaining any semantic preponderance anywhere, not to mention disputable passages like John 1:1c. Footnote: In re-reading [Colwell's] article [A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament], one is struck by the sudden illogical shift from describing the preponderance of definite PNs that happen to be anarthrous, to a prescription about anarthrous pre-copulative PNs towards definiteness.
Illegitimate Usage of Colwell
Thereafter Colwells conclusions were accepted nearly unanimously in the scholarly world. Many evangelicals, because of the implications to John 1:1, unwittingly assumed, as Metzger did, the converse of Colwells rule which led to its abuse. His actual rule states, Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article. This statement, however, was taken to imply that anarthrous predicate nominatives that precede the verb are usually definite. This type of abuse bled into the commentaries on John as well. Later research seriously questioned this consensus of opinion by attempting to demonstrate that pre-copulative anarthrous PNs were predominately qualitative in nature, a fact not considered seriously enough within the semantic range of some, including Colwell.
So maybe those translators that Lew cited were Greek scholars too !?
Earnest
Edited by - Earnest on 31 December 2002 6:8:23
shera
hallow ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h
tr.v. hallowed, hallowing, hallows
To make or set apart as holy.
To respect or honor greatly; revere.
sanctify ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s
tr.v. sanctified, sanctifying, sanctifies
To set apart for sacred use; consecrate.
To make holy; purify.
To give religious sanction to, as with an oath or vow: sanctify a marriage.
To give social or moral sanction to.
To make productive of holiness or spiritual blessing.
The way I "see" it,these words donot mean to make God's name "known",as to the way the JW's teach.
I always find it,hyprocritical on the JW's part,taking the name Jehovah,when a catholic monk "made" the name.Well,they agree with one teaching from"babylon the great"
The bible is confusing to me....it says they, are one,then it says, they are not.
Jesus is a God in heaven,but he was a man on earth so he was lower than God.I feel they are one,but two spiritual beings. LOL..as i'm typing this I see I am just going to come arcoss confused and babbling.
God's only begotton son
beget ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b
tr.v. begot, (-gbegotten, (-gbegot begetting, begets
To father; sire.
To cause to exist or occur; produce: Violence begets more violence.
God can only beget a God....
In the book of revelations,it seems to jump back and forth to Jesus and "Jehovah" doing the same thing.I can't recall the scriptures but these seem,to make them "one".
Sometimes I dunno about the bible..... babble babbled enough....
Gizmo

Here Guys KNOCK YOURSELVES out...then pray tell me.....what have you gained from all of it?
*** ti 26-9 What About Trinity "Proof Texts"? *** The Word Was God
AT JOHN 1:1 the KingJamesVersion reads: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Trinitarians claim that this means that the Word (Greek, holo'gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself.
Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the KingJamesVersion says, The Word was with God. (Italics ours.) Someone who is with another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the JournalofBiblicalLiterature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean the God, this would then contradict the preceding clause, which says that the Word was with God.
Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:
1808: and the word was a god. TheNewTestamentinanImprovedVersion,UpontheBasisofArchbishopNewcomesNewTranslation:WithaCorrectedText.
1864: and a god was the word. TheEmphaticDiaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
1928: and the Word was a divine being. LaBibleduCentenaire, LEvangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: and the Word was divine. TheBibleAnAmericanTranslation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1946: and of a divine kind was the Word. DasNeueTestament, by Ludwig Thimme.
1950: and the Word was a god. Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
1958: and the Word was a God. TheNewTestament, by James L. Tomanek.
1975: and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word. DasEvangeliumnachJohannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: and godlike kind was the Logos. DasEvangeliumnachJohannes, by Johannes Schneider.
At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun theos' (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was (and the Word [lo'gos] was with God [a form of theos']). This first theos' is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God (and the Word was with [the] God).
On the other hand, there is no article before the second theos' at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, and god was the Word. Yet we have seen that many translations render this second theos' (a predicate noun) as divine, godlike, or a god. On what authority do they do this?
The Koine Greek language had a definite article (the), but it did not have an indefinite article (a or an). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.
The JournalofBiblicalLiterature says that expressions with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo'gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [theos'] cannot be regarded as definite.
So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was divine, godlike, a god, but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called the Word in his role as Gods Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his , Almighty God.
There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article a when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the KingJamesVersion says: They supposed it had been a spirit. In the Koine Greek, there is no a before spirit. But almost all translations in other languages add an a in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was a god, or divine.
Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the AmericanStandardVersion, stated simply: The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself. And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his DictionaryoftheBible: Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . the word was a divine being.
Violating a Rule?
SOME claim, however, that such renderings violate a rule of Koine Greek grammar published by Greek scholar E. C. Colwell back in 1933. He asserted that in Greek a predicate noun has the [definite] article when it follows the verb; it does not have the [definite] article when it precedes the verb. By this he meant that a predicate noun preceding the verb should be understood as though it did have the definite article (the) in front of it. At John 1:1 the second noun (theos'), the predicate, precedes the verband [theos'] was the Word. So, Colwell claimed, John 1:1 should read and [the] God was the Word.
But consider just two examples found at John 8:44. There Jesus says of the Devil: That one was a manslayer and he is a liar. Just as at John 1:1, the predicate nouns (manslayer and liar) precede the verbs (was and is) in the Greek. There is no indefinite article in front of either noun because there was no indefinite article in Koine Greek. But most translations insert the word a because Greek grammar and the context require it.See also Mark 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; ; 10:1; 12:6.
Colwell had to acknowledge this regarding the predicate noun, for he said: It is indefinite [a or an] in this position only when the context demands it. So even he admits that when the context requires it, translators may insert an indefinite article in front of the noun in this type of sentence structure.
Does the context require an indefinite article at John 1:1? Yes, for the testimony of the entire Bible is that Jesus is not Almighty God. Thus, not Colwells questionable rule of grammar, but context should guide the translator in such cases. And it is apparent from the many translations that insert the indefinite article a at John 1:1 and in other places that many scholars disagree with such an artificial rule, and so does Gods Word.
No Conflict
DOES saying that Jesus Christ is a god conflict with the Bibles teaching that there is only one God? No, for at times the Bible employs that term to refer to mighty creatures. Psalm 8:5 reads: You also proceeded to make him [man] a little less than godlike ones [Hebrew, elohim'], that is, angels. In Jesus defense against the charge of the Jews, that he claimed to be God, he noted that the Law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed, that is, human judges. (John 10:34, 35, JB; Psalm 82:1-6) Even Satan is called the god of this system of things at 2 Corinthians 4:4.
Jesus has a position far higher than angels, imperfect men, or Satan. Since these are referred to as gods, mighty ones, surely Jesus can be and is a god. Because of his unique position in relation to Jehovah, Jesus is a Mighty God.John 1:1; Isaiah 9:6.
But does not Mighty God with its capital letters indicate that Jesus is in some way equal to Jehovah God? Not at all. Isaiah merely prophesied this to be one of four names that Jesus would be called, and in the English language such names are capitalized. Still, even though Jesus was called Mighty, there can be only one who is Almighty. To call Jehovah God Almighty would have little significance unless there existed others who were also called gods but who occupied a lesser or inferior position.
The BulletinoftheJohnRylandsLibrary in England notes that according to Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, while theos' is used in scriptures such as John 1:1 in reference to Christ, in none of these instances is theos used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as ho Theos, that is, the Supreme God. And the Bulletin adds: If the New Testament writers believed it vital that the faithful should confess Jesus as God, is the almost complete absence of just this form of confession in the New Testament explicable?
But what about the apostle Thomas saying, My Lord and my God! to Jesus at John ? To Thomas, Jesus was like a god, especially in the miraculous circumstances that prompted his exclamation. Some scholars suggest that Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment, spoken to Jesus but directed to God. In either case, Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God, for he and all the other apostles knew that Jesus never claimed to be God but taught that Jehovah alone is the only true God.John 17:3.
Again, the context helps us to understand this. A few days earlier the resurrected Jesus had told Mary Magdalene to tell the disciples: I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God. (John 20:17) Even though Jesus was already resurrected as a mighty spirit, Jehovah was still his God. And Jesus continued to refer to Him as such even in the last book of the Bible, after he was glorified.Revelation 1:5, 6; 3:2, 12.
Just three verses after Thomas exclamation, at John , the Bible further clarifies the matter by stating: These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, not that he was Almighty God. And it meant Son in a literal way, as with a natural father and son, not as some mysterious part of a Trinity Godhead.
Must Harmonize With the Bible
IT IS claimed that several other scriptures support the Trinity. But these are similar to those discussed above in that, when carefully examined, they offer no actual support. Such texts only illustrate that when considering any claimed support for the Trinity, one must ask: Does the interpretation harmonize with the consistent teaching of the entire Biblethat Jehovah God alone is Supreme? If not, then the interpretation must be in error.
We also need to keep in mind that not even so much as one proof text says that God, Jesus, and the holy spirit are one in some mysterious Godhead. Not one scripture anywhere in the Bible says that all three are the same in substance, power, and eternity. The Bible is consistent in revealing Almighty God, Jehovah, as alone Supreme, Jesus as his created Son, and the holy spirit as Gods active force.
[Blurb on page 24]
The ancients made a wrong use of [John ] to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father.CommentaryontheGospelAccordingtoJohn, by John Calvin
Onacruse,
Unfortunately my allotment of posts have run out for the day it seems...much is the pity for me...but it's my fault that i waste my time responding to unanswerable questions as these...great biblical scholars of the past have pondered and studied the Bible all their lives only to realise towards the end of their lives that they learnt liitle and were no closer to having any real answers...most becoming agnostics or atheists.

and as a final statement...wasn't it Eric Hoffer that also said:-
The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not
enjoy your research so that you can inherit the future!
enuff said.
Edited by - elderrepents on 31 December 2002 1:8:47
edited to add cooments in red for onacruse
Edited by - elderrepents on 31 December 2002 3:53:5
onacruse
IW, that's a very good question.
Like my own name, derived from Welsh/Gaelic "crag" (rock, cliff). Does the fact that I'm known as "Craig" necessarily mean that I was, say, born on a rock? Look like a rock? Am as dense as a rock? (LOL)
The following comments from The Catholic Encyclopedia illustrate the uncertainty about what Yahweh means (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm):
II. MEANING OF THE DIVINE NAME
Jahveh (Yahweh) is one of the archaic Hebrew nouns, such as Jacob, Joseph, Israel, etc. (cf. Ewald, "Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache", 7th ed., 1863, p. 664), derived from the third person imperfect in such a way as to attribute to a person or a thing the action of the quality expressed by the verb after the manner of a verbal adjective or a participle. Furst has collected most of these nouns, and calls the form forma participialis imperfectiva. As the Divine name is an imperfect form of the archaic Hebrew verb "to be", Jahveh means "He Who is", Whose characteristic note consists in being, or The Being simply.
Here we are confronted with the question, whether Jahveh is the imperfect hiphil or the imperfect qal.Calmet and Le Clere believe that the Divine name is a hiphil form; hence it signifies, according to Schrader (Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, 2nd ed., p. 25), He Who brings into existence, the Creator; and according to Lagarde (Psalterium Hieronymi, 153), He Who causes to arrive, Who realizes His promises, the God of Providence. But this opinion is not in keeping with Ex., iii, 14, nor is there any trace in Hebrew of a hiphil form of the verb meaning "to be"; moreover, this hiphil form is supplied in the cognate languages by the pi'el form, except in Syriac where the hiphil is rare and of late occurrence.
On the other hand, Jehveh may be an imperfect qal from a grammatical point of view, and the traditional exegesis of Ex., iii, 6-16, seems to necessitate the form Jahveh. Moses asks God: "If they should say to me: What is his [God's] name? What shall I say to them?" In reply, God returns three several times to the determination of His name. First, He uses the first person imperfect of the Hebrew verb "to be"; here the Vulgate, the Septuagint, Aquila, Theodotion, and the Arabic version suppose that God uses the imperfect qal; only the Targums of Jonathan and of Jerusalem imply the imperfect hiphil. Hence we have the renderings: "I am who am" (Vulg.), "I am who is" (Sept.), "I shall be {who] shall be" (Aquila, Theodotion), "the Eternal who does not cease" (Ar.); only the above-mentioned Targums see any reference to the creation of the world. The second time, God uses again the first person imperfect of the Hebrew verb "to be"; here the Syriac, the Sumaritan, the Persian versions, and the Targums of Onkelos and Jerusalem retain the Hebrew word, so that one cannot tell whether they regard the imperfect as a qal or a hiphil form; the Arabic version omits the whole clause; but the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Targum of Jonathan suppose here the imperfect qal: "He Who Is, hath sent me to you" instead of "I Am, hath sent me to you: (Vulg.); "ho on sent me to you" (Sept.); "I am who am, and who shall be, hath sent me to you" (Targ. Jon.). Finally, the third time, God uses the third person of the imperfect, or the form of the sacred name itself; here the Samaritan version and the Targum of Onkelos retain the Hebrew form; the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Syriac version render "Lord", though, according to the analogy of the former two passages, they should have translated, "He Is, the God of your fathers, . . . hath sent me to you"; the Arabic version substitutes "God". Classical exegesis, therefore, regards Jahveh as the imperfect qal of the Hebrew verb "to be".
Here another question presents itself: Is the being predicated of God in His name, the metaphysical being denoting nothing but existence itself, or is it an historical being, a passing manifestation of God in time? Most Protestant writers regard the being implied in the name Jahveh as an historical one, though some do not wholly exclude such metaphysical ideas as God's independence, absolute constancy, and fidelity to His promises, and immutability in His plans (cf. Driver, "Hebrew Tenses", 1892, p. 17). The following are the reasons alleged for the historical meaning of the "being" implied in the Divine name:
The metaphysical sense of being was too abstruse a concept for the primitive times. Still, some of the Egyptian speculations of the early times are almost as abstruse; besides, it was not necessary that the Jews of the time of Moses should fully understand the meaning implied in God's name. The scientific development of its sense might be left to the future Christian theologians.
The Hebrew verb hayah means rather "to become" than "to be" permanently. But good authorities deny that the Hebrew verb denotes being in motion rather than being in a permanent condition. It is true that the participle would have expressed a permanent state more clearly; but then, the participle of the verb hayah is found only in Ex., ix, 3, and few proper names in Hebrew are derived from the participle.
The imperfect mainly expresses the action of one who enters anew on the scene. But this is not always the case; the Hebrew imperfect is a true aorist, prescinding from time and, therefore, best adapted for general principles (Driver, p. 38).
"I am who am" appears to refer to "I will be with thee" of v. 12; both texts seems to be alluded to in Os., i, 9, "I will not be yours". But if this be true, "I am who am" must be considered as an ellipse: "I am who am with you", or "I am who am faithful to my promises". This is harsh enough; but it becomes quite inadmissible in the clause, "I am who am, hath sent me".
Since then the Hebrew imperfect is admittedly not to be considered as a future, and since the nature of the language does not force us to see in it the expression of transition or of becoming, and since, moreover, early tradition is quite fixed and the absolute character of the verb hayah has induced even the most ardent patrons of its historical sense to admit in the texts a description of God's nature, the rules of hermeneutics urge us to take the expressions in Ex., iii, 13-15, for what they are worth. Jahveh is He Who Is, i.e., His nature is best characterized by Being, if indeed it must be designated by a personal proper name distinct from the term God (Revue biblique, 1893, p. 338). The scholastic theories as to the depth of meaning latent in Yahveh (Yahweh) rest, therefore, on a solid foundation. Finite beings are defined by their essence: God can be defined only be being, pure and simple, nothing less and nothing more; not be abstract being common to everything, and characteristic of nothing in particular, but by concrete being, absolute being, the ocean of all substantial being, independent of any cause, incapable of change, exceeding all duration, because He is infinite: "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, . . . who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty" (Apoc., i, 8). Cf. St. Thomas, I, qu. xiii, a. 14; Franzelin, "De Deo Uno" (3rd ed., 1883, thesis XXIII, pp. 279-86.
Moffatt saw fit, with some reservations, to render YHWH as "The Eternal."
Bottom line seems to me to be...we don't know what YHWH is meant to mean.
Craig
PS: elderrepents, that's also a good question---what have I gained from all this? I find that I'm re-examining virtually everything I ever believed, from once believing in the absolutely inviolate Divine inspiration of every word in the Bible and down the gamut to complete atheism. I've walked through the door out of a dark closet, and I'm learning something from every step.
In a time of drastic change it is the learners who inherit the future. The learned usually find themselves equipped to live in a world that no longer exists.
Eric Hoffer
Edited by - onacruse on 31 December 2002 0:15:1

Jesus Is God (John 1:1)

Illegitimate Usage of Colwell

Share this