Jump to content
The World News Media

Christ Divinity Explained in John 1:1c


BroRando
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Member
33 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Exactly - I now live in a country where only one letter is changed to indicate if it is a definite article or not. This changes the meaning. It is NOT the same..... no matter how technical you try to get! !

Meaning?  Different...... 

Then you must have missed the point.

  • Theo-n means either god, God, a god, or the God.
  • Theo-s means either god, God, a god, or the God.

It all depends on other things going on in the sentence (and sometimes context). It is NOT about whether the word theo-n or theo-s was used. To explain John 1:1, you indicated that "theo-s" means "a god" and "theo-n" means "the God." As you can see from the scriptures: this is plainly wrong. It can even be the opposite. John 3:16 (quoted) calls "The God" theo-s, and John 10:33 calls "a god" theo-n. This is the OPPOSITE of your claim about John 1:1.

  • (John 10:33) "... for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” [theo-n] (NWT)
  •  image.png

And, it's also not true that just because the Bible writer leaves out the word "the" that it must mean "A god."

Just because Luke 12:21 says "theo-n" without a THE in front of it doesn't mean it should be translated:

 "So it goes with the man who stores up treasure for himself but is not rich toward a god.”

 Οὕτως Thusthe (one)θησαυρίζων treasuringαὑτῷ to himselfκαὶ andμὴ notεἰς intoθεὸν Godπλουτῶν. being rich.

So that supposed rule does not apply in general. In fact there are about 280 places where "the God" is meant by just the word "god," even though there is no "the" (or other form of definite article) in front of it.

But there are good examples of "theos" such as in Luke 20:38 where the Greek form would be supportive of the translation "a god" in John 1:1, rather than "God" or "divine."

(Luke 20:38, Kingdom Interlinear Translation)

θεὸς

Godδὲ   butοὐκ notἔστιν isνεκρῶν of dead (ones)ἀλλὰ butζώντων, of living (ones),πάντες allγὰρ forαὐτῷ to himζῶσιν. they are living.

38  He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him.” (NWT)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 946
  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Agree.  If Jesus was in all sense, the Almighty God, he wouldn't have said... "Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner."  John 5:19 "I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me."  John 5:30  

No. It's too much of a stretch to say that John 1:1c being used in a feminine sense. It's BOTH the word theos (theon) in John 1:1a AND the word theos (theos) in John 1:1 c that can be used in both a feminine and a masculine sense. Also the word "logos" (word) happens to be "masculine" in Greek (and Hebrew, too.) [Although "wisdom" in Hebrew and in Greek is a feminine noun.] It may very well be that John 1:1c intends to imply that Jesus is divine in a qualitative sense. But NOT because of an

You offered 3 scriptures so far, and you could easily find more. For every one of them, there are at least twice as many that refer to Jehovah God the Almighty Father, with the same supposedly "feminine" nouns. You are playing with the kind of Talmudic "wordplay" that Jewish rabbis got caught up in for many centuries. Whether a word ends up being masculine, feminine or neutral in a language is not part of any divine plan or purpose. In general, Hebrew and Greek and German and many other language

Posted Images

  • Member
14 hours ago, BroRando said:

One way, is in the Masculine sense as in the first instance of (

    Hello guest!
) But what about in the second instance as in 
    Hello guest!
? Isn't that scripture describing his qualitative sense? His divinity in being divine?

No. It's too much of a stretch to say that John 1:1c being used in a feminine sense. It's BOTH the word theos (theon) in John 1:1a AND the word theos (theos) in John 1:1 c that can be used in both a feminine and a masculine sense. Also the word "logos" (word) happens to be "masculine" in Greek (and Hebrew, too.) [Although "wisdom" in Hebrew and in Greek is a feminine noun.]

It may very well be that John 1:1c intends to imply that Jesus is divine in a qualitative sense. But NOT because of any possible use of THEOS as either masculine or feminine. The Greek word THEOS can be used to refer to a female god (feminine) or a male god (masculine) or effectively, even a "neutral" god.

(Philippians 3:19) Their end is destruction, and their god is their belly . . .

[Although "belly" happens to be a feminine noun in Greek, and it can also mean womb.]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
15 hours ago, Witness said:

2 Tim 3:16,17  🙂

When that was written only the Hebrew scriptures were known, and some of the Greek scriptures hadn't even been written. I think that scripture is misused, unless it was a prophesy.  But once again I say that the scriptures were written for the Anointed,  so I do wonder how much the 'little dogs' need to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Wow, How to make a simple thing more complicated. 

Because information is vital. It is one of those things, annoying things when dealing with Jehovah Warriors, KJV-Onlyist and Trinitarians, etc who primarily use the verse to "prove" Jesus is God - hence the crusade of core Christianity, in this sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
32 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

It may very well be that John 1:1c intends to imply that Jesus is divine in a qualitative sense. But NOT because of any possible use of THEOS as either masculine or feminine. The Greek word THEOS can be used to refer to a female god (feminine) or a male god (masculine) or effectively, even a "neutral" god.

Most of the time - this.

Some people who simply read the verses when they see THEOS quickly come to a conclusion. The title can be applied to anything or anyone, for it does not automatically make them The True God. Other similar examples would be Isaiah 9:6 and Titus 2:13, where as for this verse, Trinitarians often appeal to the Granville Sharp Rule in order to identify Jesus as God. 1 Timothy 3:16 is also another interesting one, for "God" being included into the verse proves problematic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Thanks for showing the same thing from other scriptures. There is a sense in which the Word is God and that is the basic point of John 1:1. But it is not the point, of course, that Jesus himself is God, but that Jesus so fully represents God. It's not so strong as Trinitarians make it out to be. But the Gospel of John, in general, introduces us to the idea that Jesus is "divine" but not himself "God."

Agree.  If Jesus was in all sense, the Almighty God, he wouldn't have said...

"Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner."  John 5:19

"I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me."  John 5:30

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

No. It's too much of a stretch to say that John 1:1c being used in a feminine sense. It's BOTH the word theos (theon) in John 1:1a AND the word theos (theos) in John 1:1 c that can be used in both a feminine and a masculine sense. Also the word "logos" (word) happens to be "masculine" in Greek (and Hebrew, too.) [Although "wisdom" in Hebrew and in Greek is a feminine noun.]

It may very well be that John 1:1c intends to imply that Jesus is divine in a qualitative sense. But NOT because of any possible use of THEOS as either masculine or feminine. The Greek word THEOS can be used to refer to a female god (feminine) or a male god (masculine) or effectively, even a "neutral" god.

(Philippians 3:19) Their end is destruction, and their god is their belly . . .

[Although "belly" happens to be a feminine noun in Greek, and it can also mean womb.]

 

A few scriptures that support John 1:1c in the Feminine Sense.  (Other Feminine Nouns)

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of All Creation; (

    Hello guest!
) Trinitarians make the claim Jesus is God. Well then, can we conclude that God is the firstborn of All Creation?  

Strong's Concordance
ktisis: creation (the act or the product)
Original Word: κτίσις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: ktisis
Phonetic Spelling: (ktis'-is)
Definition: creation (the act or the product)
Usage: (often of the founding of a city), (a) abstr: creation, (b) concr: creation, creature, institution; always of Divine work, (c) an institution, ordinance.
HELPS Word-studies

Cognate: 2937 ktísis – properly, creation (creature) which is founded from nothing (this is also the sense of this term from Homer on); creation out of nothing (Lat ex nihilo).

This leads us back to John 1:1.  Notice the introduction... "In the Beginning was the Word" (John 1:1)  The Beginning is descriptive of whom?  The Word.

 

Strong's Concordance
arché: beginning, origin
Original Word: ἀρχή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: arché
Phonetic Spelling: (ar-khay')
Definition: beginning, origin
Usage: (a) rule (kingly or magisterial), (b) plur: in a quasi-personal sense, almost: rulers, magistrates, (c) beginning.
HELPS Word-studies

746 arxḗ – properly, from the beginning (temporal sense), i.e. "the initial (starting) point"; (figuratively) what comes first and therefore is chief (foremost), i.e. has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent").

Do you see the consistency? Feminine nouns are pointing to a Creation that is brought forth and begotten as with labor pains. Read (

    Hello guest!
)

The scripture plainly tell us that Christ is the Wisdom of God. (

    Hello guest!
)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, Witness said:

2 Tim 3:16,17  🙂

 Then he said: “Go, Daniel, because the words are to be kept secret and sealed up until the time of the end.  Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will act wickedly, and none of the wicked will understand; but those having insight will understand." (Daniel 12:9-10) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Most of the time - this.

Some people who simply read the verses when they see THEOS quickly come to a conclusion. The title can be applied to anything or anyone, for it does not automatically make them The True God. Other similar examples would be Isaiah 9:6 and Titus 2:13, where as for this verse, Trinitarians often appeal to the Granville Sharp Rule in order to identify Jesus as God. 1 Timothy 3:16 is also another interesting one, for "God" being included into the verse proves problematic.

Most don't recognized the the truth when it is staring them in the face.  I'm saying this in general not pointing at you.

"During that time {

    Hello guest!
} will stand up, 
    Hello guest!
 who is standing in behalf of your people. And there will occur 
    Hello guest!
 such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book. And many of 
    Hello guest!
, some to everlasting life and others to reproach and to everlasting contempt." (
    Hello guest!
)

"And war broke out in heaven: {
    Hello guest!
} battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them any longer in heaven." (
    Hello guest!
)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
19 hours ago, BroRando said:

A few scriptures that support John 1:1c in the Feminine Sense.  (Other Feminine Nouns)

You offered 3 scriptures so far, and you could easily find more. For every one of them, there are at least twice as many that refer to Jehovah God the Almighty Father, with the same supposedly "feminine" nouns. You are playing with the kind of Talmudic "wordplay" that Jewish rabbis got caught up in for many centuries. Whether a word ends up being masculine, feminine or neutral in a language is not part of any divine plan or purpose. In general, Hebrew and Greek and German and many other languages that split words into "genders," will tend to treat attributes, concepts, ideas, and qualities as "feminine" more often than as "masculine," but not always.

As a basis for any doctrinal support, this is about as meaningless as saying that a bed or couch is "feminine," just because the Hebrew word is "feminine." Or that a table is "masculine" just because the Hebrew word is "masculine." Or that a lampstand is "feminine." Or that rain, snow, hail and cloud are "masculine." But "rainbow" and "wind" (and therefore also "spirit") is "feminine."

A man's birthright (like the one Jacob wanted to buy from Esau) is "feminine."

Even though a bull is obviously masculine, both male and female cattle (or beasts) are referred to with a feminine noun. That includes the great Behemoth in Job, or when Nebuchadnezzar is referred to:

  • (Daniel 4:16) Let the heart of a beast (feminine) be given to him.

And it's the same "feminine" word for beast used everywhere else, including here:

  • (Daniel 7:19) . . . the fourth beast (feminine), which was different from all the others; it was extraordinarily fearsome, with iron teeth and copper claws, and it was devouring and crushing, and trampling down what was left with its feet;

There was nothing especially "feminine" about Behemoth, or Nebuchadnezzar, or the fearsome fourth beast with iron teeth and copper claws.

And there is nothing especially "feminine" about Jehovah God, even though he is described as the Creator (feminine), and in the Beginning (feminine), and a God of Salvation (feminine), and a God of Jealousy (feminine), and God of Greatness (feminine).

And there is nothing especially "masculine" about the female breast or bosom, and yet the word for a female breast is masculine.

(Ruth 4:16) Na·oʹmi took the child and held him to her bosom [masculine], and she cared for him.

19 hours ago, BroRando said:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of All Creation; (

    Hello guest!
)

If Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, then he is the firstborn from the viewpoint of the father of all creation; the Creator himself; which would just as easily suggest that Jehovah is feminine. And he isn't.

19 hours ago, BroRando said:

This leads us back to John 1:1.  Notice the introduction... "In the Beginning was the Word" (John 1:1)  The Beginning is descriptive of whom?  The Word.

The Word (masculine) was in the beginning (feminine). But it wasn't just the Word associated with Creation and with the Beginning. What about Genesis 1:1?

(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The beginning is associated with whom? God. The creation is associated with whom? God.

You could do this for 100 other scriptures. Jehovah's qualities are described very similarly to the qualities seen in Jesus.

Think about Hebrew and Greek word genders in about the same way that you would think of German word genders. A common example is the typical set of eating utensils. A spoon is masculine, a fork is feminine, and a knife is neuter (neutral).

  • der Löffel (the spoon),
  • die Gabel (the fork)
  • das Messer (the knife)

Why should a spoon be masculine, a fork feminine, and a knife neuter? ("Neuter" means neutral gender here, not the implication about knives in Galatians 5:12.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

You offered 3 scriptures so far, and you could easily find more. For every one of them, there are at least twice as many that refer to Jehovah God the Almighty Father, with the same supposedly "feminine" nouns. You are playing with the kind of Talmudic "wordplay" that Jewish rabbis got caught up in for many centuries. Whether a word ends up being masculine, feminine or neutral in a language is not part of any divine plan or purpose. In general, Hebrew and Greek and German and many other languages that split words into "genders," will tend to make attributes, concepts, ideas, and qualities more often feminine than masculine, but not always.

As a basis for any doctrinal support, this is about as meaningless as saying that a bed or couch is feminine, just because the Hebrew word is feminine. Or that a table is masculine just because the Hebrew word is masculine. Or that a lampstand is feminine. Or that "rain" "snow" and "hail" are masculine. But "rainbow" and "wind" (and therefore also "spirit") is feminine. And cloud is masculine. A man's birthright (like the one Jacob wanted to buy from Esau) is "feminine."

Even though a bull is obviously masculine, both male and female cattle (or beasts) are referred to with a feminine noun. That includes the great Behemoth in Job, or when Nebuchadnezzar is referred to:

  • (Daniel 4:16) Let the heart of a beast (feminine) be given to him.

and it's the same "feminine" word for beast used everywhere else, including here:

  • (Daniel 7:19) . . . the fourth beast (feminine), which was different from all the others; it was extraordinarily fearsome, with iron teeth and copper claws, and it was devouring and crushing, and trampling down what was left with its feet;

There was nothing especially "feminine" about Behemoth, or Nebuchadnezzar, or the fearsome fourth beast with iron teeth and copper claws.

And there is nothing especially "feminine" about Jehovah God, even though he is described as the Creator (feminine), and in the Beginning (feminine), and a God of Salvation (feminine), and a God of Jealousy (feminine), and God of Greatness (feminine).

And there is nothing especially "masculine" about the female breast or bosom, and yet the word for a female breast is masculine.

(Ruth 4:16) Na·oʹmi took the child and held him to her bosom [masculine], and she cared for him.

If Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, then he is the firstborn from the viewpoint of the father of all creation; the Creator himself; which would just as easily suggest that Jehovah is feminine. And he isn't.

The Word (masculine) was in the beginning (feminine). But it wasn't just the Word associated with Creation and with the Beginning. What about Genesis 1:1?

(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The beginning is associated with whom? God. The creation is associated with whom? God.

You could do this for 100 other scriptures. Jehovah's qualities are described very similarly to the qualities seen in Jesus.

Think about Hebrew and Greek word genders in about the same way that you would think of German word genders. A common example is the typical set of eating utensils. A spoon is masculine, a fork is feminine, and a knife is neuter (neutral).

  • der Löffel (the spoon),
  • die Gabel (the fork)
  • das Messer (the knife) Why should a spoon be masculine, a fork feminine, and a knife neuter? (Neuter means neutral here, not the implication about knives in Galatians 5:12.)

Are you now denying that Jesus is the faithful and true witness, "the Beginning of Creation" at

    Hello guest!
Since Jesus was brought forth (begotten), then at one time he did not exist.  

Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago. From ancient times I was installed, From the start, from times earlier than the earth. When there were no deep waters, I was brought forth, When there were no springs overflowing with water. Before the mountains were set in place, Before the hills, I was brought forth, When he had not yet made the earth and its fields Or the first clods of earth’s soil. When he prepared the heavens, I was there; When he marked out the horizon on the surface of the waters, When he established the clouds above, When he founded the fountains of the deep, When he set a decree for the sea That its waters should not pass beyond his order, When he established the foundations of the earth, Then I was beside him as a master worker and was the one he was especially fond of day by day; rejoiced before him all the time; I rejoiced over his habitable earth, And I was especially fond of the sons of men. (Proverbs 8:22-31) 

This is how Jesus became known as the Son of Man.... God is not the Son of man. (Numbers 23:19)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
11 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

God is Truth and Jesus fully expressed that Truth by everything he said and did. God is Light and Jesus fully expressed the Light of the Father in all the words he spoke and works he did in the name of his God. God is Love and the flesh named Jesus fully expressed the Father's Love; dead flesh crucified for the sins of mankind. The Word of God was something the man named Jesus always kept. The Word became flesh, that is, God the Father was manifested in flesh, that flesh named Jesus. Jesus came so that we might know the Father and Jesus fully expressed the Father in all the things he did because he always kept His Father's Word. Jesus' words and works were not his own but the Father's. For the Word of which Jesus speaks is God's Spoken Word.

SM, I don't normally agree with you, but this is beautiful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By Patiently waiting for Truth
      I was answering C.C. about 'When did God actually speak to the people"  And of course we need to go to scripture for answers, but what i found raised a couple of questions.
      I'll quote scriptures first. 
      Matthew 3 v 16 & 17.
      After being baptized, Jesus immediately came up from the water; and look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw God’s spirit descending like a dove and coming upon him. 17  Look! Also, a voice from the heavens said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”
      Luke 3 v 21 & 22
       Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus too was baptized. As he was praying, the heaven was opened up, 22  and the holy spirit in bodily form like a dove came down upon him, and a voice came out of heaven: “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.”
      John 1 v 32 -34
      John also bore witness, saying: “I viewed the spirit coming down as a dove out of heaven, and it remained upon him. 33  Even I did not know him, but the very One who sent me to baptize in water said to me: ‘Whoever it is upon whom you see the spirit coming down and remaining this is the one who baptizes in holy spirit.’ 34  And I have seen it, and I have given witness that this one is the Son of God.”
      Mark 1 v 9- 11
       In the course of those days, Jesus came from Nazʹa·reth of Galʹi·lee and was baptized in the Jordan by John. 10  And immediately on coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens being parted and, like a dove, the spirit coming down upon him. 11  And a voice came out of the heavens: “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.”
      What I'm wondering is, who saw the Holy Spirit in the form of the dove 'coming down upon' Jesus ?
      And, Who heard the voice of God from heaven speaking ?
      The Matthew scripture shoes it as God speaking to the people, but Mark and Luke show it as God speaking to Jesus. 
      The scripture in John (Apostle John) , tells us that John ( the Baptiser ) saw the spirit 'coming down' and 'remaining' on Jesus.
      Whereas Mathew and Mark say that he saw, that is Jesus saw, the spirit 'coming down' and remaining upon him.
      My point being here that Jesus came to be baptised when many others were being baptised. For instance, if 500 people were present and all 500 saw the dove descend and heard God's voice, then all 500 would have known (and believed) that Jesus is the son of God. But, if only John the Baptiser and Jesus saw the dove and heard God's voice then only the two of them would have known (and 'believed') it. 
      Also am I right in thinking that Jesus wanted his 'work' kept secret at first ? Didn't Jesus tell some that he cured to 'tell no one'
       
    • By The Librarian
      1890-The-Wonderful-Story.pdf
       
      I like her cover choice..... I can see the feminine influence on some of her decorations.
       
      Part of the ...
      and
       
    • By JOHN BUTLER
      Luke 10 v 21  In that very hour he became overjoyed in the holy spirit and said: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved.
      This seems to show that 'higher education' was not needed to learn, understand and teach, the truth from God, at that time. 
      It seems to be a well know thing within the JW Org and by people outside of same, that JW's are 'told' not to aim for higher education. I say told, although some will say strongly advised, with a possible caution of being disfellowshipped. 
      Now I've noticed on here recently that deep conversation about many things has been and is taking place. Politics earthwide. religious beliefs earthwide and the latest thing seems to be Evolution (from a very deep standpoint ). ( These things were never taught to me at school. )
      I left school at 15 years old, as soon as I was able, for reasons previously mentioned. Here in UK now teenagers have to remain in education until they are 18. The three years from 15 to 18 seem to me to be almost 'higher education', but compulsory.  How much they learn at school now I've no idea. 
      My feelings are, and yes ok i cannot put proof to these feelings, but, my feelings are, that all forms of higher education are advised against by the GB and the JW Org. Some of you may have some proof of this in writing. So, where does this leave JW's ?
      If a young person leaves school to go into full time 'service' ministry, they do not get a higher education. Their 'basic' education may have been just that, very basic. They are then not 'qualified' to talk to others on a higher education level, and this might even be to the point of not understanding such things as are being discussed on here lately. 
      ( Much of what is being discussed leaves me miles behind. I'm a very simple person. Plus at 69 I forget more than i learn. Yes I do write lots of notes and have books for recording different things, but the mind boggles. )
      With respect for those I knew and loved in the past, within my ex congregation, many of them were 'simple country folk'. And I think Tom said about not having the time or inclination to do research online or or otherwise. So let us go back to the scripture at the top. 
      So many questions. Does God reveal more to those of a lesser education ?  Is higher education and greater knowledge a disadvantage when wanting to serve God properly?
      Or is it that those of higher education are too stubborn to learn God's way ?  Too proud maybe ?   
      There are many things that the Bible doesn't tell us. is that deliberate ? Does God want to keep it simple for us ? So, should we pursue more knowledge about worldly things ? 
      A problem may occur when talking to others about God, in that they may have more knowledge on a certain subject than we do and therefore believe something different. Should we then educate ourselves to their level on the same subject, or just pass them by ?  Bearing in mind the scripture at the top of this page. 
      There has to be a balance of course. But my feelings are that the GB would like JW's to be educated only by the Watchtower studies and by the 'workbook' evening meeting studies. And of course by personal Bible reading.   But do JW's do as they are told in this respect or do a lot of them 'educate themselves', or take further education elsewhere ? 
       
       
    • By BroRando
      Some notes for John 1:1c to Christ Divinity for those who love the deeper things of God.  An Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible commentary notes:
      “This second theos could also be translated ‘divine‘ as the construction indicates “a qualitative sense for theos”. The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father.”
      WHen trinitarians can’t show a scripture of three separate persons make up one God, they then switch to Modalism, saying “Jesus is God”. The trinity is like a three legged stool. Remove one leg and the trinity comes tumbling down.
      So they hurl insults and accusations. When the teaching of the demons get expose, they tend to taunt, scream, and hurl accusations. But very soon they will be abyssed. So now let’s carry on to John 1:1c.
      Other translations:
      1808: “and the Word was a god” – Thomas Belsham The New Testament
      1822: “and the Word was a god” – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)
      1829: “and the Word was a god” – The Monotessaron;
      1863: “and the Word was a god” – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)
      1864: “and a god was the Word” – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading)
      1867: “In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God” – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
      1879: “and the Word was a god” – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)
      1885: “and the Word was a god” – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)
      1911: “and the Word was a god” – The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911)
      1935: “and the Word was divine” – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago
      1955: “so the Word was divine” – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
      1956: “In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity” – The Wuest Expanded Translation[16]
      1958: “and the Word was a god” – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed” (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
      1970, 1989: “…and what God was, the Word was” – The Revised English Bible
      1975 “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word” – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany
      1975: “and the Word was a god” – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);
      1978: “and godlike sort was the Logos” – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin
      2017: “In the origin there was the Logos, and the Logos was present with GOD, and the Logos was god;” – The New Testament: A Translation, by David Bentley Hart.[18]
      John 1:1c is rendered in the feminine sense relating to Christ divinity. Words like Deity, Divine, Wisdom, Beginning are all feminine nouns that describe Christ’s Divinity as a Divine Creation. 
      <~~ Back to JW Forum
    • By Micah Ong
      New World Translation
      Isaiah 45:23 "By myself I have sworn; The word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, And it will not return:Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. To me every knee will bend, Every tongue will swear loyalty
      Philippians 2:10 "so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground
      2 Corinthians 13:14 "The undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the sharing in the holy spirit be with all of you." (Interlinear says: "fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all you.")
      Interlinear John 1:1 "In beginning was the Word and the Word was with - God and God was the Word)
      It doesn't say and 'a' God was the Word.  It reads how it reads and both mentions of God start with Capital letters.
      The only Translation that I am aware of that puts "a god" is the the translation by a Spiritist who claims that the Holy Spirit came upon Joseph and they conceived Jesus.
       
    • By Bible Speaks
      (Prov 3:5, 6)   Where can we look for guidance when making decisions, even seemingly trivial ones?
      How wonderful it would be to have a reliable consultant to advise us when we face a difficult decision! You can find such an adviser.
      An ancient book with a message for today has this to say: “Your own ears will hear a word behind you saying: ‘This is the way. Walk in it, you people,’ in case you people should go to the right or in case you should go to the left.” (Isaiah 30:21)
      What motivates us to make decisions that will show respect for the conscience of others?
      Love for our neighbor. Jesus Christ taught that loving our neighbor as ourselves is the commandment second in importance only to that of loving God with our whole soul.  
      However, we are living in a self-centered world, and our sinful tendencies incline us toward being selfish. So if a person is to love his neighbor as himself, he has to make his mind over.
      Apart from Bible principles and the conscience of others, what may we consider when making decisions?
      We need to consider how our decisions will affect our spiritual, mental, emotional, and physical well-being in the future.
      Be they major or trivial, your decisions matter. A decision you make today may mean the difference between success and failure, even life and death in the future.
      You can make wise decisions if you take into consideration Bible principles, the conscience of others, and the long-range effect of your action.
      Make decisions God’s way. The decision about what course to follow now is yours to make, truly a decision that is a matter of life or death.
      Would you welcome help in making the right decision, the wise one?
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
       
       


    • By Bible Speaks
      "Pay attention to wisdom with your ear, that you may incline your heart to discernment." (Prov. 2:2)
      "By making your ear attentive to wisdom, And inclining your heart to discernment." (Prov. 2:2)
      At the start of Solomon’s kingship, God appeared to him in a dream and invited him to make a request. Aware of his limited experience, Solomon requested wisdom. (1 Ki. 3:5-9) 
      Pleased that the king asked for wisdom rather than for riches and glory, God gave Solomon “a wise and understanding heart”—as well as prosperity. (1 Ki. 3:10-14) 
      We personally do not expect to receive wisdom miraculously. Solomon said that “Jehovah himself gives wisdom,” but he wrote that we should strive to gain that godly quality. He used expressions such as “call out for,” “keep seeking for,” and “keep searching for” wisdom. (Prov. 2:1-6) 
      Clearly, we can gain wisdom. It would be good to ask: ‘Am I taking to heart Solomon’s example of treasuring divine wisdom? Do the choices I make indicate that I am treasuring and seeking divine wisdom?’ 
      wol.jw.org

    • By Bible Speaks
      "I shall certainly give you a wise and understanding heart."—1 Ki. 3:12.
    • By Bible Speaks
      "For a bagful of wisdom is worth more than one full of pearls."  (Job 28:18)

    • By Jack Ryan
      JW's use the term "undeserved kindness" while the rest of the christian world generally uses the term "grace".
      Is there a difference?




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.