John 1:1 How the Greek text argues that Jesus is God (and why it doesn't mean "Jesus is a God")
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 дек 2021
- John 1:1 is intended to connect the advent of Christ to Genesis 1, yet the New World Translation translates "the word was God" as "the word was a God." There are three reasons why this is not a good translation and why this verse is good news for Christmas. In this video we'll look at the role of the article in Greek and the predicate nominative.
Want a tour of my library? • Books that shaped my t...
Get your roadmap to Mastery from mntg.me/roadmap
Follow me:
Twitter: / darrylb
Facebook: / masterntgreek
Note that product links above may be affiliate links. Your purchase using these links helps support this channel at no additional cost to you.
Thanks for your support!
There are a number of problems with denying that John 1:1c should be rendered "the Word was a god," but the most conspicuous is that every other noun in the Gospel of John that is comparable to Θεος at John 1:1c is rendered into English with the indefinite article. For a noun to be comparable to Θεος at John 1:1c, it must (1) be singular, (2) be preverbal, (3) be anarthrous, (4) be a predicate nominative, (5) be count (not abstract/mass), (6) not be definite (in consideration of Harner’s hypothesis). *EVERY* noun in John’s Gospel that fits those criteria is rendered into English by translators with the indefinite article, with one very lonely, theologically motivated exception: Θεος at John 1:1c.
At John 4:19 the anarthrous noun προφητης precedes the verb ει, and translators render it "a prophet"; At John 6:70 the anarthrous noun διαβολος precedes the verb εστιν, and translators render it "a devil"; At John 8:34 the anarthrous noun δουλος precedes the verb εστιν, and translators render it "a slave”; At John 8:44a the anarthrous noun ανθρωποκτονος precedes the verb ην, and translators render it "a murderer"; At John 8:44b the anarthrous noun ψευστης precedes the verb εστιν, and translators render it "a liar"; At John 8:48a the anarthrous noun σαμαριτης precedes the verb ει, and translators render it "a Samaritan"; At John 9:8 the anarthrous noun προσαιτης precedes the verb ην, and translators render it "a beggar”; At John 9:17 the anarthrous noun προφητης precedes the verb εστιν, and translators render it "a prophet”; At John 9:24 the anarthrous noun αμαρτωλος precedes the verb εστιν, and translators render it "a sinner”; At John 9:25 the anarthrous noun αμαρτωλος precedes the verb εστιν, and translators render it "a sinner”; At John 10:1 the anarthrous noun κλεπτης precedes the verb εστιν, and translators render it "a thief”; At John 10:13 the anarthrous noun μισθωτος precedes the verb εστιν, and translators render it "a hired hand”; At John 12:6 the anarthrous noun κλεπτης precedes the verb ην, and translators render it "a thief”; At John 18:35 the anarthrous noun ιουδαιος precedes the verb ειμι, and translators render it "a Jew"; At John 18:37a the anarthrous noun βασιλευς precedes the verb ει, and translators render it "a king?”; At John 18:37b the anarthrous noun βασιλευς precedes the verb ειμι, and translators render it "a king”.
Two things are worthy of note in light of your argument:
1. Every noun referenced above is a predicate nominative that fits the criteria noted in the first paragraph.
2. They were all dubbed "qualitative" by Paul Dixon in his DTS Masters thesis.
What point #2 shows is that, in English, count nouns used descriptively, a/k/a "qualitatively" typically include the indefinite article. There is therefore no reason to fail to do so at John 1:1c.
About the claim that John was a monotheist and therefore wouldn't have called the LOGOS "a god," I'll simply recommend that you study the character of ancient Jewish monotheism. They had no problem asserting that there was only one God on the one hand, but also speaking of Moses, kings, angels, Melchizedek, members of the Divine Council, etc., as "God" or "gods." Indeed, when Jesus' adversaries charged him with "making himself Theon" at John 10, he defended himself by reminding them that, in their own law (specifically, Psalm 82), sons of God are called "gods."
Wow. Excellent response. Thank you. - WW
Great counter-thesis. It's hilarious to see, that theologians never try to explain what the Bible really says, but how their own doctrines fit in the Bible.
_"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition"_ (Mark 7:7-9)
God bless you 🙏
I really appreciate this comment. I think we need more accountability and depth in our thinking, and we need to address these questions with more than just "Here's a reason to think this," without considering other views. We need other voices to catch us when we fail to consider all the relevant information. This comparison of similar constructions across the rest of John seems important and relevant.
I am a big fan of "The Word was God's" rendering, so I thought I'd look into this and see what I could find. Unfortunately, despite my two semesters of Greek in college, I don’t know much about it (whereas the above comment seems to exude extensive knowledge). Hence, here is a series of questions I have about the above comment. If anyone has answers, that would be cool.
I looked for factors that were similar between the listed verses and different from John 1:1 that might affect the translation.
1. In every verse listed, the subject is a pronoun rather than a proper noun like ὁ λόγος: I, he, you, 'one of you' (ἐξ ὑμῶν εἷς), 'everyone who' (πᾶς ὁ), ‘this man’ (οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος) and 'that one' (ἐκεῖνος). I would be more convinced that the argument is sound if there was an example where the subject was a proper noun.
2. None of these pronouns except ‘this man’ in John 9:24 have a definite article either (except πᾶς ὁ, possibly. I don't really understand Greek pronouns, and ones like ἐκεῖνος and ἐξ ὑμῶν εἷς seem spooky). But it seems like a weird comparison to John 1:1 since there, the subject is obviously “the logos,” whereas in these cases (excepting John 9:24), the subject could also be indefinite (maybe, idk).
3. Most of these verses (including John 9:24) also have very similar structures that are different from John 1:1. They look like (subject) (object) (verb), whereas John 1:1 is structured (object) (verb) (subject). Word order doesn’t matter as much in Greek as in English, but I find it strange that John 1:1 is unique. I would be more persuaded that the argument is solid if there was an example that exactly matched the wording of John 1:1.
4. The comment lists the six relevant factors. Does anyone know if the similarities I have found are also relevant factors? I worry that perhaps something has been left off that list. Does anyone know if any of the things on that list are actually irrelevant? I am unsure what to think of them, especially Harner's Hypothesis. It seems like that hypothesis argues for the qualitative, not indefinite, rendering. Is there a way to find all the qualitative uses of “to be”? I think casting a wider net will give us a more complete picture of what’s going on here in the greek.
If someone could answer these questions and correct the blunders I have inevitably made, I think we could all benefit!
@@spencerking9995 "I am unsure what to think of them, especially Harner's Hypothesis. It seems like that hypothesis argues for the qualitative, not indefinite, rendering."
That's true, but:
1. Every relevant example in the Gospel of John contradicts Harner's strange assertion that nouns used descriptively won't have the indefinite article. Have you ever asked yourself why Harner left all the relevant Johannine texts in a footnote (other than John 1:1c, of course) and focused on non-Johannine texts in an attempt to buttress his thesis? That was a conspicuous anomaly. Normally, when one wants to understand a writer's usage or style, then one focuses on writings done by *that* writer, not the writings of some other writer. However, Harner no doubt realized how hard it would be to promote his thesis if he were to focus on the Johannine texts, as all those in which the noun is comparable to θεος at John 1:1c are rendered into English with the indefinite article. (See my initial post for what it means for a noun to be comparable to θεος at John 1:1c.) Moreover, those renderings with the indefinite article seem to adequately capture the sense of the underlying Greek.
2. Harner seems to have pulled the notion that descriptive nouns won't or shouldn't include the indefinite article ad hoc out of thin air. It may help to bear in mind that Harner's thesis seems to have emerged as an ad hoc solution to a problem that emerged once the Colwell narrative collapsed. Once Trinitarians realized that they had misused Colwell's rule in that the rule doesn't actually favor one rendering over another, then they were left with a problem to solve. (Colwell's rule doesn't even come into play as an analytical tool until one has already determined that a noun is definite, and then all it speaks to is the likelihood of the presence or absence of the article.) They didn't want to grant the "a god" rendering because they assumed that doing so would result in polytheism, and many no longer wanted to say that θεος is definite at John 1:1c, because they came to believe that a definite θεος there would undermine Trinity (e.g. it could result in Sabellianism). We don't have to speculate about this, because Dixon gave the game away in the introduction to his thesis:
"The importance of this thesis is clearly seen in the above example (John 1:1) where the doctrines of the deity of Christ and the Trinity are at stake. For, if the Word was ‘a god,’ then by implication there are other gods of which Jesus is one. On the other hand, if [θεος] is just as definite as the articular construction following the verb because, ‘the dropping of the article…is simply a matter of word order,’ then the doctrine of the Trinity is denied." (The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John), p. 2
So, for Dixon, fidelity to Trinitarian theology dictated that an alternative to the two more natural understandings be found. I would suggest that the rejection of the "a god" rendering and preference for the traditional one is and has always been about such theological presuppositions as Dixon expressed, not about grammar.
3. I have used an illustration in the past about a quarterback who both the coach and the quarterback's wife refer to as "a MAN" because the quarterback is VERY manly. In this illustration, which I'll post here if you'd like, the words "a MAN" are indistinguishable in context from "VERY manly" in terms of the meaning that is conveyed. In fact, you could replace "a MAN" with "VERY manly" everywhere the former appears in the illustration and you wouldn't change the meaning of what is said at all. The only real difference is the syntactical *means by which* the meaning is conveyed. Such illustrations demonstrate that it is false to claim that a descriptive use is either not indefinite or is indefinite but in some undefined way that supposedly rules out the use of the indefinite article. Indefinite count nouns can be either categorical or descriptive in focus, and the indefinite article is naturally used in both cases. As a reminder, in my original post I noted that every noun I referenced, each of which was rendered into English with the indefinite article, was dubbed "qualitative" by Paul Dixon in his DTS thesis.
4. If you read Harner's article you should note that his assertion about word order was also pure speculation. He offered no linguistic tools or methodology by which one might gauge the sense of a noun, other than word order, yet anyone who knows Greek knows how flexible word order is. Wallace has argued that the same simple sentence, "John loves Mary" (or something like that), can be worded about 3,000 different ways in Greek, and one of the reasons for that is the flexibility of word order. As he himself illustrated, in Greek you could say, "John loves Mary," or "Mary John loves," or "loves John Mary," or "loves Mary John," etc. Yet, in his grammar, Wallace parrots Harner's assertions about what the different sentence structures would signify, and Harner's assertion about the significance of the construction we find at John 1:1c directly contradicts what we observe about the flexibility of word order. It is incoherent to assert that word order is so flexible that you can say the same thing 3,000 different ways without any significant shift in meaning, and then to turn around and argue that a dramatic shift in meaning occurred at John 1:1c simply because the noun is placed before the verb. These folks would better serve their readers if they were to simply grant that the "a god" rendering is well supported based on grammar and Johannine usage considerations, and to argue for their preferred alternative on theological grounds.
Thank God for a conservative Scholar like yourself. I consumed the Word day and night for 2 years when I first got saved. God did miraculous things in me and also for me through that word. I have now served the Lord for 26 years. If you engage the Word, it will fill you with grace, and Spirit!
The video is not a scholarly one. Please see my comments on it.
Much agreed ...
As this video contains the usual errors, inconsistencies, and misconceptions of Trinitarian apologetics. And as usual is infused with its various theological presuppositions and assumptions masquerading as "Greek scholarship."
For instance, the neverending hypocrisy of claiming the theos at Jn. 1:1c is fully "qualitative" yet continuing to support the traditional definite rendering "God" used in Christendom's mainstream Bible versions.
Asserting without any evidence in scripture there exist a fully qualitative sense for the Greek "theos." So that at Jn. 1:1c "God" can refer solely to "a quality" there.
The continued failure to note the grammatical difference over the occurrence or absence of the Greek definite article before nouns in the nominative and accusative cases verses those of the genitive and dative ones.
The popular but wrongful theological assumption that John was a "strict monotheist." Where as an inspired Bible writer, if anything he would actually be a "biblical monolatrist."
Where though he would exclusively worship only one Almighty God (YHWH) as the highest and genuine one. He would acknowledge the existence of others as "gods" such as the angels in a secondary or inferior sense as images and divine representatives of God to humans (Heb. readings of Ps. 8:5; 97:7; 138:1, etc. "elohim", "gods"). ....
As I said, all the same usual Trinitarian erroneous views ....
@@brucebarnard Seriously, you folks should devote as much energy on growing in grace, as you do on criticism.
@@stephengaddis9791 Seriously, you assume we don't.
Don't make sense, just because a character in a book you claim did miraculous things for you, anyone can say that, I can say a character in a book changed my life, no character in a book that has no proof it exists can do magical powers for you, live in the real life not a fantasy world.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Amen 🙏
In the beginning was Peter, and Peter was with John, and Peter was John. Makes much sense, doesn't it?
The way you read John 1:1 makes it a nonsensical statement. But nonsense doesn't exist in theology--anything goes.
@@grasonicus this is in the spiritual
@@grasonicus repent of your sins and accept Jesus as your Lord and savior John 3:16
Jesus is the only way to heaven John 14:6
Come to Jesus
Seek Jesus
Get to know Jesus
Following Jesus is about holiness
Turn away from your sins
Only Jesus can save you from hell.
Might be good to check the Greek. Wikipedia QUOTES tons of translations which word it as 'and the Word was a god'. Meaning an angel, a son of God, a mighty being.
Don't forget that WAS is the past tense of IS.
Thus, even if we use the corrupt 'and the Word was God', it destroys the duality theory.
Jesus, IF he had been God in heaven, was NO LONGER God on earth.
God stopped being God makes no sense.
The " Word" is the "aleph tav" attached onto the word Elohim in Genesis 1:1. It is unspoken. All that was created flowed from the father through the Aleph Tav (Yeshua) for Him, By Him and through Him. Then the only way back to the Father is through "the Word", Yeshua. Bidirectional flow of energy.
And alef+ tav means jesus on cross ✝️ 🙏
@@jesusisgod3318 the acrostic Hebrew letter aleph = proclaim tav= the inside information. However, most theologians have no idea that the so called acrostic psalms define the Hebrew alf-bet.
Please share the Love of the Son of God, He spoke Truth Forever. Please write His Words in your Heart, and share them. Please Forgive, and Pray for everyone... Immanuel, God with us....
Everything that Jesus had was from his father Jehovah, Jesus was the 1st born Of all creation making him have an origin point, whereas his father does not and also the cross is not found, in scripture it's a pagan symbol, lol...the Alef tav stuff being the cross that you mentioned is made up by you to justify what you are doing...
@@garystorm6251 Emanuel does not mean God is literally with us the Jews did not believe that, What it means is Jehovah has turned his attention to us because no man has seen God at any time, it's impossible to have God stand in front of you without you dying.
Wow I remember when this came up and you said you would make a video of it.
Doesn't this conflict with:
- the Hebrew Bible's use of the word Elohim is often for entities that aren't the monotheistic God
- En arche is a translation of an expression that is arguably "When God began creating the heavens and the earth" and is therefore not about a specific beginning with the definite "the"
- Even if you take the word as the predicate "divine" then it doesn't make a strong theological statement in isolation?
Could you also go into the nitty gritty of the rule used here? I don't remember the name just that it dealt with predicates being put in the beginning of the sentence. I would love to see other examples of how this rule worked.
Remember that the translators of the Septuagint (LXX) understood the Hebrew of Gen 1:1 as speaking of the or a beginning (a noun) not a participle. Likely ראשית and αρχη both function monadically. I’m not saying that ברא at G1:1 can’t function there as a verbal noun and so have the sense of “when God began to create”. I’m just saying that it can be and is translated as speaking about a specific beginning as we see in the LXX. The writer of the fourth gospel is drawing from the LXX and not a proto-Masoretic text.
John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John (KJV) here we see A addedbefore MAN and is not found in the greek, and there are many more times in the NT that article is added.....and is false that John didnt know that in heaven existed more gods...cause he read the whole OT and in Psalm 82:1-6 says that in heaven exist angels that are called gods in the bible....all angels are sons of God according to the bible in Job 1:6 and 2:1 and are divine being....aka gods....logically they are son of the most high (Psalms 82:1-6)
Elohiym can be used for someone besides God. _(El = One with Authority... ohiym = and with many powers.)_ But, it's all about context in Hebrew. Genesis chapter one is clearly about God, not some king, judge, or general.
As far as Bereshit _(ְְּּבְּרֵאשִׁית);_ I've not seen your translation anywhere. But, I don't agree with it.
1) Root word of Bereshit is rosh or resh _(ראש),_ meaning; head, first, top or chief.
2) Thus reshit _(רֵאשִׁית)_ means: source. _(A beginning is a source of sorts. So, a "kind of okay" translation.)_
3) That leaves us with only the Bet _(בְ)._ It can mean two things; Just "in," or "in a." Lacking a definite article in Hebrew, means that it must be an indefinite article _(A)._
4) To make it a definitive article _(the),_ you'd need to add in a ha _(ה)._
But all that is not the problem. It's with the next word in Genesis 1:1... bara.
1) Yes I know, the Strong does translate bara as create.
2) But, bara is used 54 times in the Tanakh, 53 times it is translated as fill or fatten, and only once as create.
3) While on the flip side of the coin; The KJV uses create not only once for bara, it also uses it 54 other times _(indiscriminately)_ for: asah, yatsar, and bānáh. Only bānáh means; build or create. Asah means make or do. Yatsar means; form or mold.
Another thing that gets my goat about English translations of Genesis chapter one, is that; the word good _(tov)_ does not appear once in the Hebrew. What good replaces is the word function. As in; Chapter one is all about giving purpose and function to creation, not creating creation.
the bible is a false idol. jesus the true human wanted us to live like he did, not preach false lies written by priests hundreds of years later
That was one of THE best explanations I’ve ever heard. Subscribed.
Sounds like a sigh of relief.
How can this be a good explanation? It is more like excuses.
Just an observation.
@@tongakhan230 May I ask why you think it's not a good explanation? Purely the grammatical structure is what I'm talking about.
@@lizicadumitru9683 : When the definite article is absent before the noun in Greek, we put A or AN before the noun in English.
See how Acts 12:22, 28:6 are translated.
In John 1:1, John uses two distinct form for god. One for Almighty God whom Jesus was WITH (hon theon). And the other for Jesus himself (theos).
Why? Obviously to show that he was speaking about TWO DISCTINCT GODS.
'and the Word WAS a god' is the correct rendering. Why?
Because Jesus had been an angelic son of God before God sent him to become a human (Galatians 4:4, Philippians 2:7).
Thus, WAS (past tense) a god makes sense.
Jesus no longer WAS a god while on earth.
The term god means a mighty being (cf Psalms 82:1,6).
If we check Wikipedia, it QUOTES tons of Bible translations which word it properly.
JWs too teach this truth.
I trust this is helpful.
Actually it wasn't that good, like most he ended up misleading you. When Jesus was accused of claiming to be God by saying "I and the Father are one", what did he say to explain his statement? He uses a verse in the old testament that describes other men as "theoi", meaning "gods", if Christ wanted to make a case for himself being God the creator he could have picked one of the verses in the old testament that trinitarians use to make false claims, but instead he says "if he called them 'gods', to whom the word of God came; And scripture cannot be set aside, what about the one whom the Father has set apart as his very own and sent into the world?"
@@tongakhan230I am fluent in Greek, and Hebrew they are my mother tongues and I studied Ancient Greek, koine greek and hellenic, paleo Hebrew and Hebrew BH/AH I have read the bible, Old Testament from a rabbi, Torah and New Testament from our libraries in its original languages. All of them show how hristos is our lord and god. You cannot teach me my own language.
Great video. Although I would’ve liked you to get into Colwell’s rule and how it relates to John 1:1. Would you consider doing a video about it in the future?
"things" inserted not in the Greek it was inserted in John and Colossians
Through Christ all things were created Christ is the firstborn
the bible is a false idol. jesus the true human wanted us to live like he did, not preach false lies written by priests hundreds of years later
Interested in seeing your perspective on John 6:44 the word "draw". Not necessarily as a Greek would use it but how a Jew would use the term. How was it used in the old testament Greek translation?
Very clear and concise explanation. Thank you so much. Your message was a blessing to
It is not a good video! He makes many mistakes and errors. See my comment on here.
Can you or have you done a video on “begotten” in John 3:16?
No, but that would be good to do - though quite a different issue.
I’ve just been questioned by this Muslim who’s explaining that since it says “begotten,” then that insinuates that God physically had intercourse with Mary and obviously they’re arguing that this is nonsense and a lot can be assumed from translating that word apparently.
@@derekhess1287 google this question. You will find answer.
And, also ask them.
1. Is God in Quran same as Injeel?
2. Do you believe allah wrote torah and injeel.
They should answer, Yes because according to quran allah wrote them.
Show them the verse, of baptism of Jesus.
And The God of the Bible says, This is my Begotten son.
Ask them:
So, are you muslims claiming Allah is a liar when he wrote Injeel?
So, what did Allah mean by Begotten son when he said that in Injeel?
They might counter with, either Bible was corrupted, or they will go with argument that, moses was begotten son of God, Abraham was begotten son of God etc etc...
This is where they fall...
Respond them:
Exactly. So, when God says begotten son, it doesn't mean he married and made a baby, it is just a term or phrase? (what do you call it..(.I'm asking you) )
But if they go by, Bible is corrupted...
Tell them. So, you by your own words, saying Allah is incapable of preserving Torah or Injeel which he wrote. So what makes you believe quran is also preserved, knowing that quran was not written by mohammad but after his death years late by some followers of mohammad.
Also, Uthman (who took charge to write quran because until then, they were memorized by some people ) destroyed parts of Quran except the parts he wanted to be in Quran. He was accused of changing words of allah but since he was a warlord no one dare go against him but just complain or accuse him.
What does your quran says about people like Uthman...(Googleand find ..." woe to you who change God's word " verse)
I think he should and also do one on what it means at John 1:8 where it calls Jesus the only begotten God" God was begotten, well that is a turn up for the books !
@@STROND I think you mean John 1:18. Koine Greek is all in capitals and since you are correctly using the correct word there (theos) it should be "begotten god".
Great video. So would you then clarify that Yevea can really be used in a number of ways; to refer to a faction, as time span, or as a race. The context is what determines the usage of the word yevea and not the word yevea defines the context. Would you agree?
I'm wondering why Theos in verse 1C is not in the accusative case as it is in 1B. Any reasons?
John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John (KJV) here we see A addedbefore MAN and is not found in the greek, and there are many more times in the NT that article is added.....and is false that John didnt know that in heaven existed more gods...cause he read the whole OT and in Psalm 82:1-6 says that in heaven exist angels that are called gods in the bible....all angels are sons of God according to the bible in Job 1:6 and 2:1 and are divine being....aka gods....logically they are son of the most high (Psalms 82:1-6)
Luke 18:19
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
It baffles me how Anyone can read the scriptures and are still blinded to the simple fact that Jesus Christ is GOD the Son… I actually bet these people NEVER truly read the Bible smh
@@Trwillis9 One verse will suffice, John 17:3
@@Trwillis9 God the son is not in the scriptures. It is plain Jesus is the image of God, His anointed Son. Not God Himself. This is clear from John 17:3, John 20:17 and also from Revelation 3:12, where the risen Jesus still has a God to serve. The Father the only true God. All of Scripture has to be in agreement. Ambiguous verses are not proof Jesus is God Almighty or preexisting his birth other than being foreknown and predestined. The statement Jesus is God is just church tradition. He is the reflection and image of God, not God Almighty himself but His mediator. We will be like him if we follow his path.
@@bardowesselius4121 You DONT know your Bible or dont understand the scriptures well.
Who Judges All? Who Saves? Who is the Alpha and Omega? Who is the Shepherd? Are these attributes of GOD or Jesus Christ??? Think about that, but in the meantime.. Tell me about this passage oh wise one… Prophet Isaiah from 8th century BC
Isaiah9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
@@Trwillis9 God the Father is the ultimate Judge and Saviour. He gave His Son the authority to do this after his resurrection. God the Father working through His Son. God's anointed King reigning over His kingdom, like king David ruled Israel. Jesus said many times he could do nothing of himself and it was His God and Father working through him. Who do you believe, Jesus or theologians and church fathers? Only God can make you see through the lies of all the false shepherds.
It is wonderful to know that the gospel can be seen even in the details of Greek - something as “small” as the presence or absence of the article
John has nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ preached to all nations by the Apostle Paul. NOTHING. The gospel of our salvation from Hell fire is preached by Paul in the first four chapters of the book of Romans. Properly the gospel of Jesus Christ is Romans 1:18 Romans 3:20, but anyone who wants to be justified to stand before God and enter heaven after taking their last breath, and to have peace with God while they have the breath of life on Earth, needs to read or hear the first four chapters of the book of Romans preached from an authorized King James book of God's words and then go back and do what God tells them to do in Romans 3:24-26. When a person does what God tells them to do, He will know. When He knows you have done what you were told to do, God will impute His righteousness on you. THAT, is the gift of the holy Spirit of promise. And you will know, because He promises that you will. Saved people know when they are saved because God manifests Himself to the saved person in many different ways.
What does God tell the person to do? Romans 3:24-26 is specific. 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. All on needs to do is to declare, at this time, His righteousness. It is not hard is it to get saved. All one has to do is hear or read the first four chapters of Romans, and then declare out loud, the righteousness of God! That is what He tells you to do. Can you read? Moses failed to do what God told him to do in Numbers 20. Israel had been wandering the desert of sin for 40 years. They came to a place in the desert with a big rock in the hill. The place was called Kadesh. The people were angry. They were grumbling against God, murmuring threats against Moses. Because they were thirsty. They had no water and there was no water in sight. Moses went to God. What should I do? God tells Moses to grab his staff, gather the people together in front of the rock, and to speak to the rock - and God would pour a river of water out from the rock. But Moses, takes his staff, gathers the people together in front of the rock, and then he speaks angrily to the people "Ye rebels!" and he smote the rock twice with his staff. God poured water out from the rock. But told Moses because He failed to DO what he was TOLD TO DO, he would not go into the Promised Land, he would only get to see it from a mountain side where he would die and be buried.
Ok, back to John 1:1. I think you are closing your eyes to what Jesus said. If you agree with Jesus, then you will know how John 1:1 is to be written.
@@GerardoHernandez-cv2hm Jesus is God. Do you believe that? That is all that matters my friend. Wake up.
@@WhatTruthIs You can't just say Jesus is God. Thats like saying in court "I did not do it", you need proof. In this matter Jesus is the biggest witness. What did he say?
@@GerardoHernandez-cv2hm John (AV) 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.
What do you know about the Sahidic Coptic translation, 2nd c., and it's use of the indefinite article in John 1 ?
As may be expected, Trinitarians essentially make the same baseless claim about the Coptic grammar as they do about the Greek ....
Since in the Coptic idiom, their indefinite article is used on occasion before a solely qualitative noun. They claim it should therefore to be ignored when translating into the English grammar in such cases. Therefore Trintarians argue it should be ignored at Jn. 1:1c in the Coptic version of John's Gospel.
The problem is that as with the Greek "theos" there is again absolutely no proof the ancient Coptic Christians of the 3rd century ever used their term for "God" or "god" ("noute") to refer to a quality like "love", "hate", "peace", "joy", etc. ...
Again, a supposed quality called "God" in the ancient Coptic language???
Ah no, ... like the Greek that's total nonsense and even highly insulting as well to try and describe God that way ...
The Coptic dialect, as with the Greek always used their term for "G/god" as a count noun to refer to a distinct countable entity. So Trintarians have no argument here either as the Coptic indefinite article at Jn. 1:1c is indeed relevant and should be carried over into the English grammar in a faithful translation of as "and the Word was a god."
@@antonioterrell354
I never got an answer out of a trini telling what they think of the Sahudic Coptic translation.
Maybe they don't know anything about it or I would think they'd be eager to tell.
Personally I don't think the presence of non-presence of the indefinite article makes any difference in the meaning. It's just they are so sensitive about it.
Frankly I always preferred the better-flowing "and god was the word".
(( "there is again absolutely no proof the ancient Coptic Christians of the 3rd c. ever used their term for "God" ("noute") to refer to a quality like "love", "hate", "peace", "joy", etc. ...
Again, a supposed quality called "God" in the ancient Coptic language???" ))
Perhaps they should just be less fretful and condescend to actually answering questions. One would think they would if their intent is to inform.
(( The Coptic dialect, as with the Gr always used their term for "G/god" as a count noun to refer to a distinct countable entity. ))
If you have good references, article or vids to refer please do.
I think there is a large fraction of "experts" who really aren't, but they have some sort of 501 3C thing going and they thought religion would be an easy way to do it.
I hope Darryl is different and will open up.
Sahidic is 3rd C.
Sahidic used exactly like its in greek a subject predicative qualitative .
For example, jesus said whom is born from spirit is spirit and whom is born of the flesh is flesh in Sahidic coptic both spirit and flesh has also a indefinitely article this means they used indefinitely article por predicative in qualitative sense .
Same in greek john 1:1 it's a qualitative predicate.
Don't listen to people who has no clue what they are talking about like Jw
Jw are so delusional they agree that John 1:1 c is qualitative then they go and make a translation in the indefinitely.
I'm going to shown you a few examples of greek predicate of the subject .
Definitely
Indefinitely
Qualitative
Paul was the man
Paul was a man
Paul was man
Which one is qualitative?
The last one and it's saying about the nature of Paul
Paul was a man it's indefinite and make Paul belongs to a classe or groups.
How the word was a god if there were no groups for him to belong to?
Jw go learn greek
Where do you rate the NET and NEB?
all comes down to understanding..... a picture paints a thousand word...... focus on the bigger picture ❤
Thanks for sharing .Blessings of Christ be upon you.love you from Pakistan.
Interesting presentation. Are there any other examples in the New Testament one can cite where a noun is qualitative and is neither definite nor indefinite?
I'm still waiting for an example outside of the this one passage that is theologically loaded/disputed. So far, all grammars I have looked at are literally cirrcular in their argument. they argue that John 1:1c is isn't indefinate nor definate, but rahter qualitative and then goes into a supposed rule that makes a noun qualitative, but ONLY lists the verse in dispute as the only example for this supposed rule... I am suspicious of circular arguments. (I take the position that "theos" is definate.
You might consider places like Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 where God (with definite article) and Savior (anarthrous) qualitatively refer to Jesus Christ
@@kevinobie1 I don't know of anyone that considers Theos being qualitative in either of those two verses.
There are lots of examples! Other examples of qualitative nouns include 1 John 4:8: God is love. If love (without the article) is definite then we can convert the statement to say love is God, which is clearly not what John is trying to say. Or John 1:4 - in Him was life - life doesn't have the article and is abstract, so it couldn't be in him was "a life" - clearly John is intending to argue that Jesus is the source of life. I hope that helps!
@@bma Thank you for the response. Both examples you cite are abstract nouns. Do you have an example with the use of a concrete noun?
The link to your roadmap that you mentioned says “Safari it could not find your server.”
Use Google Chrome instead : )
I though that in beginning here meant in eternity prior to time as the beginning in Genesis meant the start of time and that was (eimi) referred to the pre existence of Jesus the Word.
'In the beginning' was a reference to creation.
Jesus in his angelic form had already been created as God's only begotten son.
This son helps God in the creation of everything else.
Proverbs 8:22 CEB
The Lord (Jehovah) created me at the beginning of his way, before his deeds long in the past.
Proverbs 8:20 CSB
I was a skilled craftsman BESIDE HIM. I was his delight every day, always rejoicing before him.
That will help understand 'and the Word was WITH God'. - John 1:1
Hope this is helpful.
@@tongakhan230 Correct
@@tongakhan230Check out this copy and paste from my lexicon. (I) When it refers to time, it means the beginning, commencement, relative to an event or a situation such as in Matt. 24:8, “the beginnings of sorrows”; Mark 1:1, “beginning of the gospel”; Mark 13:8, “beginning of sorrows”; Heb. 7:3, “beginning of days”; Sept.: Job 40:14; Hos. 1:2. When it does not refer to a restrictive event, situation or time, it is used in an absolute sense as in John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word.” It does not delineate what beginning. Here it means before there was any beginning whatsoever, the Word had been. There is no art. before the word archḗ. Before the creation of the world there had been the Creator, the Word (Lógos [3056], which primarily means intelligence and the expression of that intelligence in making the world, the creation)
Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000).
So beginning (arche) can refer to eternity prior to time as indicated above the creator exist before creation. verse 3 All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made. In other words He could not have made Himself because He (Jesus) created ALL things.
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Eph 1:4.
This verse is clear we were in HIM(Jesus) before the creation of the world.
22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way,
Before his works of old.
The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Pr 8:22. Here the word possessed can mean created; it can also mean acquired, purchase, or possess. So the LORD possessed Wisdom. I don't believe it means HE(Jehovah) created Jesus. Scriptures do not contradict scripture.
@@quentinhathcock5848 : God can only acquire or possess something that is apart from him. Logically, it cannot be wisdom which is an intrinsic part of God.
The following verses (Proverbs 8:22-31) shows this First Created (or acquired) being helping God in his creation.
Verse 31 is of special interest.
When Jesus was used by God to bring into existence a new form of intelligent creatures (humans), Jesus rejoiced over it.
Remember God speaking to his firstborn and saying "Let us MAKE man in OUR image." - Genesis 1:26.
Ever wondered why God didn't say "Let us CREATE"?
That is because Jesus could only help MAKE. Jesus being a creation himself couldn't create, he not being God.
Looking for way to avoid the truth begs the question: 'Who is fooling whom?'
@@tongakhan230 Jesus is the Son of God ■ he was in the Father, like my grandsons were in me when I carried their mother. Jesus has two parents, parent 1 and parent 2. His father's/theos name, D N A, is the word/logos that created all from him. We have his name in each cell in nuclide acid patterns; 10-5-6-5, Yod Hei Vav Hei, reading right to left hand eye forehead eye, therefore, we can see the importance of keeping his name through the temptation/experiment for the whole world in Revelation Chapter 3. Therefore gene therapy is an abomination of the 'gene'ration, the temple.
I've never imagined that it could be so difficult and complex for English speakers to understand this, it's so simple to take it from NT Greek to modern Greek, yet so strange for you.
You hung the stars and set the Sun in place
You made the Moon and formed the Earth in Space
If nothing else you've done Enough but you did more
You made skies. Clouds filled with rain
Seas and oceans
And Mountainous terrains
Then seeds and trees. Birds bees and beast
Fowl winged eagles Whales. Fish, grains fruits to feast
If nothing more
Who did you do this For you've done enough
Dayenou Lord
Dayenou my Lord
Then from the dust you formed
Man you formed us
Breathed in us your breath
Gave us life without death
What else could we ask, what more did we need.
You gave us everything
You gave us more than enough
If nothing else
Lord that was enough
Yet you gave us each other
Made two become one
Then from us a child now a family becomes some.
A tribe, And a people a nation
With purpose
To Grow and be prosperous
In your likeness
And righteousness
If you do nothing more
If you do nothing else
We have more than we could ever know
Overflow more than we could hope
You've done enough
You've done enough
Dayenou
Dayenou
You've done enough
You've done enough
But then we fell
We betrayed your
Trust and your way
Yet in our shame and our disgust
You took your love and covered us
Then in our death our disgrace
You gave your life and Gave us Grace
That was enough
Dayenou more than Enough
More than we deserved
More than we could've earned
You forgave
What we could not repay
Erased my Guilt
My penalty and
Debt then said to me
I have more than enough
I AM more than Enough
From the moment I created you
It was always Enough
You were always
Enough for I am
Dayenou Enough
I'm your Dayenou
I am Enough
- Steven f Gooden-
Y
could you elaborate? How is it expressed in modern Greek, and what corresponds the closest in English?
A loss for knowledge but not a thirst for him your God
the bible is a false idol. jesus the true human wanted us to live like he did, not preach false lies written by priests hundreds of years later
just a quick question... did jeshua disciplines speak Greek ? ???
greek was th equivalent to english a language that many nations knew existed and used and some people spoke as a second language
you said that you can have a noun being indefinate WITH the article. out of curiosity, is there an example in the NT where this occurs?
Abstract nouns (love, righteousness, sin, faith etc.) often take an article when the intention clearly isn't to definitise or particularise. For example, when Jesus tells the Pharisees they have neglected the weightier matters of the law such as _"justice and mercy and faithfulness,"_ the word "faithfulness" is articular (translated from τὴν πίστιν). However, Jesus is not talking about a particular faithfulness, but faithfulness in general.
Another example would be the statement, _"Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness"_ (1 John 3:4). Here again, both occurrences of the word "sin" are preceded by the article in Greek (τὴν ἁμαρτίαν and ἡ ἁμαρτία). Yet John is not talking about a particular sin, but sin in general.
@@mikedawson975 well, i'm not sure if that would count as an example as an indefinately noun. but thanks.
@@matthewmencel5978 Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you were looking for an articular noun that is nevertheless indefinite in nature. Is that correct? And if so, would you not agree that πἰστις in Matt. 23:23 and ἁμαρτία in 1 John 3:4 are both indefinite in nature? Or do you think that Jesus was talking about a particular "faithfulness" in Matt. 23:23, and/or John a particular "sin" in 1 John 3:4?
Koine Greek has NO indefinite article. Period. It always require it be inserted.
John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John (KJV) here we see A added before MAN and is not found in the greek, and there are many more times in the NT that article A is added but not exist in the Greek.....and is false that John didnt know that in heaven existed more gods...cause he read the whole OT and in Psalm 82:1-6 says that in heaven exist angels that are called gods in the bible....all angels are sons of God according to the bible in Job 1:6 and 2:1 and are divine being....aka gods....logically they are son of the most high (Psalms 82:1-6)
Τέλειο... τέλειο...!!
Συγχαρητήρια από έναν Έλληνα, που ζει στη Βραζιλία.
But at times pictures gives true signification of things as in Esaia ch 9 v6 where it precisetly uses futur tense to denote that jessus was not god ,but will become as among thing that he was not thst is why we can also understood why at the very moment of jessus on earth he was not being considered as god,it is only after that apostle John had received the vision of Apocalyptic contents that apostle John write the vision and also the gospel of John where he has emphsize on that the word was a god as not even apostle Paul has not take jessus for god ,Moses was once made god to be able to dealt with phararons so jessus could bear also that title wihout being the allmighty .ap
@@Goonapachamoothoo Apostal Paul did refer to Jesus as Lord.
Romans 10:13
Joel 2:32
@@Goonapachamoothoo Moses being like God unto his brother Aaron is a turn of phrase not that Yahweh actually made Moses into a divine being, come on now...
KJV (John 1:1, 2) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 This one was in the beginning with God.
Realize that even proponents of the Trinity must use the word "God" 2 different ways here.
The 1st and 3rd time would be referring to a separate person from Jesus whom he was WITH, his Father Jehovah. The 2nd time is "God" in a different sense, either as a plural being or in another way.
At John 1:1 no definite article TOV (the) is used before the 2nd use of Theos the way it is the other 2 times.
In Greek this would read. "In beginning was THE Word and THE Word was toward THE God and god was THE Word.
Whenever no definite article is used, then one reading Greek is to assume the indefinite and this isn't written out because there is no indefinite article (a) in Greek.
Some translations render this, "the Word was divine” or “the Word was a god."
There are hundreds of instances in the Greek scriptures where the King James and other translations insert (a) when the definite article is not present to make sentences make sense in English. 53 times just in the book of John.
Here is an example: KJV (Acts 12:22) And the people shouted, saying, “The voice of a god, and not of a man”
This shows the King James agrees with inserting an “a” before god when there is no definite article.
Since Jehovah is eternal and had no beginning (Ps 90:2; Re 15:3), the Word’s being with God from “the beginning” must here refer to the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works.
You can't be WITH someone and also BE that someone. E.G. In the beginning was Dan and Dan was with Mike and Dan was Mike." Does that make sense? Compare saying Dan was here, Dan was with Mike and Dan was human. No contradiction. Now the phrase makes sense.
God (El or Elohim {plural} in Hebrew) literally means "mighty one."
It does not automatically indicate one to be worshiped.
Even humans judges are called “gods.” (Psalms 82:1,6)
At Psalms 8:5 the word "Elohim" (gods) is used regarding angels.
Psalms 8:5 You made him a little lower than godlike (Elohim) ones, and you crowned him with glory and splendor.
Notice the parallel verse.
Hebrews 2:7 You made him a little lower than angels; you crowned him with glory and honor
If mere angels can be described in the Bible as "gods" and this does does not mean they are either part of Jehovah or rival objects of worship then certainly Jesus, as the foremost angel, can similarly be called a god.
www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/bible-verses/john-1-1/
In the begining was the plan, and the plan was holy. The fact that there is no article makes it not a noun but an adjective. Again John was monotheistic. He doesnt velieve in three gods.
In Matthew, Jesus says "before Abraham was, I AM". The Jews clearly understood that he was claiming to be God, which is why they picked up stones to throw at him. God calls himself "I AM" in the story of Moses, telling Moses to say "I AM" sent you.
Super good tip that the article precedes the subject! Thanks! Curious if there is any merit to the capitalized theta in theos. Was that added later or would it have been done at the time of authorship? I’ve always contended that someone translated John’s gospel from Aramaic to Greek because logos doesn’t make a lot of sense, but the Talmud makes a connection between the idea of “the word” and memra which is the idea of God in physical form.
The earliest manuscripts were entirely capitals - no lower case. Also an upper case and lower case theta looks the same unless a font distinguishes them. So I wouldn't read anything into it either way other than (perhaps) an editors choice.
@@bma : Neither Hebrew nor Greek has something called CAPITAL letters. Many oriental languages don't.
They all appear in one form. The comparison can be made IF there is another case. There isn't.
In English John 1:1 could be written as 'and the Word was a god'. Because the Greek literally says, 'god was the word'.
Wikipedia QUOTES tons of translations which word it thus.
It should be noted that John uses two forms for 'god' in Greek in John 1:1. The reason logically, was to show that God and Jesus were not one and the same.
@@tongakhan230 God the Father and Jesus are not the same in person but are the same in nature and essence just like you and me are separate persons but yet we are both human in nature.
@@truth_merchant7839 ;
Yes, but even though two humans may share the same human "nature" or "essence." That doesn't mean necessarily have the same age, knowledge, experience, or physical prowess.
Also while humans share the same nature or essence, they are still always distinct "beings" from one another. So likewise God and his Son may share the same characteristics of nature and essence and are separate "beings."
Therefore just as humans can never be distinct "Persons" within the same one "being" then neither is God comprised as such as Trinitarians claim.
The alleged existence of a possible separation between a "Person" and their "being" is philosophical nonsense created by Trinitarians.
@@antonioterrell354 Beloved are you calling the Word of God nonsense? How many types of human beings are they? Just one type. Are you less human than me or am i more human than you? Our human nature is shared by 7 billion plus persons. Surely three can share the divine nature. Therefore "person" is the subcategory of Being. If Jesus is a separate being according to your comment you have just created another God. That is idolotry. Which has illogical implications as well. Scripturally the only difference between the Son and the Father is role. Every attribute possessed by the Father is possessed by the Son. As Jesus said " he who has seen me has seen the Father also". Why was Jesus Christ murdered? Because he claimed to be equal with the Father(John 5:18). When this accusation was presented to Jesus he did not correct them or deny it as he did with other blasphemous statements. As a Jew he knew the scriptures and would have been obligated to refute that claim. Jesus could not refute the truth because before creation he shared glory with the Father (John 17:5). Which is strange since God shares his glory with noone (Isaiah 42:8). Even stranger is the fact that Jesus received the same worship as the Father from all creation (Revelation 5:13).
So help me out..."the definite article is connected to the subject and that is how we know how to order the words in the sentence"? Is that a correct statement? So in this example the sentence reads "And The Word was God" because The Word is the subject and we know The Word is the subject because the definite article is before "Word" or logos?
Well, actually the author speaks out of both sides of his mouth. ....
Because at one point in the video he claims the definite article at Jn. 1:1c is used to identify the subject from the predicate in the sentence.
But then in another portion he explains the definite article before the subject is to make it grammatically definite as opposed to the anarthrous predicate which is supposedly "qualitative."
So which one is it? ....
KJV (John 1:1, 2) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 This one was in the beginning with God.
Realize that even proponents of the Trinity must use the word "God" 2 different ways here.
The 1st and 3rd time would be referring to a separate person from Jesus whom he was WITH, his Father Jehovah. The 2nd time is "God" in a different sense, either as a plural being or in another way.
At John 1:1 no definite article TOV (the) is used before the 2nd use of Theos the way it is the other 2 times.
In Greek this would read. "In beginning was THE Word and THE Word was toward THE God and god was THE Word.
Whenever no definite article is used, then one reading Greek is to assume the indefinite and this isn't written out because there is no indefinite article (a) in Greek.
Some translations render this, "the Word was divine” or “the Word was a god."
There are hundreds of instances in the Greek scriptures where the King James and other translations insert (a) when the definite article is not present to make sentences make sense in English. 53 times just in the book of John.
Here is an example: KJV (Acts 12:22) And the people shouted, saying, “The voice of a god, and not of a man”
This shows the King James agrees with inserting an “a” before god when there is no definite article.
Since Jehovah is eternal and had no beginning (Ps 90:2; Re 15:3), the Word’s being with God from “the beginning” must here refer to the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works.
You can't be WITH someone and also BE that someone. E.G. In the beginning was Dan and Dan was with Mike and Dan was Mike." Does that make sense? Compare saying Dan was here, Dan was with Mike and Dan was human. No contradiction. Now the phrase makes sense.
God (El or Elohim {plural} in Hebrew) literally means "mighty one."
It does not automatically indicate one to be worshiped.
Even humans judges are called “gods.” (Psalms 82:1,6)
At Psalms 8:5 the word "Elohim" (gods) is used regarding angels.
Psalms 8:5 You made him a little lower than godlike (Elohim) ones, and you crowned him with glory and splendor.
Notice the parallel verse.
Hebrews 2:7 You made him a little lower than angels; you crowned him with glory and honor
If mere angels can be described in the Bible as "gods" and this does does not mean they are either part of Jehovah or rival objects of worship then certainly Jesus, as the foremost angel, can similarly be called a god.
www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/bible-verses/john-1-1/
the bible is a false idol. jesus the true human wanted us to live like he did, not preach false lies written by priests hundreds of years later
Can you please tackle the verse in Revelations where He says that He is the ALPHA and OMEGA and the one where He says that before Abraham was I AM? Thank you for this video as it stands and in advance!
Isaiah 41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he
God said, In Isaiah 41:4 he is the First and the Last, Did Jesus claim this also? Yes he did. This confirms Jesus was God in the Old Testament. Read below,
In Revelation 22:13 Jesus Christ said,
13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
What does this say too you?
It is clear LORD or God in the Old Testament is Jesus but not came as a man until it was his time to do so, Jesus Christ is God.in the Old Testament but by Spirit. Remember God is a Spirit.
@@Andy-oe9rd It's how Emmanuel is called Son of Man or Son of God(including Psalms) in all but a couple of places; that's what the questions were about. Thanks.
If and when you get to heaven, and get to see the face of Jesus, you will be looking at the everlasting Father. Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: John (AV) 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you. Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
From everlasting to everlasting.
@@pattrell5257 The question you wrote has nothing written about Son of Man.
The Question was you asked, Can you please tackle the verse in Revelation where He says that He is the ALPHA and OMEGA and the one where He says that before Abraham was I AM? Thank you for this video as it stands and in advance.
I answered your question according to your question if you wanted a question answered about son of man then write the question accordingly. People who knows the answer can help others.
Your question has been answered about ALPHA and OMEGA.
Your question you claim son of man would not be answered by this channel because you asked about ALPHA and OMEGA in Revelation. That being said,
You Need to rephrase your question of "son of man" so this man in the video knows what you are talking about and can help you. Have a blessed day.
The summation of the book of John is John 20:31
John 20:31
King James Version
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
John 17:3 goes well with John 20:31.
Yeah the scripture is very clear that Jesus is the SON of God
@@jeffnoble9757
What more proof do we need besides God giving us His Word?
Shalom!
@@acheloua7919 I believe Jesus is the SON of God. Jehovah is almighty God,
Jesus is the son of God,. and the Holy Spirit is an active Force God uses and has NO name, and rarely mentioned by people who try to prove the mystery of the unexplainable trinity
@@jeffnoble9757
God is Holy and God is Spirit.
God's gift 🎁 was Holy Spirit in the form of God in Christ in you, when a person is born again.
Thus the term Christian was born from Christ-In-you. Which is a direct reference to the gift of Holy Spirit.
0:54 How weird is it that I was actually asking the question you were posing?
Also can you tell me what John 1: 18 says ?
it says that no one has seen God…what’s your interpretation
@@JesusIsGodAlmighty736 I was really asking for the whole verse
@@STROND 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
Outstanding treatment of an important topic. Thank you for the great work you have done in studying and explaining this important text!
What a bunch of bullshit.
Bradley The interpretation of John 1:1 is this God was with himself in the beginning as the WORD.
@@therockalltruth6441 hmmm...You might need to watch the video again. I do not think you have understood this important verse correctly. Besides, the idea of being "with himself" is a logical and absolute absurdity. If that were the intended meaning of the text then the text is meaningless. Study harder...don't let what some church or cult leader says subvert the clear and natural meaning of the text for yourself. You are capable of a much clearer understanding. God bless.
PT Barnum was right; there's a sucker born every minute.
@@windbag1980 it's telling you straight up, that Jesus and God are one and the same. "The Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us." To fulfill the prophesies. All scripture backs Jesus as God. All the fulness of God was in Him. That is why there is only one name under heaven and earth in which men shall be saved JESUS. 1Tim3:16,KJV16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." That word "manifest" in this context means to be made or made known. You see God had to humble and low Himself to flesh and bone to become our only chance. It was prophesied many times in the old testament of God coming to earth to save mankind. It was said that we would be taught by God. Isiah 54:13 "And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children."
Isaiah 9:6"For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
Isaiah 7:14"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Emanuel." Which literally means 🤔 God with us... and this is just a few scriptures pointing to Jesus as being more than just a mere man or just the son of God that God put to death for us, but as God in the flesh. Come down to die for you and I. In Gen.22 when Abraham went to sacrifice and give back his son Isaac to the Lord, he spoke into existence and with his faith in the Lord we are blessed to this day! Now you will only find the correct interpretation in the KJV and maybe one or possibly 2 other Bible interpretations. But it is in Gen22:7"And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?
8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together." The most important part is Abraham's answer to Isaac's question being "God will provide Himself a Lamb for the burnt offering" 🐑 in ALLLL the other Bible interpretations it is written "God will provide for himself a lamb"....Yeah sounds totally different right!? Not as personal. Aaaah it's alright God will just go and sacrifice someone or something maybe a lamb or a goat. No 👎 Abraham said "God will provide HIMSELF" and that's just what He did. You see Jesus isn't just the Prince of Peace. He is the Mighty God! He is the Everlasting Father and he became flesh and blood the Lamb to be sacrificed so that we could be free of sin and shame.
Even a Christian cannot brush aside the worship of Jehovah as God. In Revelation 1:5 the Son of God called himself "Jesus Christ, 'The Faithful Witness.'" When on earth as a man he was a Jew, an Israelite, to whose nation the words of Isaiah 43:10 were written: "'You are my witnesses, ' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'even my servant whom I have chosen.'" Jesus demonstrated that he was a faithful and true witness of Jehovah God, even my servant whom I have chosen.'" His genuine disciples today must be the same kind of witnesses, Jehovah's.
Usually definite is for something earlier introduced with an indefinite article in English, because the next time it is a previously defined noun.
And also, this intro likely being a hymn, the last mention of GOD as WHOM CHRIST is with, is likely the HOLY SPIRIT, rather than it repeating once more about the FATHER.
@@Frst2nxt Wrong, repent from this false doctrine and believe in the Most High God the Father through His Son & Holy Spirit.
with this logic how do explain Stephan seeing Christ sitting at the right hand of GOD? (this is me trying to understand) thanks for the vids on Greek language.
It’s not difficult. Scripture says that Jesus has a God. Let’s just start with that basic premise.
Jesus himself, talking to his Father, his God in John 17:3 tells us CLEARLY that the FAther is the ONLY God.
I was born in to JW through my mother. I left but she remains.
Thankyou for this video greatly appreciated it has really helped me to understand the Greek better. Thankyou
This is the 21st Century. We don't have to be taken for a ride by any charlatan.
The Greek can be checked.
John uses TWO SEPERATE GREEK FORMS for god to distinguish Jehovah and Jesus (the Word).
Why would he do that if he intended to point out that God and Jesus were one and the same?
It is John who wrote that 'No man has SEEN God at ANY TIME.' - 1 John 4:12,20.
Rather strange words IF he tried to show that Jesus was God. He definitely along with others had SEEN Jesus.
@@tongakhan230 the father IS NOT the son, the son IS NOT the father. They are both distinct from each other....noone who believes in the triune nature of God believes the father and son "are one and the same" in person...that's Modalism and Arianism.
The son is OF and FROM the father. He is NOT the father.
(Capitalised for emphasis not shouting)
I left the bible belt, but my mom remains. And, my family members either are or would join the bible belt if they chose to repent! I'm not SDA, but SDB! Funny how they keep 9 of 10 commandments, but the 4th they ignore! If you break one, then you might as well break them all!
@@anniesavedbygrace : That is correct!
The Father of Jesus is the father as is my father. The son (Jesus) is the son as I am.
We are two different and distinct individuals. One is the life GIVER and the other, the one GIVEN LIFE to.
When the Trinity doctrine was borrowed from the pagans and incorporated as an article of faith by the apostate church, people were compelled to believe it. Any dissention would label them as a heretic and they would be burned.
This is the 21st Century. Die-hard believers in the Trinity cannot find a single scripture to back that theory up.
So, what many do is to come up with variations of what the Trinity should mean.
@@tongakhan230 I wanted to be a JW when I truly understood John 1:18. KJV - “no man has seen God at anytime”. Simple.
Do you have anything on acts 20:28? Why do some translations insert words that aren't in the Greek?
(Acts 20:28) Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son.
Jesus clearly stated that God is a SPIRIT (John 4:24). Logically, God wouldn't have any blood. It is Jesus' blood that was used to buy the Christian Congregation.
Sometimes translators add words to help the reader.
You need to be more precise. What "words" are being inserted by which "translations"? Then, what is it about each of these instances that you find problematic?
@rogerlau4932 yes. Sorry. Is it 'blood of his own' or 'blood of his own son'.
I think that was the issue
What Is your Theological perspective brother?
Since I started using YouVersion I primarily use NLT and cross reference with CEV, NKJV, & MSG. I've found that cross referencing really opens the scripture.
The NLT and the NKJV both say “God does not take away a life” in 2 Samuel 14:14, but in Deuteronomy 32:39 they both say that God said “I kill.” This is called a contradiction, otherwise known as confusion. God is not the author of confusion. God is not the author of the NLT or the NKJV, or any of the other English translations; save the Holy Bible King James Version, which is the word of God.
@@user-nw2je6rg3o first off all English versions of scripture are translated from Greek manuscripts. So all versions are translated.
With respect to the verse you sited you have misinterpreted.
For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect any person: yet doth he For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; {neither doth God respect any person: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him.}
2 Samuel 14:14 KJV
The part in brackets is translated in NLT as
...But God does not just sweep life away; instead, he devises ways to bring us back when we have been separated from him.
2 Samuel 14:14 NLT
You have not understood the context of what is being spoken. There is no contradiction.
But if you believe the only inspired scripture is KJV please pursue that in peace as you go forward.
@@user-nw2je6rg3oamen it’s a blessing to see a truther
@@user-nw2je6rg3othe KJV has the pagan easter instead of Passover.
@@PerfectBrandd The KJV does not mention Easter as a Christian celebration lol.
God’s word in the KJV mentions Easter, and calls it Easter, because it was describing the pagan Roman festival taking place, which is called Easter. The Easter festival is not Passover; neither is a Roman Catholic pagan celebration honorable in God’s sight.
People think this is unique to the NWT Bible, but in fact several Bibles through the ages, including ancient manuscripts, and other translations have rendered "a God", long predating JWs and the NWT.
“…and the word was a god.” - Sahidic Coptic Manuscript, 300-600 C.E
“…and the Son of God was Eloah (God/a god?).” - Hebrew Sepharad Manuscript, 1400s
“…and the word was a god.” - New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation, 1808
“…and the Word was a god“. - The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822
“…and the Word was a god” - The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, 1829
“…and the Word was a god” - A Literal Translation of the New Testament, 1863
“…and a god was the word.” - The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, 1864
“…and the Son was of God” - The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, 1867
“…and the Word was a god” - Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible, 1885
“…and [a] God was the word” - The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialec, 1911
“…and the Word was a God.” - The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed, 1958
“…and godlike kind was the Logos.” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978
“…and the word was a god (or divine)“ - 2001 Translation Project, 2001+
“…and a divinity was the Word” - Universal Arian Bible, 2010
As we know, Greek does not have indefinite articles, but only definite (which is used to point out something important in the context of a passage), which means every instance the term "a" or "an" is written in our modern English Bibles, is an insert. The indefinite is needed for English speakers to make sense of otherwise self contradictory sentences.
A good example is this:
The word "Christian", it's both the name of a person, and the name of one who is Christian in religion.
Now if I say; "There was a man named Christian, a Christian was with Christian, and Christian was a Christian".
We as English speakers get it, a man named Christian was with another man who was a Christian religiously, and Christian himself was religiously Christian...
But if we write this without the indefinite, and make it "Greek" as it were: "There was a man named Christian, Christian was with Christian, and Christian was Christian".
Now that to an English person sounds like saying Christian was with himself and was himself... This is what the later churches in the 3rd centuries who didn't fully understand ancient Greek, as well modern people and language scholars get confused over.
Now regardless, one "could" still 'try' and argue that it's meant to be read as "word was God (Almighty)"... and I do respect that opinion. I agree, we do not always need articles to make something "definite", if the context allows for it.
But there is internal proof however, that there is validity for the opinion that it should be "a god", and this is founded not just in overall doctrinal consistency of how Jesus acts and speaks about his Father ("my God and your God") but also in John's "Differentiational Grammar".
“the Word was with Ton theon and the Word was theos“.
It's very likely that John chose to use the Ho/Ton article (defining the True God) combined with the “theon” variation, and then afterward “theos” in the same sentence without the article, to make sure he didn’t give the impression that these two “divine beings” were the same person. This is the same as what Paul did at 2 Corinthians 4:4 when he distinguishes Satan from God:
“The god (Ho Theos) of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of [the] Anointed, who is the image of the God (Tou Theou)“.
Notice how similar in structure 2 Corinthians 4:4 is to John 1:1. Both begin by introducing a specific “god”, and then ends by mentioning another specific god. In English, the god at the beginning of the passage, and the god at the end, looks to be the exact same phrase, both of them even making use of the definite article (ho theos, "the god"), and thus it could be very easy to confuse the two as the same being, and as a result, we could make the drastic mistake of thinking Jesus is the Image of Satan.
The potential for this confusion was just as much a reality in the 1st century as much as it could be today, but to get around this, Paul made sure to use an alternative variation of the term “theos” (Theou), to clarify that these two “gods” were not the same being.
A good example in modern English would be the phrase “this and that”, I can point to one object and call it “this”, or I can call it “that”, and both phrases would refer to that one object, but if I said “this and that” within a singular sentence side by side, I mean “two objects”. And this form of word usage appears to be exactly what we are seeing here. Thus, it can be strongly argued that this use of “differentiational grammar” is exactly what we see John do in John 1:1, and we continue to see John do this throughout, for example again at verse 18:
“No one has ever seen God (Theon). The only-begotten god (Theos), the one being in the bosom of the Father, he has made Him known“.
"Theon" is being used as the 'accusative' (identification tag of an individual), whilst "theos" is being used here as a "generalisation" and possibly also as an alternative identification tag in comparison, just as Paul made sure to do.
Hence, understanding I believe that it's highly probable that this was John's intent, to separate these "gods" as two different beings via his very particular use of grammar perfectly lines up with why it was written as "a god" in the Sahidic manuscripts that made use of indefinite articles, just like modern English does.
This is why, as even mentioned in the video, the structure of the sentence is "the word was god", and not "God was the word", because the subject was the Logos, and it's telling us what he was in the 'generalised' sense (a theos/a god). If the Word was literally the Almighty, then that would lend to "God was the Word", but the subject is the Logos being "with God", as opposed to "being God", which is exactly 'why' the grammar doesn't support "God was that Word", because the "god" that the Logos is, isn't an "identification of name", but a "what" (a species/kind).
This grammatic issue was pointed out by ancient historical Christians between the late 1st-3rd centuries, such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian and even Origen (who is credited much with the roots of the theology of Trinitarianism), and it was they themselves who said the "god" in John 1:1 could only be translated to mean "a second god".
If we claim the second theos is also meant to be definite, then we get "the logos was with Ton Theon, and the logos was Ton Theon", but this results in modalism (oneness - that the Son is the Father), which is considered heresy by Trinitarianism, and was condemned by the early church, therefore, by asserting theos is the definitive in this context, then you have to force it to mean Modalism. So you have two options, the non-definite, which renders "god/a god" in the general sense, or the definite, which makes the Son the the Father, and is modalistic. One option locks out the other.
We have to remember, that in ancient Hebrew mentality, the word "god" didn't mean what it meant later on in language, or today. But simply meant "mighty", and we see in scripture, multiple people being called "gods" without being rendered as "false gods" (e.g angels, spirits, judges of Israel, kings, sons of god, etc). So this rendition does not at all break monotheism, but is consistent with Jewish theology and ancient language.
Whilst I do not agree with all doctrines of JWs, and I beleive the NWT is corrupt in a few places, this is teaching/rendering I agree with, which is not to be attributed to JWs as their own unique made up teaching, but is historically Christian.
Thank you so much for this lengthy and detailed comment. It is very thought provoking and I have no idea how this comment doesn't have any replies and only a handful of thumbs up. I have a couple questions for you. What is your background with the Greek language? What is your belief when it comes to God/the Bible/Jesus/New Testament?
@@acb9318 Personally, I am a lay person who works a lot with books, concordances and lexicons, but I'm well read on several scholarly books and articles on such matters of grammar also. So, for that reason I always tell people to fact check the 'source texts' themselves whenever I share an opinion on something.
I also have worked as a researcher for some translation projects of the Bible (such as the 2001 project), as someone who collects various scholarly materials and opinions across a spectrum of translation issues and historical references, and in doing so I've picked up a few things along the way (and hence in the blogs I also write on my website, I 'always' make sure to source reference the information in relation to the conclusions I myself draw in my own thoughts) in the most professional manner I possibly can, whilst also admitting my ignorance in areas in which I can say nothing. :)
Other than that, just someone with a head on his shoulders, haha.
As for my Christological.religious beliefs, I am a Post/Non-Denom Christian Restorationist, and I lean toward early Logos Subordinationism of the earliest church fathers, which can be said to be a form of "Semi-Arianism", specifically, "Accacianism/Homoeanism". Which simply means, I believe the Son is begotten from the Father, but make no assumptions or reference to his "substance or essence", and that I understand the Son had a beginning, and to be a subordinate being to the True God, who is the Father alone.
(My views and articles on all such things are on my blog if you want more detail. Link is on my channel page).
@@acb9318 because it's ridiculous
@@ri3m4nn tell me you’re a troll without telling me you’re a troll.
@@acb9318 I accept your concession.
Awesome channel. Just recently found it. Learning a lot from you. Thanks and God bless.
Just a small question. In my conversations with a modalist, he is pointing out, that "pros" should not be translated "with" but rather "to" or "towards" or "pertaining to God". As somebody who doesn't know any greek, I have to rely on the experts. What do you say? How do we know for sure its "with" and that its meaning is something like "face to face" or "to be in company".
Alex
John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John (KJV) here we see A addedbefore MAN and is not found in the greek, and there are many more times in the NT that article is added.....and is false that John didnt know that in heaven existed more gods...cause he read the whole OT and in Psalm 82:1-6 says that in heaven exist angels that are called gods in the bible....all angels are sons of God according to the bible in Job 1:6 and 2:1 and are divine being....aka gods....logically they are son of the most high (Psalms 82:1-6)
I am Greek and you are right. "Pros" means "to" or more likely "towards". It is used frequently to show, for example, direction.
@@cosmic21st so you are greek...in modern greek do you have articles undefine and define ones?
Loved this- didn't catch that last part about trinity... not sure it does? I'm new to this- left a religion a few months ago that taught different things. I now believe in God and Jesus. I'm not super clear on the 3rd or it there is a 3rd. Thanks.
God the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. This is the Trinity of God.
@@LionNotWolf I've since learned more since this. Haha. Thanks. I believe the Holy Spirit is female. So Father, Mother, and Son. Yeah...cue people coming at me for that. 😅 it's ok though....I respect if people believe differently.
@@lisagrace6471where does it show or say the Holy Spirit is female .. Don’t be stupid with your blasphemous comments..
Not only was He with God HE was GOD and THE CREATOR of everything that was created..in fact nothing has been made that hasn't been made by HIM
Very problematic
@@Seababy-vz9ie he's reading from the Gospel of John,chapter one verse one.. I would encourage you to read from verse one to verse fourteen and ask yourself who is John talking about. May GOD bless you always
Who is john
@@brianpeterson5559 before God and the Father James 1:27 KJV two separate Gods
@@scottgrey2877 I would seriously recommend that you take a course in Biblical hermeneutics!
Can you do a video comparing John 4:26 from the Joseph Smith Translation to the Greek? I have been meeting with a lot of Mormon missionaries over the years sharing the gospel with them, and John 4:24 invariably comes up when they try to tell me that God is just a glorified man.
Isn't this a cry for help. Shouldn't someone be able to defend his own faith.
Jesus clearly pointed out that God is a SPIRIT (John 4:24).
Jesus was flesh and blood when he spoke those words.
Unless Jesus forgot that he was God too, we must believe Jesus.
'No man has SEEN God at ANY TIME.' - 1 John 4:12,20. ANY TIME would take in ALL POSSIBILITIES. Which logically would rule Jesus out from being God at ANY or even SOME TIME. Because he had been SEEN.
Just some help to reason.
@@tongakhan230 No it's someone being humble enough to ask. Are you too proud ?
@@tongakhan230 hi again tonga khan, so when you ask a muslim scholar to exspose a contradiction that isnt true so hes holping your faith thats embarrassing for you🤣
So IOW it could be translated as “the word being divine” (making the imperfect a timeless continuous)? So in Lithuanian not „pats žodis buvo Dievas” bet „pats žodis buvo dieviškas”
Not really ...
While "divine" is certainly a better translation than simply "God", which is totally erroneous to the context. It is still not proper to translate a noun (theos, "God" or "god") with an adjective ("divine").
Also since the Greek theos is grammatically a count noun it should be consistently translated as a count noun or expression. ...
Therefore if term "divine" is to be used at all, then at Jn. 1:1c it is best rendered as "a **divine being**" or some similar in English.
Thus either the literal ...
"and the Word was a god"
Or to state it in another, but equivalent way ...
"and the Word was a divine being"
I didn't hear you mention "Colwells Rule" which I've read that applies here.
Maybe that's what you basically explained here, and maybe I missed it.
Can you explain/expound on how that rule applies?
@@jahtruthdefender Really? Bruce M. Metzger who was a famous Bible Scholar and translator who was a long time Professor at Princeton Theological Seminary and Bible editor who served on the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies say's it does.
@@jahtruthdefender Here is an excerpt from Theology Today 10/1 (April 1953), pp. 65-85. By Bruce M. Metzger regarding the NWT of John 1:1.
As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation. It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering, “… and the Word was God.” Some years ago Dr. Ernest Cadman Colwell of the University of Chicago pointed out in a study of the Greek definite article that, “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. … The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. The absence of the article [before θεος] does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas [John 20:28, ‘My Lord and my God’].”
In a lengthy Appendix in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation, which was added to support the mistranslation of John 1:1, there are quoted thirty-five other passages in John where the predicate noun has the definite article in Greek. 20 These are intended to prove that the absence of the article in John 1:1 requires that θεος must be translated “a god.” None of the thirty-five instances is parallel, however, for in every case the predicate noun stands after the verb, and so, according to Colwell’s rule, properly has the article. So far, therefore, from being evidence against the usual translation of John 1:1, these instances add confirmation to the full enunciation of the rule of the Greek definite article.
@@jahtruthdefender I don't disagree.
Do you disagree with Bruce Metzger?
@@jahtruthdefender Again, I said I don't disagree with your video.
The points you brought out make sense to me, so I do agree with what you said. However, when someone like Bruce Metzger, who has very impressive credentials say's that a specific Greek grammar rule applies, I have no reason to doubt, nor have I the expertise or knowledge in Greek to say anything.
I was very surprised when you said that Bruce Metzger is wrong.
What qualifies you to challenge him on this?
Unless you can show me why he's wrong, and what your credentials are to make that determination, I think I'll just stick to the one that is the most likely to be right, a well accomplished real Bible Scholar and expert in Greek grammar.
@@jahtruthdefender If your asking me what Bible translation I prefer, I would have to say the NASB.
But I like to compare all translations against a good interlinear. I like to dig into the Greek words and their meanings to get a more accurate understanding of the scriptures. If this is what you meant in your question, what is the relevance to the debate?
This explanation fits in with Michael Heiser's teaching of two Yahweh figures. Very interesting. Great video
Two Yahwehs? There is only one true God.
@@cc3775 Reread the account in Exodus 3rd chapter. Who appears to Moses in the bush?
@@lizicadumitru9683 an Angel representing God. Do you understand agency?
Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him. “But if you carefully obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries.”
Exodus 23:20-22 ESV
““Now when forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush.”
Acts 7:30 ESV
““This Moses, whom they rejected, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’-this man God sent as both ruler and redeemer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush.”
Acts 7:35 ESV
“This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us.”
Acts 7:38 ESV
“you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.””
Acts 7:53 ESV
@@lizicadumitru9683An angel; a messenger of God.
Exodus 23:21 "...obey his voice, provoke him not... ...for my name is in him".
The burning bush in Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush". Exodus 3:6 I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham..."
How can you possibly reconcile these passages if it wasn't an angel in the bush, speaking on Gods authority? You are suggesting that angels of God aren't actually messengers, but another YHWH?
I assume you also take that logic and apply it to the 3 angels that appeared to Abraham. The YHWH on earth reigned fire and brimstone from YHWH in heaven. Forgetting the echad entirely.
Angels carry Gods authority with them. No man has seen God and lived. Yet apparently some people
have? If the Bible is the word of God, why are you ignoring others? Your theology is incorrect.
the bible is a false idol. jesus the true human wanted us to live like he did, not preach false lies written by priests hundreds of years later
NO CHRISTMAS, NO TRINITY IS BIBLICAL .
What does this mean. How is Christmas, which is the celebration of the incarnation of christ unbiblical. The trinity is 100 percent biblical. john wrote john 1:1 to combat claims that Jesus did always exist, but it was christ who always existed. Which isn't true because jesus was born of a virgin and conceived by the Spirit. Psalm 2:12 speaks of Jesus. And in Isaiah 9:6, it's prophecied Jesus would be called might God and everlasting father so jesus is God, the father is God, and the holy spirit is God. But don't understand it as 1 plus 1 plus 1 but 1 X 1 X 1. It's three persons in one being.
The oldest version of the Christian Greek Scriptures "Codex Sinaiticus" some 1600 years old is different to the Greek translation your using? What is your source material? I'm a normal non-academic person and did my own research using this book via a museum website with digital photos of the book in PDF all free to do anyone can do the same and there are not 3 words λογοϲ like you are claiming? in fact the second comma in your translation is where the original scripture ends with a full stop your version has a second comma and another sentence including another λογοϲ? why? am I missing something?
Excellent question. Codex Sinaticus is the oldest which is awesome..unfortunately one of the short comings in my personal opinion is the fact that it is short hand. So a lot of words specifically in John 1:1 is not spelled all the way out. They did this to save space. Some of the words look different but I assure you it’s the same reading. You should look up reading the oldest bible John 1:1 hopefully it’ll come up and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Theon is also a word that’s abbreviated. Just know that Codex Sinaticus is the oldest..but it wasn’t found until the 1800. We have already been using manuscripts and other texts to translate. Not to mention the KJV of 1611. And that’s just one English translation. We’ve had many bible translations before this simply because of how much manuscripts we have to translate from.
*I was hoping you would address this. A great follow up to this might be Granville Sharp's Rule.*
True. I'll add it to the list. :)
With respect. This comment sounds like a sign of relief.'
"We have believed the Jesus is God theory blindly for so long. We needed someone to help explain these embarrassing scriptures."
These are not explanations. They are excuses to circumvent the truth.
@@tongakhan230 With respect, your comment was exceedingly disrespectful. Maybe if you studied some textual criticism, you could catch up on some of these very simple rules.
@@PracticalBibleStudies : I don't see any disrespect in my comment. Unless someone wants to read something into it which wasn't intended. Just like this video does with John 1:1.
This is the 21st Century. People can check things. That is, IF they want to.
Remaining ignorant is done on purpose and is not an excuse now. The truth is available for those who seek.
Daniel 12:9 Then he said: “Go, Daniel, because the words are to be kept secret and sealed up UNTIL THE TIME OF THE END. 10 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.
@@tongakhan230 I am pretty sure I learned John 1:1 in my first ever Koine Greek class. It is very easy to see that no definite article is required. The word was God. I would venture to guess that you are a Jehovah's Witness. Would that be accurate?
The hole in your theory is that his name, given by the angel, was Emmanuel which translates to an elohim with us. Elohim literally translates as "mighty ones". So if John knew Hebrew and the messiah so well he would clearly not violate these grammatical realities. Hebrew distinguished when elohim was plural or not by adding the definite like when YHWH would say "I am your elohim"
So if the messiahs true name was Emmanuel, or a mighty one with us, then John's assertion would most definitely match. Otherwise the angel and John preach two different gospels.
Emmanuel was one of Jesus's titles or labels. His NAME is Jesus, or, Yeshua on Hebrew, or Ieosus in Greek.
Emmanuel conveys the deity of Christ as well as his divinity. It also fulfills prophecy.
@@Ryan-rh8rn Jesus was never a name given him by any known source. Explain why Mary, who is supposed to be obedient to the lord, is told to name him Emmanuel, by the angel, and instead named him Jesus. Let's not forget what Jesus actually means. Acts 13 explains that Bar Jesus means Elymas. Literally translated means my elohim is a mouse. If you'd like to take the position of popular teaching ,which is that Elymas means sorcerer, which it does not, but whatever, then you're saying that Jesus means sorcerer. Yeshua is also an incorrect name since it suggests that YHWH was his father, which is what that name means, "out of YHWH". That name came about YHWH the idea that Jesus is the Greek cognate of Joshua. There's zero evidence of this since they grammatically mean different things so that's out. Not to mention that the messiah rails against YHWH, in the text. Going so far as to call him the devil and a bad father. What you're arguing is interpretation and I'm arguing translation. I can overcome yours through translation but you can't justify yours if translation is used. I don't say all that to down you nor your faith only to point out that there's something rotten in Denmark.
@@gavinpeek7781I replied twice already. Apparently youtube has something against me
@@Ryan-rh8rn lol yes they're biased for sure. I responded to one of your replies.
My favorite verse foreshadowing God becoming the Lamb 🐑 to be our sacrifice for our sins is in Gen. 22:7
"And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?
8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together."
God will provide Himself a lamb. Himself I belive is very very important the way it is written. In All the other translations other than one maybe two one being the KJV. They all are written that God will provide for Himself a lamb for the burnt offering. Which is wrong. God didn't sacrifice his child. He came in the flesh to fulfill our need for a savior. Only God could come down humble Himself and defeat death for us. #JesusisGodintheflesh!
God did not become a lamb. He provided a lamb. God did not sacrifice Himself. Jesus gave himself over in obedience to his God and Father. Your statement makes no sense at all. And you don't seem to understand how and why Jesus sacrificed himself. He died as a ransom for many to buy us free from the one who keeps us in slavery of sin and death.
@@bardowesselius4121 that is a false doctrine. Your making Jesus out to be a mere servant and I no Him to be God in the flesh. God robed Himself in the flesh to become our sacrifice.
@@douglastriplett1083 Jesus was not a mere man at all. That is the other extreme of a false Jesus. The church made him God, moslems make him just a human prophet because their god has no son. The truth is in the middle. He is the divine son of God, but not God Himself. The Creator God is the Father alone. Jesus is a uniquely created human being who is the firstborn son of God. The last Adam, not a second person of a trinity or 'God becoming a human being'. God manifested Himself through a human being and exalted that human being to be the head of His entire creation. A man who became to example to follow. It is God working through Jesus as Jesus himself stated many times.
Is the bible credible is it God's word? If so, what do you make of things written like Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." or Paul's letter to the Colossians 1:15-16 "15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."
you also have 1 Peter 19-20 "19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,"
and Revelation 13:8 "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
These verses about the Messiah/Christ indicate He is almighty God (Elohim) The everlasting Father (YHVH) who became flesh, the visible manifestation of the invisible God. Who is the Lamb slain shedding His blood to redeem mankind.
John 4:23-24 "23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."
Luke 19:10 "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost."
@@shanli2693 AMEN 🙏 🙌 👏. He is the Great I Am. Emanuel, God with us.
I am new here. Please, I would want to also explain the book of Hebrews 1 especially verse 8 in the same light.
Sure! What would you like to know about it?
@@bma the explanation of especially verse 8 in accordance with the original Greek or Hebrew language from which it was translated.
You kind of touched on this a little bit but could you just quickly explain whether or not Greek uses an indefinite article? I know they have a definite article and possibly have an indefinite concept but I don’t believe that the Greek language uses an indefinite article.
No, Greek does not have an indefinite article.
In the absence of a definite article in Greek, translation protocol dictates that we put A or AN before a noun in English.
See this same protocol followed at Acts 12:22, 28:6.
Thus Jesus was a god.
WAS is the past tense of IS.
Jesus gave up being an angel, a mighty being, a god, in order to become human (Philippians 2:7, John 1:14).
No one can be a WAS God.
It should be IS God.
C.S. Lewis wrote: "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
Bono of U2 said: "So what you’re left with is: either Christ was who He said He was the Messiah or a complete nutcase. I mean, we’re talking nutcase on the level of Charles Manson. This man was like some of the people we’ve been talking about earlier. This man was strapping himself to a bomb, and had “King of the Jews” on his head, and, as they were putting him up on the Cross, was going: OK, martyrdom, here we go. Bring on the pain! I can take it. I’m not joking here. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me, that’s farfetched." in "Bono on Bono: Conversations With Michka Assayas" (2005)
The C.S. Lewis quote is a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy, or false dilemma. C.S. Lewis only gives us two options, assuming that there are no other possible options to choose from. I believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but I don't believe that he is God. There are plenty of verses in the Bible that directly contradict the notion that Jesus is God, but my favorite is Deuteronomy 4:39:
"know therefore today, and lay it to your heart, that Yahweh is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other."
Isaiah 45:5 is really good and obvious as well: "I am Yahweh, and there is no other, besides me there is no God."
Hop on over to Bible Gateway and do a search for "there is no other" and see what you come up with. Make sure to substitute God's name in place of "the LORD" since removing his name was a very grievous error and makes many verses impossible to understand, such as Exodus 6:3:
"I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the Lord I did not make myself known to them."
Is God's name the LORD? No it isn't. It is dishonoring to God to replace his name with the LORD and it is also dishonoring to him to elevate anyone up as God besides Yahweh, even someone as amazing as Jesus.
@@joshuamattison6379 You commit the very grievous error you slander the translators with. Also in Isaiah you have YHWH detailing the sending of his servant and all that he will do. Then YHWH says I will do these things, the one speaking will do it. So the messenger/servant is named YHWH, the special name for the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is also seen in Isaiah 48:16 where the servant says they have been there from the beginning of time, and then YHWH and His Spirit both sent him.
@@joshuamattison6379 You're a rare voice of truth and reason in this world. In the arts and humanities fields, of which theology is one, BS, fact, nonsense, logic, speculation, and more, are all the same. Now you understand how people can believe contradicting things.
Strange that nobody in the Bible clearly laid out the important concept that 'Jesus is God.' Amazing, isn't it?
Here are Jesus own words to show that he was NOT God.
John 8:40 But now you are seeking to kill me, A MAN who has told you the truth that I HEARD FROM GOD.
All that these videos attempt to do is to say: 'What does Jesus know. We know better.'
@@tongakhan230 No, we just know that there is much more to the story than your cherry picked verse. Just later in the same chapter in verse 58 Jesus uses the exact phrase that YHWH used talking to Moses to declare that he was God. Jesus said before Abraham WAS, I AM. The present perfect form EXACTLY as used with Moses. God, the self existent one, applied to Jesus, by Jesus. That is when they attempted to stone him.
DEUT 18:15-19 describes perfectly what God means and what John means when he says the Word is God. Literally the Word is God, and God put it into His Son to speak His words on His behalf. Making the Word flesh, not the flesh God. May Yah bless us.
How does deut 18:18 prove Jesus is God?
@@leecooper3852 it proves He's not God. There is only One True God and only one Begotten Son. Everything is the Father's doing and He gave authority to the Son, and when all is fulfilled Jesus gives everything He's done in His Father's name back to Him. 1 Corinthians 15:27-28
Exactly....its like a person who speaks it's the same person.... that's what God is ...God is and speaks and that what Christ is Same person God ....
@@abelyerikaguerra1540 no, not at all. Christ speaks His Father's words. His Father gave Him authority to do so, and at the end Christ bows to His Father who is all in all.
Parable of the vineyard. The owner sends his own son after the tenants killed all the others, thinking they would at least show him respect. This is an example of what was literally done by the Father with Jesus. The owner didn't show up acting like his own son, it was really his son.
The word of god is a sword. s word / word s. Our language is deliberately confusing on purpose, only laws are clarified here.
I agree that John was referring to Genesis 1:1. However Genes 1:1 is NOT the ultimate beginning. It does NOT refer to the beginning of time nor the beginning of the spirit realm - the realm where all the heavenly armies abide - the cherubs the seraphs and the messengers (angels) Genesis 1:1 is discussing the literal or physical world of the heavenly stats, and planets and our earth.
Seeing the word "αρχη" is an indirect object thus a dative noun we have several options of preceding it by to/for/by/the. The option that sounds best to our ears in this context in English is the article "the". The inclusion of the article here has no relationship to the argument as to if the indefinite article "a" is used in clause C of this text.
Yes John was Jew and a very good Jew who understood the law. He was *NOT* a monotheist but a monolatry and believed that there was only one God to be worshipped, but, that many gods existed. He understand the meaning of the Hebrew word for god/God and that there are many gods. He knew that Jesus was NOT the God that he worshipped.
There are many ways that a predicate nominative can be used. Philip Harner demonstrates the various predicate nominatives in is article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1”
In John 1:1 we have an anarthrous singular predicted nominative count noun coming before a linking verb. When ever this constriction is used all Bibles add the indefinite article, before the noun except most Bibles refuse to do so for John 1:1c - WHY - Theological bias not grammar
How in English do we show a quality? Look at the example of say the word man. The word man is noun. “The man went to a shop” Here the word man is the subject of the sentence. What does the the word man tell us in this sentence? “John is a man”. The word John is the subject and the word man is a predicate noun. It tells us a quantity about the person John. He is not a tree or a woman. He has the quality of being a man. There are many examples of that in the Bible and the indefinite article is always added.
When an anarthrous singular predicted nominative count noun coming before a linking verb as there is in John 1:1c, we always find the indefinite article, so, to be consistent and keeping with grammar it should be in John 1:1 as several different Bibles did long before the NWT came along
It is sad to see a Biblical Greek teacher let his theological bias get in the way of teaching Biblical Greek
Could you please do a study on Deuteronomy 6:4 in relation to Jesus being God along with the Father?
Read from an interlinear, Hear o Israel Jehovah our God is ONE Jehovah...... It does not say the Lord is one. You can chose Yahweh, Yahuah or half a dozen other opinions. Period.
@@ralphgoreham3516 Very brief explanation of Deuteronomy 6:4 somewhat vague.
Deuteronomy 6:4 As Christians we know there is only One God, not 2 or more, and if we believe in more than one God we have a problem known as Polytheism (the Jehovahs Witnesses believe in Polytheism)
Deuteronomy 6:4 (I'm using the CSB) Listen Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
The word "one" in Hebrew is "Echad"
If we go to Genesis 2:24 "This is why a man leaves his Father and Mother and bonds with his Wife, and they become one flesh."
Here once again "echad" is used.
Deuteronomy 6:4.....and they become one(echad) flesh.
Echad in Hebrew means a single entity made up of more than one part. A Husband and Wife once married are united as One, yet they are made up as two separate persons united as One.
please s-l-o-w d-o-w-n.. some of us oldsters don't drink energy drinks like you younger guys!
Otherwise... great teachings; thank you!
Keep on rockin'.. and PEACE in Jesus Christ.
No Jesus?
No peace.😉
You can change the speed of the video, for better understanding. Shalom
Thanks Darryl - your explanation was easier to follow than Wallace's. Another watering down of John 1:1 would be to translate it as the word was divine. I think that carries the qualitative force a bit too far. God could have inspired John to use a word that clearly meant divine, but instead choose a more forceful way of of describing the logos.
Correct, and it's because Jesus was more than simply just divine, angels are divine, mortal beings can technically be "divine", but that doesn't make them God. And there's no such thing as a God, only the God.
@@willtherealrustyschacklefo3812 The interpretation of John 1:1 is this God was with himself in the beginning as the WORD.
@@therockalltruth6441 yes that is what I just said, then technically he did split himself into pieces to create existence, but yes those pieces are still him as well
Jesus died (not in) by the promise land. The same land he promised Abraham. Jesus is the same guy who gave the promise of the land to Abraham's decendents.
@@matthewmontano9695 yes, he was also the "bush" who spoke to Moses
Thanks for your presentation. But I just had to comment.
You seem to say there are two people spoken about in John 1:1. Also, yes context certainly helps greatly to point to the meaning or what rendering should be applied if an article is not present. Yes seems good.
You also seem to agree with this - The definite article (the) appears before the first occurrence of the·osʹ (God) but not before the second. The articular (when the article appears) construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous (without the article) predicate noun before the verb (as the sentence is constructed in Greek) points to a quality. Also, that the actual Greek translation is that the Word was Divine (which is an adjective which you agree with)
But then you say that this qualitative sense here in the grammar actually makes him God - so he is the same person as God as he has the same divine quality.
It is interesting what Divine actually means from what I have read. All reference works and dictionaries I have looked up basically say the same as these definitions of the word Divine and what it means in a spiritual sense - Of or like God or a god / or something or someone that has the qualities of a god or deity / or same characteristics of God / or of relating to or coming directly from God or a god / or having quality associated especially with the supreme being / and etc...... This seems to be across the board actual definition.
Is there another definition that is different and backed up by a reference?
But I'm thinking does having the same qualities or characteristics of another person make you the same person as the one you have the same qualities with? Actually, I do know people who are just like their parents - same qualities - very much the same even physically, mentally and emotionally like chips off the same block as it were. But they are not the same people!! Rather very much like their own biological father or mother in a qualitative sense. they are the only ones like them.
Interestingly these seem to be other examples in the Greek text with cases of a singular anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb that have been translated the same and in same way in many translations (e.g. Mark 6:49,11:32; John 4:19, 6:70, 8:44, 8:48, 9:17, 10:1, 10:13, 10:33, 12:6, 18:37). In these places, we see the indefinite article "a" before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Same shoud be done in John 1:1. Hence the other rendering seems possible that 'the Word is a god" or "is Divine" or a Divine being etc....
I find this quote fascinating - Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, comments on this approach: “A possible translation . . . would be, ‘The Word was a god’. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” However, The New English Bible does not render the verse that way. Rather, John 1:1 in that version reads "The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was.” Why did the translation committee not choose the simpler rendering? Professor Dodd answers: “The reason why it is inacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole.”-Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Volume 28, January 1977. Interesting indeed- what is influencing the rendering then here? food for thought perhaps.
Some others I have seen are below which seem to agree that the last clause is about the quality of the Logos and might not be about his identity? what do you think?
Some scholars copied below and some translations (a teacher like yourself I'm sure you have seen them. Are they wrong? If so why?
1/ Scholar Jason David BeDuhn agrees- he states that the absence of the definite article makes the two occurrences of “God” “as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” He adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.”-Truth in Translation: Accuracy in English Translations of the New Testament, pages 115, 122, and 123.
2/ The Translator’s New Testament says regarding this absence of the article: “In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means ‘The Word was divine.’”
3/ In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87)
Older Translations
1/ “In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.”-The Bible-An American Translation, 1935, by J.M.P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
2/ “The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.”-The Bible-Containing the Old and New Testaments, 1950, by James Moffatt.
3/ “The Word was in the beginning, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.”-The New Testament in an Improved Version, 1808, edited by Thomas Belsham, based on a New Testament translation by William Newcome.
4/ “In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. So the Word was divine.”-The Authentic New Testament, 1958, by Hugh J. Schonfield.
5/ 1829 "and the Logos was a god" - The Monotessaron;or, The Gospel History, According to the Four Evangelists, by John S. Thompson, Baltimore.
Of course, when it comes to bible scholars, Greek scholars and bible translators, of course we all know that being in the majority does not make a belief the truth even as being in the minority does not make a belief the truth. If there is a grammatical difference in translation between scholars and bible translators, then we need to discern the context of the passage and also within the verse itself. Is this a right thing to do?
If so then maybe we could ask other questions such as - What did Jesus teach about himself. Who did Jesus say he was? Who did he tell his followers to pray to when on earth? Who is greater, the father or Jesus according to the Bible? Does this change after Jesus' resurrection? What does the bible teach as a whole. Should we go with the accurate grammar without including a personal belief to change the meaning? This surely will all help with accurate translation of scripture.
Some food for thought? Maybe you have seen all this before but hopefully we have some common ground here? Thanks again for your time and for reading. Have a great day 😊
I wonder if that was a scribal error?
Very helpfull, thanks very much for sharing. I regularly speak to Jehovah's witnesses that say that Jesus being the 'Only Begotten' Means that he was the first of God's creation. And then God through him created everything else. It would be interesting to see a video on 'Only Begotten'.
This may help.
Begotten is from the verb 'to beget'. It means to produce, create, bring into existence, give birth to ect'
Jesus says that he is God's only begotten son' at John 3:16.
Isaac was the only begotten son of Abraham through Sarah, the promised seed's mother.
Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac-the man who had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up his only-begotten son (Greek MONOGENES).
Just as Isaac was not his own father, Abraham. Jesus too, is not his own Father, Jehovah.
God used Jesus to help bring all creation into existence. That is why Colossians 1:16 says that all things were created THROUGH Jesus. Not BY Jesus as the KJV tries to make out.
@@tongakhan230 you miss the point of using "only begotten" in regard to Jesus as "son of God". There are 4 categories of "sons of God", but Jesus is the only son who was begotten and therefore birthed by a human. The other 3 are not. It does not mean he was not his own "human form" creator, but that he was the only one begotten. I can make my own clone and be my own "father", just as God used Adam to clone Eve, but Eve was not "begotten". In this, Jesus is unique. That is the actual point of using "only begotten".
So I am going to give you my uncle's, Dr Wilbur Glenn Williams, (former Professor of Archeology and Ancient Languages @ IWU) understanding of the term "only begotten." To be begotten means much more than born of human. Animals are begotten and that does not mean they are born of humans. Additionally, it is much more than being "created by." If being created was the message Jonathan was trying to project then he would have used the word "created." Instead John used a word that meant to have the same nature or attributes as the parent This really throws some deep perception into the whole understanding of the nature of Jesus. Not only did Jesus have human DNA being born of Mary, He had the nature of His Father, God Almighty. So what is the nature of God Almighty? God the Father is eternal infinite without beginning Without End. No Angel or created being could ever make that claim. So even though he had a human nature he also had an eternal nature. In fact Philippians never says he gave up His God nature. It only says he took on the likeness of man. Since one of the attributes of God is eternal, it meant the Son would be Eternal as well. Thus that would mean without beginning or end. This is also why he was referred to as the God-man, both fully human and fully God at the same time. Remember he was in the form of God meaning having all the attributes of God. You can't be half infinite. Imagine that you have all the numbers that exist, an infinite amount of numbers. You remove all odd numbers, an infinite amount. You are left with all even numbers still an infinite amount. Infinite is always infinite and nothing less. God is always God and nothing less. If anyone was begotten of his nature then they would be infinite and eternal as well, or fully God. Understand I am not the professor. That was my uncle and he conveyed to me this understanding before he passed away. Just some food for thought. God bless anyone who strives to understand the nature of our creator.
@@brett1nita : Shall we read Jesus' own words.
(John 3:16) “For God loved the world so much that he GAVE his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.
Jesus, as an angel, was ALREADY GOD'S ONLY BEGOTTEN SON prior to being SENT or GIVEN.
Jesus in his angelic form was the FIRST of God's creations. Being DIRECTLY created by God, he is termed only begotten son.
The other sons of God (angels) came into existence THROUGH Jesus. That is; Jesus helping God in creation.
Proverbs 8:22 CEB
The Lord )Jehovah) created me at the BEGINNING of his way, before his deeds long in the past.
Proverbs 8:20 CEV
I was right BESIDE the Lord (Jehovah), HELPING HIM plan and build. I made him happy each day, and I was happy at his side.
Remember John writing that the Word was WITH God at the beginning (John 1:1).
God offering his only begotten son is likened to Abraham offering his only begotten son (Hebrews 11:17).
The problem many have is ALREADY BELIEVING in some Trinity theory and then trying to make the scriptures fit that theory.
That is not the way to get at the TRUTH.
This video is one such example.
It conveniently ignores this simple, clear, unambiguous and scientific truth.
'No man has SEEN God at ANY TIME.' - 1 John 4:12,20. Jesus definitely was SEEN.
@@tongakhan230
monogenēs means one of a kind.
Great video! This was the clearest explanation of the predicate nominative that I've come across. I think it's also significant that John used _theos_ ("God") to describe the Word instead of _theios_ ("divine"). He seems to be affirming as strongly as possible that Jesus is "God" in the highest sense while still maintaining the distinct personality between the Son and the Father.
You just need to look at CONTEXT..........Jesus is with God, John 1:1, he was also in the bosom position of God..........and yet you are trying to tell us that Jesus was with himself, that Jesus was in the bosom of himself !
@@STROND in the bosom means close relation…not a physical location
@@JesusIsGodAlmighty736 so then Jesus is NOT God, but as John says he was WITH God....context affects the meaning !......................The key is John 1:18 which most people overlook, where we read
"No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him." Jesus is an "Only begotten God !
Jesus = mighty God (OT) His father = the ALMIGHTY God is a title and God even gives that title to other humans !
@@STROND who is Isaiah 9:6 referring to?
New Zealand? What about the Wycliffe bible that says: God was the word?
the bible is a false idol. jesus the true human wanted us to live like he did, not preach false lies written by priests hundreds of years later
@@powdergate do you not know about the Jesus from the Bible?
Please explain John 1:5
Sure, what specifically about John 1:5 would you like me to address?
Hmmmmm Great Video.... Word was with God in the the beginning. All things created by the Word. God's voice..... For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak(John 12:49)...... I and the Father are One(John 10:30).. Everything that the Father has is mine (John 16:15)..... Before Abraham was I Am ( John 8:18).. Just like your Words are You and from you. It is not that hard to comprehend Our words are us just as God's Word is Him. The Living Word, Hebrews 4:12. Revelations 19:13 The name written on His head "The word of God" case closed.
The interpretation of John 1:1 is this God was with himself in the beginning as the WORD.
Please read Deuteronomy 18:15-19. It clearly describes the Word and how God uses it. And then 1 Corinthians 15:27-28. May God bless us and keep us.
The “Word” is the wisdom, plan or purpose of God
@@cc3775read John 1:1-14
The Word is Jesus
@@DrDoerk been there, done that. Jesus is not the word in John 1:1.
AND.......You have to understand that in the Bible (OT) and for Jews the word for God is "Elohim" and means "Mighty ones" Now in today's modern language we have restricted the word "God" to mean the "almighty" basically the creator, but that was NOT so in the Bible days !
And I will show you. For example did you know that people, kings and judges in the Bible were CALLED Gods ?
To illustrate, Psalms 82 says: (now this is God speaking)
1 God takes his place in the divine assembly;
In the middle of the gods he judges:
And Vs 6
“I have said, ‘You are gods,
All of you are sons of the Most High.
You may notice how even Jehovah calls them "Gods" and HE says "I have said "You are Gods" ......so the question is HOW were they Gods ? And when you have come up with the answer to that, then you will answered the question "How can Jesus be a God " !
Did you know Moses too was called "God" so was not that polytheism ?
So if God can give the title of God to angles and people then WHY can't he give the same title to his son?
You cannot allow the restrictive use of the word "God" in today's modern English language to restrict and dictate the way the term was used in Bible times !
So as the ancient greek did NOT have the indefinite article, that is the word "A" in English WE DO, and when translating into English it is OK to say "a god" to differentiate between the ALMIGHTY (Jehovah) and one who is not. It is done all the time in the Bible, there are many case where the Bible inserts the indefinite article, that is the word "A" because there is not one in the Koine Greek .
Good interpretation, we have to examine the Hebrew language & culture cause Hebrews wrote the scriptures down not native Greeks.
You are right
Psalm 82 is not so simple as you make it look, its most likely speaking of the pagan gods (Michael Heiser also agrees ):
God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the “gods”:
“How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?
Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
“The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing. They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
“I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’
But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.”
Rise up, O God, judge the earth, for all the nations are your inheritance.
@@danyks4847 Its saying that we are all in God and part of him but do not realize. As we are thought, we are thought within God's thought.
@@danyks4847 Sorry you have that WRONG. Ps 82 is Yehovah talking to the kings and judges here on earth. So if he can call them GODS he can call his son by the same title !
Great! It may not be cool anymore, but I give the video a double thumbs up!
9:02 The word has the quality of the God we find in the genesis. These qualities were given to many people before as we see in the exodus, Moses was send as god to the Pharoh so what makes word distinguish here? Also, if John was emphasising thet the word was itself the God, there must be article but as you said just the quality of God not God himself so it appears John wasn't saying that the word was actually The God
I had a discussion with a JW once and discussed this very issue. The JW was completely overwhelmed with my conversation and immediately excused herself and left. She came back a few days later with a "higher-up" in the JWs. I went through the same discussion with her, and she, too, was flummoxed. She excused herself. I have never had another visit from the JWs, and that was about 5 years ago.
I've got a syllogism I use with JW's and it has had the same effect - they don't come back for a few years. I think they mark houses. Thanks for sharing!
@@bma I once knew a man who had been high up in the JW organization. He had been the director over their entire Bible and literature printing operation until he became an evangelical Christian. He told me that they do indeed mark houses.
@@dooglitas is that Tom Cabeen?
@@RiskeFactor No. I don't know who that is.
In the beginning was the word (Jesus as the word or spokesman for God) and the word was WITH God...........so does not make sense to say that the WORD was Gd if the writer had just identified him (Jesus ) as being WITH God....
In English that is not good grammar and makes no sense.................Now in Koine Greek there is NO indefinite article, that is the word "A" however the context and the fact that John uses Theos in connection with Jesus and "Ho-theos" in connection with his father Jehovah shows that John was not identifying WHO the word was but rather WHAT the word was....
Well known commentator William Barclay writes explains it all in one paragraph. John did not identify the Word here but was indicating what the Word was.
Finally John says that "The Word was God". There is no doubt that this is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because Greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which English speaks ...When John said 'The Word was God' he was not saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like." (Barclay, W. The Gospel of John, vol.1, The Dailey Study Bible Series, Saint Andrew Press, p. 39)
Various translations
"the Word was Divine" (Goodspeed, E.J. An American Translation N.T. 1923).
"the Logos was Divine" (Moffatt, J. The Bible 1950).
"And what God was, the Word was" (New English Bible 1961).
"the Word was Divine" (Schonfield, H.L. Authentic N.T. 1956).
"The Word was with God and shared his nature" (Translator's N.T. 1973).
"and the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God" (Barclay, W. N.T. 1968).
In addition to their comments below, W. E. Vine, Prof. C. H. Dodd (Director of the New English Bible project), and Murray J. Harris admit that this ("the Word was a god") is the literal translation, but, being trinitarians, they insist that it be interpreted and translated as "and the Word was God." Why? BECAUSE OF A TRINITARIAN BIAS ONLY!
W. E. Vine - "a god was the Word" - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament.
C. H. Dodd - "The Word was a god" - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Jan., 1977
and the Word was a god." New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
"and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson
"and the Word was divine." The Bible-An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed
Even Origen, the most knowledgeable of the early Christian Greek-speaking scholars, tells us that John 1:1c actually means "the Word [logos] was a god". - "Origen's Commentary on John," Book I, ch. 42 - Bk II, ch.3
Jesus brings forth the "Word" of his FATHER. We are the, "Word" of
Christ---Jesus is the 'Word' of the FATHER.
And that's what JOHN 1:1, really means.
GOD bless.
Outside here we are all drops in an ocean of energy, the drop is the ocean, the ocean is the drop. God separated the waters above from below, we are mostly water! Your bloodline your drop's lifeline, when it dries so does the drop, you. NOTHING lasts forever not even the ocean. Evil is literally sucking it dry through us.
Evil has consumed our world, the people don't even see it and are drowning in it. 1.2 million abortions last year alone is a lot of pure energy for evil. Not to mention what they are doing to children, subjecting the world to system. It's really bad. EVEN with internet impossible to connect with all, and impossible to convince them all to chose a better life. THE road to redemption is not forgiveness, it's simply a collective choice.
David beat Goliath the system, by arranging and rearranging ceremony procedure and law with the support of the people. NOTHING is literal.
Stone, is ceremony and laws, sacred carvings to communicate.
Sling, arrange or rearrange, something.
David is losing to Goliath today, because subjection today is not seen easily by those subjected to it. In ancient times, the people were subjected and it was very obvious to all, not so today. People today are defending Goliath, the system.
There is only one way to fix this world.. order. But, if we didn't complain, what would we talk about. We can decide right now to change the world, collectively. But, at this point I'm convinced we don't really want to.
We tried monarchy but those kingdoms were not filled with kings.
Then, we tried governments. Socialism, democracy, communism, dictatorships.. How's that going??
We need Kingdom filled with kingdoms / communities and homesteads, filled with Kings / sovereign.
The paradox of authority is very clear.
Father / King is leader of HOUSE/Kingdom, empowered by those within he is always liable and bound to them! GLORIOUS. In our attempt to make equal, we destroyed this sacred paradox of authority. King/Queen, like man for mankind!
Government should manage the expenses of the Kings, be random and limited in time and scope, on all levels.
Government should tax commerce and not people, commerce has no rights. All things like recycling should be put to commerce and manufacturing.. if manufacturing for example were responsible for their own mess, recycling, it wouldn't be problem anymore!
No companies, they aren't people and aren't responsible, that's why everyone gets away with everything. No laws and punishments, instead laws and decree, when you defy order you face consequences, you aren't punished, order is agreed upon by all in authority, or you.
Local everything, sheriffs, educators, medical practitioners, government.. commerce entertainment etc. People need to live and work in their own communities again, and be responsible to them.
Replace laws and punishments with degree and consequence. Agreed on by all in authority, you. You aren't punished when you break order, you face consequences.
Ratify and redefine language. Right now, it's deliberately confusing, words to define themselves, eight other words meaning the same thing, nine spellings.. confusing on purpose! YOU will notice, only law is clarified here on earth now.
Understand, implied consent. They don't show you, they tell you. GOOGLE the world health organization logo and tell me what you see!? Evil flogging world with staff of healing. NOT about well being at all. THIS is how they imply consent, they show not tell.. Ancient communication like sacred carvings and pictograms that are no longer relevant to average people. Because language is so imprecise, they show to gain consent. But look again at the W.H.O logo, notice anything else? The word health means, physical mental state.. so that flag or logo should read World Physical Mental State Organization. Our consent is needed, free will and all that, but they can be tricky like a lawyer. WE NEED to reword our words and languages. The word of god, is a sword! s word / word s. THEY have us swinging at nothing.
The kingdom of god is earth, and you are all king / sovereign here. The king of kings will bow to men and to god as is the paradox of authority, men will not bow to him. AND all will be king.
No company other than that in which you invite to dinner! Why? Companies are not people and have no rights and responsibility, that's why everyone gets away with stuff now. That and the confusing law. We only need owners and workers. Working conditions and wages would balance selves out naturally. THERE would be no debt, you can't be free in debt. THE only thing you will owe is a favor.
If properly run, government would send dividends, and not bill. TAX COMMERCE, never people!
The government are not authority, YOU are! YOU just forgot!
We can't do anything about it individually, not one of us can do a thing.
The road to redemption is not forgiveness, it's a choice.
NO ONE is riding in on a horse in the clouds to banish evil! ONLY we can make a choice to live another way, the KING of KINGS will be a man, born into the world, understand it, and be empowered by the people, bound to them, this is the way it should be.
The world is just to vast, and to many people, for this to ever work or be done. Snap my fingers, and it would be done! lmao.
NO speed limits on public roads, if the KINGS want to limit speed, limit vehicles not people!
All land is public or private to individual.. YOUR family name will be your seal! ALL houses get a vote no matter how many people.
NO religion is a land of the free. IF YOU WANT to gather and believe, do so as you chose, but never to religion, and never to affect the whole, no matter how many gather to the belief. NO place in Kingdom.
Workers and Owners. Officials and Servants. Entertainment and Services. Tax commerce NEVER people, golden! Government manages expenses and general affairs, admin only! No inflation, supply demand and working conditions will balance organically naturally.
NOT NEW WORLD ORDER, an ORDERED WORLD! Ordered by YOU the sovereign here.
In ancient mythology, the Apple is one of the most sacred trees and symbolises good health and future happiness.
The serpent was a symbol of evil power and chaos from the underworld as well as a symbol of fertility, life and healing.
Look at the W.H.O logo. Health means Physical Mental State, no matter what that state is. SHOULD be called World Physical Mental State Organization. But, does the logo look interesting to you!?
Evil power and chaos made Eve the mother of all, eat good health, future happiness. AND bound her fertility life and all healing. We have to look at things like Bible or Adam and Eve like we do the world around us. NOTHING in that book is literal, but it's all very real.
Ronald / Donald
Both in foriday!
Ronald, a male given name: from Scandinavian words meaning “counsel” and “rule.”
De, (added to verbs and their derivatives) denoting removal or reversal
Santis, The name Santis is a nickname type of surname for a person who was born on All Saint's Day
All saint's day, nov 01
Trump declares 1 November to be ‘national day of remembrance for those killed by illegal aliens’
Aliens, interesting!!!
I think whoever is ruling here, will be ousted on or before nov 01, this will be a new independence day, and we will always remember this disclosure on all levels, and honor all who they murdered, ate and killed!
Black Lives Matter, reversed, Rettam sevil Kcalb
KNOW THY ENEMY!
Rettam, creation, amen code
sevil, to love
Kcalb, Black Devil in the Grey Garden, he isn't even Black!
Google each word, and then together to reveal!
I love the opening of John's account. Docetism is also developing around this point (depending on how you pin down time of writing). God was fine, Spirit was fine, but God becoming flesh conflicted with docetism. The hypostatic union - Jesus' equality and sameness with God will always be a conflict.
Great video Darryl
The interpretation of John 1:1 is this God was with himself in the beginning as the WORD.
The fact that “john” was written to disprove a theology proves the whole account is false
Sameness?
In this scripture, Jesus Christ quotes Psalm 2 about someone other than himself:
.
Revelation 2:26-27
And to him that conquers and observes my deeds down to the end I will give authority over the nations, 27 and he shall shepherd the people with an iron rod so that they will be broken to pieces like clay vessels ** THE SAME ** as I have received from my Father
.
A man will be THE SAME as Jesus Christ!
.
If Jesus Christ IS GOD then, how can a man be THE SAME, as him?
.
However, if Jesus Christ is A god then, according to Jesus Christ a man will also become A god.
.
Also, what happens to the Trinity mathematics when a man become THE SAME as Jesus Christ?
.
Please break down the Greek used in Revelation 2:26-27
.
.
.
@@isaiah30v8 He’s talking about deputizing us with the believers authority. We are seated with Christ, and that is only by abiding in Christ is that that power delegated and Jesus has been given all power and authority by overcoming death. What you’re speaking of is heretical doctrine of Gnosticism and sounds eerily similar to the deception that got Eve…
“and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:”
Ephesians 2:6 KJV
@@Churchofthelostsheep ---- That authority would transfer from the king of the Jews (Judah) to someone else was known right from the beginning:
.
Genesis 49:10
The scepter will not turn aside from Judah, neither the commander’s staff from between his feet, until Shi´loh comes; and to him the obedience of the peoples will belong.
.
The commanders staff (Iron Rod)
.
Jesus Christ himself said there would be a king of each tribe:
.
Matthew 19:27-28
Then Peter said to him in reply: “Look! We have left all things and followed you; what actually will there be for us?” 28 Jesus said to them: “Truly I say to YOU, In the re-creation, when the Son of man sits down upon his glorious throne, YOU who have followed me will also yourselves sit upon TWELVE THRONES, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
.
What about the king of the Nations (Gentiles)?
.
Jesus Christ resolves that important question in Revelation Chapter 2 and also Chapter 12:
.
Revelation 2:26-27
And to him that conquers and observes my deeds down to the end I will give AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS, 27 and he shall shepherd the people with an iron rod so that they will be broken to pieces like clay vessels ** THE SAME ** as I have received from my Father,
.
There will be a King of the tribe of Ephraim. The Nations or Gentile Christians.
.
Read Genesis Chapter 48.
.
There is no heresy here.
.
You just have to have faith in what Jesus Christ explicitly said.
.
Luke 18:8
Nevertheless, when the Son of man arrives, will he really find the faith on the earth?”
.
.
There is no tribe called "Christianity" in Gods Kingdom!
.
Read the last chapter of the Book of Ezekiel to verify.
..
.
They say that if you truly understand something you can describe it in a way a 5 year old can understand …
Thank you for your videos! Question: Why are all versions still lying about the present tense in the verse? The Greek clearly says in the Beginning IS the Word and the Word IS with God and the Word IS God. Changing the present tense to past tense because "it's not the way we speak" seems to be a horrendous distortion of the nature of the ever-now Godhead.
I'm looking for a version the John 1:1 in Koine Greek that has IS in it, but when I translate it, it just goes to WAS. If you can show me the translation of Greek that has IS instead of WAS, that would be great. Also, where did you find this translation that had was in it?
@@jeremiahbeckwith3267 No, I meant the Greek has present tense, but all the translations I have seen use “was.”
The obvious answer is that Jesus is not God.
Here are Jesus' own words to show that he was not God.
John 8:40 But now you are seeking to kill me, A MAN who has told you the truth that I HEARD FROM GOD.
If I hear something from a Radio Station I am logically, NOT the Radio Station.
@@tongakhan230 If he was not God then what was his purpose or message?
@@tongakhan230 The problem with that statement is that in verse 58 of the same chapter, Jesus says that before Abraham was, I am. He claimed to be God. This doesn't mean He is not the prophet, for He foretells Jerusalem destruction which happended in 70 A.D. and not only that, but He foretold His death and resurrection. So Jesus is the prophet, but at the same time is God.
In Genesis 1:1. In the beginning Elohim is Hebrew! And plural or more than one. Don't mix Greek and Hebrew. God is a title not a name. The Father did not come down to earth as Jesus being the same substance or essence. The Father and son are two separate persons. They are in unity or oneness.
This is correct, we have the creators or the Alihyim ( all divine beings ) appear in gen 1:1 , then we have the interloper yhwh Alihyim appearing first in gen 2;4 yhwh was
one of the creators, the fallen one ! " Old English ēastre ; of Germanic origin and related to German Ostern and east; perhaps from Ēastre, the name of a goddess associated with spring. "
Doesnt neceserily mean they are not the one with holy spirit together. Seeing them as three persons in unity is just different way of accepting it. It's pretty difficult concept yet doesn't breach nothing from the truth they represent three parts-sides of the God.
JESUS AS MAN FOR THE PURPOSE TO FULFILL THE LAW OF SINS AND PROPHECY NO MAN CAN FULFILL
JESUS IS THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT
THERE IS NO OTHERS GOD
HE ALONE
If and when you get to heaven, and get to see the face of Jesus, you will be looking at the everlasting Father. Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: John (AV) 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you. Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
@@WhatTruthIs I will definitely not be looking for the face of jesus / hesus in heaven .
I have to wonder why so many scholars disagree with you?
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.
1829: "and the Word was a god" - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)
1863: "and the Word was a god" - A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)
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
1864 “and a god was the Word” The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
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 J. M. P. Smith and E. 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);
1966, 2001: "...and he was the same as God" - The Good News Bible
1970, 1989: "...and what God was, the Word was" - The Revised English Bible
1950, 1984, 2013 “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.
1993: "The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one." - The Message, by Eugene H. Peterson
*I'm no scholar but looking at Jesus own word and testimony of himself states he's "a god" at John 10:34, 35 saying, "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken" - KJV*
By Jesus own words, proves, John 1:1 should be translated "a god" or similar to god like. *The Word is NOT God himself.*
I take it by your comment that you are not a trinitarian. Yet you state that Jesus is a god. Are you a polytheist then? Or do you not honor the Son as you honor the Father?
@@matthayes533 Yes, I don't believe in the Trinity. It creates all sorts of contradictions. Which Trinitarians avoid such scriptures that create them, thus can not apply 2 Tim 3:16, 17.
Yes, Jesus is "a god" as Jesus clearly shows how he viewed himself as "a god" at John 10:34, 35 referring to the PS 82.
NO! I am not a polytheist ... I do not worship Jesus, I worship the Father Jehovah alone. It's a ridicules' accusation, and a *Straw man argument.* God made Moses a god to Pharaoh, did the Jews worship Moses? The Bible is clear ... there are many gods 1Co 8:5, 6 the true God is the Father to worship, which the Son clearly also worshiped his Father saying, "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." - John 20:17 KJV Jesus not only the Father Son but the Father Servant. “The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob,-The God of our fathers Hath glorified his servant Jesus:” - Ac 3:13 KJV
Logically, then, scholars that agree with "a god" agrees with the entire context of the Bible. Thus, we don't have to twist, skip, make up and or assume, over the scripture and or change the meaning of words.
@@wapperjaw8282 It is not a straw man, you either give the son the same honor you give the father or you dont. If you give them both the same honor and Jesus is "a god" then you are giving the same honor to two different gods - polytheism. (notice I said honor, you are the one who said worship - now who's strawmanning?)
What is a straw man is accusing Trinitarians of modalism. Trinitarians are not modalists. Trinitarians don't believe God puts his Jesus mask on and then later puts his Holy Spirit mask on like he changes modes. It's not as if Jesus was once in his angel mode and then his man mode and then when he died he went back into his michael the archangel mode - now that's modalism.
@@matthayes533 Yes, it is a straw man argument! And I give Jesus honor and respect ... etc. That does not mean I worship him. *And yes, 3 separate persons simply does not equal one person. The Trinity is a contradiction from the get go!* And there is nothing in the scripture stating anything of the sort! You twist Jesus words when he says he and his Father are one. And disregard his word when he says his Father is greater. At John 17: 21 Jesus use the same word (hen) translated as *one with his followers.* *Hen* does not mean a Trinity! By your understanding, you make Jesus followers part of the Trinity, *creating another contradiction!*
*So now you need to include all of Jesus followers as one and as God ... that does not add up to the trinity, does it?*
@@wapperjaw8282 Wow... I sure said alot of things I didnt say...
Do you undestand what a straw man is. It is literally building up a fake position for the other person and then arguing against that. which is exactly what you are doing here. Accusing me of all these things I never wrote.
Help me understand your position better. Do you give the son (jesus) the same honor you give God (Jehovah)?
Is Jehovah God?
Is Jesus a god?
If the answer to all three is yes then you are giving one god the same honor you give to another god. do you understand why that sounds like polytheism (the belief in more than one god)?
I remember hearing Dr. Walter Marin "The Bible Answer Man," and an early apologist explain this as well years ago.
Yeah i used to go to his classes at melodyland
@@falconguy4768 Wow, I remember Melodyland. I would go and listen to Dr. Martin as well. He sure died young.
@@louisaccardi2268 yeah that was sad but great memories he was was also funny we all laughed a lot he had the ability to tell stories of his experiences and his energy just awesome
@@falconguy4768 A lot of people missed him.
The problem here is that there is not one defined “beginning” so that is an overstatement.
You've given a strong, logical, and clear line of argumentation in opposition to the Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine of the Word being "a" god. The position manifested in the New World Translation is idolatry; pure, plain, and simple.
I absolutely disagree. If anything Darryl contradicted himself when he indicated that the use of "God" was in the qualitative sense not the definite sense. Since we understand that God had no beginning, would John have written that Jesus was there at the beginning? Would a monotheistic Jew have blasphemed the Almighty God by making Jesus his equal? The weight of the entire Greek Scriptures does not support the trinitarian view of Jesus. They didn't for Sir Issac Newton either. But I respectfully admitt that this question will not be answered this side of heaven. I am not one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
If you read what non-partial commentators say , and that is that John is indicating Jesus quality or being "god like" and was NOT saying that he was the almighty Yehovah
@@evaritchey731 You got it in one ! That is why we need to look at context , John 1:18 calls Jesus the "only begotten God" most translation dishonestly translate it as "only begotten son" cos they cannot stomach the fact the Jesus who is given the TITLE as god, was begotten......I always ask people "you know the almighty Yehovah, the creator ? who is his God "? because if Jesus is God then GOD must have a God and father himself, as that is what the Bible says"
Although that line of reason will only work with the Jesus is the ONE god non trinity group !
What makes that position idolatry? Just curious yo
@@aaronshipp8766 it is idolatry because the word of God says God is eternal. God did not come "into" existence. He is the "eternal God." (Deuteronomy 33:27; Romans 16:26) He is the God who created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1; Acts 17:24) He is to be worshipped by mankind. (Zephaniah 2:11; Revelation 14:7) "A god" has been created, has been made, and has not always existed. "A god" did not create the heavens and the earth. "A god" is not to be worshipped. To worship "a god(s)" is idolatry because "a god" did not create the heavens and the earth, has not always existed, and must not be worshipped. The "Word" whom we know as Jesus did create the heavens and the earth, is eternal, and must be worshipped. (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:13-17; Hebrews 1:5-8) Jesus, the Word, is not "a god." To serve "a god" is idolatry. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6)
John explicitly tells us what they believed. No need to try and guess what John 1:1 is saying.
John 16:30
[30]by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.
If they believed he was God Almighty, they would have said, "by this we believe that thou art God."
Something people forget when reading what Jesus in flesh said or what was written about him is that he manifested in flesh (Adam's fallen state) *representing fallen Adam,* not God, firstly to teach *us* who *we* really are and who *our* Father is and ultimately by his sinless death, He restored what Adam has lost...
@@andrevisser7542 Very good.
John 1 should be understood in the context of him quoting Philo of Alexandria. He is not stating a new understanding, he is using an existing popular philosophy to introduce Christ to unbelieving Jews. Similar to what Paul did with the statue to the unknown God.
_John 1 should be understood in the context of him quoting Philo of Alexandria._ Trinitarians never mention this.
Please
Share
Love Truths
What is Your Own Church?
Argue all you want but if you compare John 1:1 with John 4:24 the grammar is the same and the idea is the same "a god was the word" and "a spirit is God" The only reason there is disagreement is that the trinitarians must have their triune god at all costs. The pagan converts to Christianity won the argument in the 4th century with Constantine as the referee. I'm sure they were in the majority and argued loud and long. Yes, a pagan Roman emperor decided that there must be a trinity in order to settle the argument. There seems to be a super abundance of supposed Greek scholars these days who wholeheartedly agree with him.
If Constantine were the referee, there were two 'sides' at a minimum, and the greater number (apparently by far if this were the case) of scholars understood their Greek very well, meaning Constantine did not decide that there must be a Triune Godhead, but what was already decided on by the believing scholars. Praise God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit that there is a 'super abundance of Greek scholars' who also wholeheartedly agree with their fellow believing scholars of that day. You did miss the point of your mistranslation of "a god was the word" and "a spirit is God"; the former sets up other gods which is false, and the latter has the definite article ('the' God is spirit without the article, so the Person of God is spirit as spirit, this is qualitative, this is His nature).
@@craigchambers4183 The Jewish scholars also understood the Hebrew to perfection but they were totally wrong and condemned by Jesus himself. Being in the majority and understanding Greek doesn't count for anything unless it is from God. Wresting or twisting of the scriptures results in destruction (2Pet 3:16). Satan is the God of this world and has blinded the minds of unbelievers (2Cor 4:4). Jesus also said the path is narrow and few would find it (Matt 7:14). Those few are hated by the majority but have the responsibility of "pulling down of strongholds" in their Christian warfare (2Cor 10:4) KJV. The fight is in full swing against doctrines such as trinity, hell fire, purgatory, immortality of the soul, transmigration of the soul, images, icons, idols, worship of saints, veneration of Mary, all good people go to heaven, the earth will be burned up, popular pagan celebrations that honor demons such as Halloween, celebrations with pagan roots such as Easter and Christmas, spiritism, and much more. The list is very, very long. The command to true Christians is to "come out of her" (Rev 18:4). Living in the last days should give us a sense of urgency to do just that. Following the majority will get you killed.
@@charlessmith833 No one argues that one can understand the Word even if he knows it's language. Apples and oranges, friend.
Amen, JESUS is GOD!
Amen. If and when you get to heaven, and get to see the face of Jesus, you will be looking at the everlasting Father. Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: John (AV) 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you. Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
@@WhatTruthIs I was taken in the spirit in 2010. I was in a very white room. I stood there and watched as God and The Holy Spirit, these 2 had a gray covering over Them, came walking in from the left and took there place of seating, in His thrown or court room. I then saw Jesus come in from a door on the right. He looks like a man and wore a white robe and carried the book in His hand.
Jesus title is Lord and Savior. God is Supreme and the highest.
@@DL-gb8jc FATHER, SON and HOLY SPIRIT= co-equal and co-eternal.
@@DL-gb8jc Well, you were either drugged, or deceived. Or you are a liar.
Attributive
καλος λογος
ο λογος ο καλος
Predicate
λογος ο καλος
λογος καλος
Too my knowledge ειμι ("I am") and related forms have their subject and direct object in the nominative. Hence θεος ην ο λογος is predicate nominative.
The argument goes thus; the greek word for god used in the phrase and the word was god is actually an adjective. This brings the expression that what God was the word also is. This is not to say that the word is the God, but that what the God is also the word is. Hebrews 1:1-3 says the Son is the express (very) image of the Father, holding up the same expression that what the God is the son also is.
Tradition teaches different. Tradition teaches human theology.
Hello, God cannot pay the price for sin, for it was God who forbade sin. When man sins, God is the offended party, He is the victim, He is the plaintiff. God did not die on a cross in order to placate His own wrath, obviously!
Trinitarianism is blasphemy!
Stubborn ignorance is also blasphemy. God did not die on a cross, the Son in his incarnated form did.
@@djo-dji6018 You trinitarians cannot make up your minds - one minute the man died because God can't die, the next minute God died because only He can absolve all the sins of mankind.
You can't keep your stories straight. It's deranged nonsense from start until finish. Pure diabolical nonsense!
What is the Word?
This is hardly the forum for this type of question but it has been bugging me for a little while now.
Hebrews 9:28 - So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
When I read this verse in my Greek-English Interlinear there are numbers everywhere in that verse indicating where the words occur in that sentence. To me, that's covering for an interpretation (paraphrase) because the Greek seems to be pretty ambiguous.
So my question is this: Is that the proper translation or is it possible that the author(s) was/were saying something different than what we have received from the translation? Could it be translated as follows:
"So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many and unto them without sin that look for Him, shall He appear a second time unto salvation."
Hebrews 9 is talking about the superior sacrifice of Jesus that is able to take away sin and so those who believe (i.e. receive) that freedom shall He appear a second time (i.e. second coming) unto salvation. Could it be talking not about Jesus coming a second time without sin (which is kind of redundant since He came the first time without sin) but it's talking about those who, without sin, are looking for Him?
If I'm wrong then why am I wrong? I'm not married to any particular interpretation. A person with a more thorough understanding of grammar and syntax has a better chance of picking out the proper interpretation than I do.
There is much ambiguity in the Bible, hence the over 30,000 Christian denominations alone. Jews also don't all agree on everything. The Bible was not written with mathematical clarity or in a programming language--a thing has only one meaning in a programming language. Sometimes it's unclear whether the writers meant a thing metaphorically or literally. Sometimes the intended recipients knew relevant background to the writing that we don't have. Paul, at best, had moments of clarity. But the Bible is all we have.
(Hebrews 9:28) so also the Christ was offered once for all time to bear the sins of many; and the second time that he appears it will be apart from sin, and he will be seen by those earnestly looking for him for their salvation.
The High Priest had a yearly obligation and ritual to offer a sin sacrifice for the nation of Israel.
Jesus ended it by offering himself once and for all time. This for ALL HUMANITY.
Jesus no longer needs to pay off anyone's sin. That is why Jesus comes again as a deliverer of those who look to him.
This may help.
2 Thessalonians 1:6 This takes into account that it is righteous on God’s part to repay tribulation to those who make tribulation for you. 7 But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 at the time when he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder among all those who exercised faith, because the witness we gave met with faith among you.
Jesus' second coming is to save those who have put faith in his sin offering (John 3:16). He comes apart from sin as that part is history.
Hope this helps.
@@tongakhan230 - I like that. It explains that passage nicely.
@@tongakhan230 correct. Paul in his own way meant the 2nd time it is for judgment , unlike his 1st for teaching and of course to provide the ransom
The equation between the Word and God is that Lord God was Judge (Word), but now Jesus has been made Lord and Judge, so the Judge has become flesh by appointment.
5min timeframe.. John believed what Paul believed 1st Cor 8:4-6
Great video!
Christmas??
I am glad I have started to work through a Greek course on line (really just starting). Otherwise this wouldn't make sense to me. Thanks for the great insights into the nuances of koine grammar.
It isn't difficult at all.
John 1:1 can be translated into many different ways.
==
*John 1;1*
1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was *with (G4314)* God and the Word was God.
--
*But can also be translated as:*
--
1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word *was near (to) God,* and the Word *was a god (or: (a) divine (being), (a) deity)*
--
1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word *was beside God,* and the Word *was a god (or: (a) divine (being), (a) deity).*
--
1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word *was directed at God,* and the Word *was a god (or: (a) divine (being), (a) deity).*
--
1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word *was with God,* and the Word *was a god (or: (a) divine (being), (a) deity).*
--
1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was by the side of God, and the Word *was a god (or: (a) divine (being), (a) deity).*
1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was *in the proximity of God,* and the Word *was a god (or: (a) divine (being), (a) deity).*
--
*G4314: at, near (to), by, to, towards, with, with regard to, directed at, by the side of, in the proximity of, etc.*
--
*Daniel 7;13,14*
13 And it came to pass that I beheld a vision in the night, and behold, *with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man (Jesus) arrived, and he came up to the Ancient of Days (Jehovah) and was presented before Him.*
14 And *to him (Jesus)* was given dominion and glory and *a kingdom,* that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, *and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. (Revelation 5: 9,10)*
--
*Psalm 45;6,7*
6 Your throne, *O god (Jesus)* will last forever, a scepter of uprightness (justice), a scepter of royal power.
7 *You (Jesus)* love righteousness and you hate wickedness. For this reason *you (Jesus) are anointed by the God (’ĕ•lō•he•ḵā: singular) of the gods (‘ĕlôhı̂ym: plural)* with oil of gladness beyond your companions (= other angelic princes).
--
or:
7 *You (Jesus)* love righteousness and you hate wickedness. For this reason *you are anointed by God, your God (Jehovah)* with oil of gladness beyond your companions (= other angelic princes).
"O People of the Book! Do not go to extremes regarding your faith; say nothing about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of Allah and the fulfilment of His Word through Mary and a spirit created by a command from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers and do not say, “Trinity.” Stop!-for your own good. Allah is only One God. Glory be to Him! He is far above having a son! To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And Allah is sufficient as a Trustee of Affairs.” [Quran - Surah
An-Nisa; 4:171]
Me too, 3rd yr koine greek. Now, each time that Jehova's Witness knock at my door they have nothing to say when I start reading my greek version to them. Some of them are Christians today!
@@oscar1748 but word of God cannot have contradictions like:
“And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.” (2 Samuel:24:1V)
Please compare with:
“And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. (1Chr 21:1)
Also read:
“Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.” (2 Samuel 6:23)
Please compare with:
“But the king took …; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for …” (2 Samuel 21:8)
Then read:
“These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: … he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.” (2 Samuel 23:8)
Compare with:
“And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had: … he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time. (1 Chronicles 11:11)
Also read:
“But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host.” (1 Chronicles 19:18)
Compare with:
“And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and Samuelote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there. (2 Samuel 10:18)
Concerning John 1:1 with the Top Koine Scholar Dan B Wallace
👇🏻ruclips.net/video/PzkmO3HJ-6g/видео.html
Why did Jesus refer to God has in God in The gospel of John .
Why did Jesus say " my God my God why have you forsaken me" If he was God !
Why does Jesus in John say to my God and your God . ( John 21 )
Do you think that John himself wrote this?
"God is" and then there is nothing more you need to say. Just ask and you receive.
Most (over 400) scholarly translations use the qualitative term for the predicate ‘theos’ (the Word). Thus they read ‘was godlike’, ‘was divine’ or ‘a god’. The Word was WITH God… it says it twice.