Imagine if John 1:1 was rendered correctly...

[BroRando]

There were times when Jesus answered his enemies and they left him without a response because they recognized his answer was 'the truth'. Who could argue against him? Those who recognized his teachings as truth had a choice to make. Do I humble myself and become a follower of Jesus Christ or do I choose to become an enemy of Christ and scatter his followers? Many are the latter!

Imagine if John 1:1 was rendered correctly... and the Public got to see that there is only one Bible in the World that read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was the Son of God." Who could argue against Jesus being the Son of God? Imagine the lives that could be saved.

The argument that Jesus is God or a god would no longer be the center of controversy. Even trinitarians who deny Jesus' divinity as the Christ could not argue against Jesus being the Son of God. Sometimes, when it comes to saving lives, a person needs to hear the ring of truth. That truth is and the Word of God was the Son of God. The one chosen by God and sent to rescue humankind.

Notice Jesus response to his enemies:

• do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? (John 10:36)

The scriptures are clear that Elohim can be rendered God or (gods) in referring to angels. Angels are spirit creatures that are sons of the true God. ʼElo·himʹ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.

In the Book of John, he uses two Greek terms to differentiate the difference between Almighty God and his Son. Theon is used to refer to Almighty God as the God and theos when referring to his Son as a god.

• In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God (theon) and the Word was a god (theos).
• No man has seen the God (theon) at any time; the only-begotten god (theos) who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him.
• This means everlasting life, their coming to know You, the only true God (theon), and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
• Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and Your Father and to My God (theon) and Your God (theon).’”
• Jesus is never called (theon) which refers to Almighty God.

With that being said, many will reject these facts. Imagine someday opening your Bible and for the first time, reading the following scriptures:

• In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was the Son of God.
• Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in my name,
• For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Angel of Great Counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

Wouldn't these Bible truths bring the many to Salvation?

• "Do your utmost to present yourself approved to God, a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of the truth aright." (2 Timothy 2:15)
• "Therefore, if someone knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him." (James 4:17)

[Pudgy]

I agree with what you were saying, but looking at that particular scripture if you translate it Word for Word, would it actually say, Word for Word, how you personally interpreted it?

[BroRando]

3 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

I agree with what you were saying, but looking at that particular scripture if you translate it Word for Word, would it actually say, Word for Word, how you personally interpreted it?

22 minutes ago, BroRando said:

Notice Jesus response to his enemies:

• do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? (John 10:36)

23 minutes ago, BroRando said:

The argument that Jesus is God or a god would no longer be the center of controversy. Even trinitarians who deny Jesus' divinity as the Christ could not argue against Jesus being the Son of God.

Isn't the Son of God (a god) by definition?  It would certainly cause a great and mighty earthquake down the middle of Babylon. 

• ^{Revelation 16:18}  And there were flashes of lightning and voices and thunders, and there was a great earthquake unlike any that had occurred since men came to be on the earth,h so extensive and so great was the earthquake. ¹⁹  The great cityi split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell; and Babylon the Greatj was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath.k

 

What are they going to do?  Call us liars for claiming Jesus is the Son of God?

[Pudgy]

My question only required a “yes” or “no” answer. Plus after the answer a one line ON TOPIC exposition.

[xero]

On 10/12/2022 at 9:22 PM, Pudgy said:

I agree with what you were saying, but looking at that particular scripture if you translate it Word for Word, would it actually say, Word for Word, how you personally interpreted it?

If you translated the Bible word for word, especially the Greek scriptures which had no punctuation, you'd have to interpret what it meant. You can't escape context. The problem is that the word "god" is used in the bible in many ways and you have to look at the context to understand how it's being used.

Take the word "evolution". It's been used in multiple ways, some of which I agree with and I can back up with real life examples (when it amounts to variation - micro) and some of which I can't back up or agree with (fish to philosopher - macro). 

"Do you believe in evolution?" Depends on what you mean by "evolution", could be yes, could be no.

"Do you believe Jesus is god?" Depends on what you mean by "god", could be yes, could be no.

[TrueTomHarley]

On 10/12/2022 at 9:35 PM, BroRando said:

What are they going to do?  Call us liars for claiming Jesus is the Son of God?

I think they’d call us liars for mistranslating, inserting a phrase that’s not there simply because we like it. 

You can say ‘a god’ or an adjective like ‘divine’ by handling the indefinite article as we do. You can say ‘God’ by botching the significance of the indefinite article. But by no stretch of the imagination can you say ‘Son of God.’ It’s not there.

You have to translate the Greek or Hebrew as accurately as you can, and then let that translation instruct you. You can’t do it the other way around—let your beliefs dictate your translating (as though you are instructing God). ‘Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament’ by Jason Beduhn, examines John 1:1 in several translations and concludes only the New World Translation gets it right, translating in accord with the actual Greek. It’s most of the other translations that read their beliefs into the translating and thereby mess it up, he says. We never want to be like that. It’s dishonest. It’s taking liberties with the Word of God.

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2009/06/scholars-bias-and-the-new-world-translation.html

[BroRando]

1 hour ago, xero said:

If you translated the Bible word for word, especially the Greek scriptures which had no punctuation, you'd have to interpret what it meant. You can't escape context. The problem is that the word "god" is used in the bible in many ways and you have to look at the context to understand how it's being used.

I see your point. I never came across a true literal translation. I don't think none exist. But if there was such a thing, the only fair thing to do is a literal translation without articles, capitalization and punctuation. Also the third clause was flipped but did not change the meaning from earlier translations. A literal translation often is cold and gives no meaning. Not only do we speak with words but we tend to emphasis our words with Capitalization, articles and punctuation!

The reason why we know the introduction of John is speaking about Michael is because of the meaning of Michael's name. The third clause is not speaking of the Logos identity but rather his qualitive sense. Case in point. Michael means "who is like God"? or "who is godlike"? We also know the qualitive sense of the Logos is divine.

Following comes from Our Research of the Logos: Quote-

1808 “and the word was a god”

The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864 “and a god was the Word”

The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935 “and the Word was divine”

The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1950 “and the Word was a god”

New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word”

Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany.

1978 “and godlike sort was the Logos”

Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.

1979 “and a god was the Logos”

Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany.

 

These translations use such words as “a god,” “divine” or “godlike” because the Greek word θεός (the·osʹ) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·osʹ. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ὁ θεός, that is, the·osʹ preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·osʹ.

Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god” or “divine” or “godlike” does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself. -End of Quote

Anyways what about giving the reader the most accurate translation as possible with the most correct rendering of meaning and inserting a footnote to the reason why it was done that way?

• "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was Divine*."
• * The third clause is not speaking of the Logos identity but rather his qualitive sense. Case in point. Michael means "who is like God"? or "who is godlike"? and that qualitive sense of the Logos is Divine.

I'm sure with a multitude of counselors, one should be able to find a scripture full of truth and the one reading it could be moved to exclaim, this is the truth!  A scripture so accurate and convincing that the reader could not be swayed.  Even the footnote itself should be written in a way that it would support without question. See what you can come up with?

 

 

[xero]

35 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I think they’d call us liars for mistranslating, inserting a phrase that’s not there simply because we like it. 

You can say ‘a god’ or an adjective like ‘divine’ by handling the indefinite article as we do. You can say ‘God’ by botching the significance of the indefinite article. But by no stretch of the imagination can you say ‘Son of God.’ It’s not there.

You have to translate the Greek or Hebrew as accurately as you can, and then let that translation instruct you. You can’t do it the other way around—let your beliefs dictate your translating (as though you are instructing God). ‘Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament’ by Jason Beduhn, examines John 1:1 in several translations and concludes only the New World Translation gets it right, translating in accord with the actual Greek. It’s most of the other translations that read their beliefs into the translating and thereby mess it up, he says. We never want to be like that. It’s dishonest. It’s taking liberties with the Word of God.

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2009/06/scholars-bias-and-the-new-world-translation.html

I get his point, though in context it's clear that John's getting at Jesus divine, prehuman nature, not his taxonomic relation to Jehovah.

[BroRando]

11 hours ago, xero said:

I get his point, though in context it's clear that John's getting at Jesus divine, prehuman nature, not his taxonomic relation to Jehovah.

And that is the point I was trying to draw out. If we are going to use the third clause to identify whom the Word was, there are more accurate ways. No matter what identity is used, it is not totally accurate in the sense that the third clause is supposed to be used to express the Word's divinity.

Examples of identity could be one the following;

• and the word was a god
• and the word was godlike
• and the word was a messenger
• and the word was a son
• and the word was the son of God
• and the word was of God

 

Examples of divinity are in the feminine sense

• and the word was Divine
• and the word was a deity
• and the word was a god

Strong's Concordance theos: God, a god Original Word: θεός, οῦ, ὁ Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine; Noun, Masculine Transliteration: theos Phonetic Spelling: (theh'-os) Definition: God, a god Usage: (a) God, (b) a god, generally.

[Matthew9969]

Maybe there will be a bible that will interpret this passage this way...In the begging was a god, and the word was God. And the word was the God and God was the word...........and nothing came into existence without a god?

[BroRando]

On 10/19/2022 at 8:40 PM, Matthew9969 said:

Maybe there will be a bible that will interpret this passage this way...In the begging was a god, and the word was God. And the word was the God and God was the word...........and nothing came into existence without a god?

John 1:1 tells us who it is in the beginning of Creation. "In the Beginning was the Word."   The Word is no other than the Chief Messenger in how Jehovah brought in other Creation,

Yahweh created me, the first of his ways, before his acts of old.(Proverb 8:22) 

"because the Lord himself, in a shout, in the voice of a chief-messenger, and in the trump of God, shall come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ shall rise first," (1 Thess 4:16)

 

[Moise Racette]

This would mean, commentators here haven't found the time to take John 1:1 seriously. There's nothing better than to understand the bible. Perhaps, a bible scholar is needed.

https://simplebibletruths.net/70-John-1-1-Truths.htm