Ted Mizerski Check our the Sahidic Coptic translation of JOHN 1:1. Here is a good explanation found here: ruclips.net/video/IdMV3PIEUco/видео.html&feature=player_embedded
Ted Mizerski Check our the Sahidic Coptic translation of JOHN 1:1. Here is a good explanation found here: ruclips.net/video/IdMV3PIEUco/видео.html&feature=player_embedded
If Jesus is The Great "I'm", the Father who is in heaven, why Peter and John said while they were preaching: Acts 3:13 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant and Son Jesus 15 But you killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead. and Paul in Galatians 1:1 God The Father resurrected Jesus and why Jesus himself said John 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not observe my words. The word that you are hearing is NOT MINE, but belongs to the Father WHO SENT ME...John12: 49 For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment means* everlasting life. So whatever I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.
Who appointed Jesus as high priest? Hebrews 3: consider the apostle and high priest whom we acknowledge-Jesus. 2 He was faithful to the One who appointed him, Hebrews 5:5 the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: “You are my son; today I have become your father.” -- John 5:24 Jesus said: Most truly I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes the One who sent me has everlasting life, and he does not come into judgment but has passed over from death to life.
I have to say that this verse in the bible is by far my most favourite and most meaningful, every time I read it, it touches me deep inside. My name is John and I am Greek. Firstly I agree mostly with this interpretation, however the Greek words can open the door to the true understanding of creation, let me explain what these words tell me. Logos is the spoken word or words like in a speech or spoken statement which can give us Understanding, Reason, Purpose and Law. (Lexi is the direct translation to the Word in the English language) Pros direct translation means towards, so the statement the word was with God should read The Word is towards God, in other words the Logos can give an understanding towards God. This my understanding 🙏 with due respect to all.
This clearly shows that the logos is jesus. And Jesus is towards God. And jesus can explain about God as he only could have seen him. Ur understanding clearly proves that Jehovah (Yahweh) is the true God.
Excellent point Cliff. There are several examples that I could have used. I will ensure that I use more cross references when I update the video. Thank you for you suggestion. Blessings.
Who appointed Jesus as high priest? Hebrews 3: consider the apostle and high priest whom we acknowledge-Jesus. 2 He was faithful to the One who appointed him, Hebrews 5:5 the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: “You are my son; today I have become your father.” -- John 5:24 Jesus said: Most truly I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes the One who sent me has everlasting life, and he does not come into judgment but has passed over from death to life.
If Jesus is The Great "I'm", the Father who is in heaven, why Peter and John said while they were preaching: Acts 3:13 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant and Son Jesus 15 But you killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead. and Paul in Galatians 1:1 God The Father resurrected Jesus and why Jesus himself said John 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not observe my words. The word that you are hearing is NOT MINE, but belongs to the Father WHO SENT ME...John12: 49 For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment means* everlasting life. So whatever I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.
Dr Jeff- The witnesses say that in the OT kings are called gods also.when Christians tell jw that JESUS was WORSHIP-the jw say-king Solomon,king David were also worship.
Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
Verse 30 of John 5 says: I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative. Just as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me. I seek (not my own will) (But the will of HIM who Sent Me). If they were both God, why wouldn't their will be the same? Why the distinction? If they are the same personage.....?
the son during his incarnation was obediant to the father........he still possessed the same nature as His father and even claims in revelation 1:8 to be God Almighty.....the alpha and omega..... revelation21:6_7 Jesus is the only source of spring of life called here the alpha and omega again ...in every 3 instances in new testament ,the alpha and omega ,the beginning (arkhe in greek means architect of creation ) and the end is Christ revelation 1:17_18 im the first and the last ,i was dead ,im alive.....the expression "the first and the last " is a divine title fof God only. psalms102:27.........im afraid you have no case.
@@user-wg1ks6mk6x Incorrect ... first the Son has always been obediant to his Father. And the Incarnation is totally fabricated lie. Alpha and Omega Is Jehovah God Almighty. That title belongs to God Almighty the Father alone. Jesus never viewed himself as an Almighty God, and not one person address him as an Almighty God! Jesus viewed himself as "a god" who represented his Father. The scripture is quite clear ... I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, *the Almighty.* - KJV *The account shows in John 10:33-36 how Jesus viewed himself!* The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and *because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.* - KJV *How did Jesus respond to the Jews accusation?* How Jesus address them shows that Jesus view himself as "a god" not God Almighty! In John 10:34 Jesus says, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he (He=God) called them (them =men) gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; *because I said, I am the Son of God?*" - KJV *What is Jesus referring to when he says, "Is it not written...?"* Jesus is referring to Ps 82, even God say’s he standing in the middle of gods in verse 1. These men who sat in power having authority by God to judge others are called gods by non-other than God himself. So, Jesus shows he views himself in the same manner as ‘a god” who represents God Almighty his Father. *Some Reasoning and conclusion:* If what the Jews said was true, Jesus shows us that he did not agree with them, and he also accused them of Blasphemy. So, if Jesus is indeed God, then in referring to Ps 82 he lied and Jesus not only lied but made a false accusation against the Jews accusing them of blasphemy. Does that make sense? Do you really want to agree with the Jews who blasphemed? I surely would not! That makes God word invalid and Jesus’ ransom sacrifice worthless! I believe Jesus, it does not make much sense to believe the Jews since Jesus accuses them of Blasphemy!*
My friend, I am a Jehovah’s Witness for 30+ years very knowledgeable in the Greek in Hebrew and I must say you did a very excellent job in representing John1:1 In terms of the Greek in the grammatical breakdown, I don’t agree with everything you said, but the great majority was very well done. I also appreciate the fact that you pointed out that a god is possible, but just simply that you did not agree with it… But respectfully I wanna point out what you did not do which is extremely crucial in understanding this verse …and that is that when you have a noun, lacking definiteness the context plays crucial part in whether it should be God or a God, and what is the context… John1:1b it says the word was with God(ton-Theon ) Which is the GOD of the Old Testament if he’s with that God’ he’s automatically contextually a god .. why because it’s telling us that the word, as God is with THE God, which makes him a god because it lacks the definite article in the C clause .. then you proceeded to say in the video that this points out three powerful understandings about Jesus and you said that it shows that Jesus as the word was with God. In the beginning I want to point out that so was the angels Job.38.7 .. then you did what I call a no no… and you said the word was with God as it distinct person of the godhead.. the distinctions here is not being made by personal terms like father and son, but yet you slid that in the distinction here it is being made by(Theon and Theos) the word God … and because of that distinction you have a God spoken of is being with another God, in the beginning, which again makes him a God… which makes him fully deity, not the God, which whom he was with.. i’ve tried to keep this very simple… but the point is if Jesus is God in the trinitarian sense at John1:1c … then he would be God at John1:1b … and do you know what that would read it would read God is with the God, which shows that we have two gods here.. which is ultimately why we as Jehovah’s Witnesses translate 1:1c as a god
well ,i dont think you are knowledgeable in bible theology at all..............First of all the one here having two gods is you ,jws....are henothists...believing in one powerful god and a smaller one........unbiblical. the bible is clear psalms 115:4....deute32:39....isaiah44,45,46,47,48 THERE ARE NO GODS ,NONE WERE FORMED BESIDES GOD,THOSE CALLED GODS ARENT.............the notion that jesus would be "a god" is unbiblical ,can t be found anywhere else than in that verse in counterfeit translations like the NWT and the one of the spirit medium johannes greber. Both counterfeit translations can t support anywhere else in their mistranslation their false rendering of jesus being a god........ The father would never ask in john for humans to honor "a god" like we honor Him. Furthermore, the apostles claimed they made known the Name of God to the nations........They only claimed the Name of JESUS ,and were JESUS S withnesses..... To finish nor the apostles ,nor jesus knew ,nor ever used the name jehova ,wich is an another unbiblical dogma of the watchtower....we know that unbiblical doctrines are not from god ,but satanic teachings.
@@user-wg1ks6mk6x then you might want to explain how in Hebrews 1:8,9… where It calls Jesus God and then turns right around in the next verse and says he has a God… your God has a God… secondly who did Jesus say was the only true God that’s who I say is the only true God, who did Jesus pray to that’s who I pray to who did Jesus worship that’s who I worship… it’s quite interesting that Trinitarian end up with a different God than Jesus… does it say about Jesus it says he’s the life, the truth and the way.. the Bible tells us to follow his footsteps closely… if you believe what Jesus believe you end up with the father and father alone… Jesus is on my side… food for thought… OK
@@markjackson5035 that s why trinitarians have it right.........the verses you quoted agree with trinitarians ,like all verses in the bible........on the other hand ,im afraid you gonna find impossible to explain the verses i gonna quote ,becaus unitarians such as jws disagree with so many verses ,they have to twist verses to make it fit their doctrines. john 17:3 is clear ,the only true God AND THE ONE WHOM YOU HAVE SENT is everlasting life....means that everlasting life CAN T BE WITHOUT Jesus......the problem is he has to be God himself if everlasting life is intrinsically attached to HIM as well a sthe father. You ve said it yourself,hebrew calls jesus not "a god" but GOD.........while on earth jesus was submitted to the father ,nonetheless possessed the very same nature as his Father..........well the bible calls jesus relentlessly...isaih 9:6,titus2:13,revelation1:8;reve4:11;revela15:5,revelat16:6.....well actually jesus claims to be God Almighty in revelation 1:8.........
@@user-wg1ks6mk6x nope the Bible says nothing about because Jesus was on earth is why he has a God… number two the supreme being could never have a God for no reasons and under no condition according to the Bible….. and again it calls him God and we is Joe witnesses believe Jesus is a God why because verse nine says he has a God, which automatically makes him a God… trinitarian are just unwilling to accept what they’re reading .. it’s unfortunate… Jesus is not calling himself. God in revelations.1:8… you better read revelations 1:6…. Once again, Jesus has a God that literally means Jesus was created… just like we read in revelations3:14
@@markjackson5035 you should stick to your own rules.....since jesus is called MIGHTY GOD in isaiah,in titus,in john ,you should respect what the bible tells you first of all. deuteronomy 32:39....isaiah 44,45,46,47,48,psalms 115:4 are clear ...THERE ARE NO GODS BESIDES GOD. THOSE CALLED GODS ARENT...that there is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD........ isaiah is rather clear ,,,,"there was NO god formed besides me"....either you read and accept what the bible says or not. You must tell us now following your interpretation if jesus is a true or false god then ,since the bible tells you there is only one true God????? Now since we must obey ,love ,have faith ,pray to in our hearts Jesus wich are all acts of worship we must do towards the father..the father himself says to honor the son as we honor the father wich is worship ,we cannot exercise faith ,love and pray in our hearts towards " a god" ,or any created being ,but we must do it to Jesus...you see how your unbiblical doctrines are falling like rotten apples Either JESUS IS THEN A FALSE OR TRUE GOD?????????? hebrew 1 does not call Jesus " a god ",but GOd ,your God oh GOD........trinitarian view of God...unitarians jws henotheistic non christian can t understand nor accept......isaiah calls jesus MIGHTY GOD ,NOT " a god"..... There aren t verses in the bible calling jesus a created being,not one. jesus is creator ,can t be created. revelation 1: 6_8 calls jesus "the alpha and the omega",the "one who was ,who is ,who is coming" the Lord God Almighty..... the messianic expression "the one who was ,who is ,who is coming" ONLY APPLY TO JESUS as the only ONE COMING is Jesus ....revelation22:20,revela16:15,etc....Unless you can provide verses stating jehova is coming you have no case,debate close. Then the alpha and omega wich is the "First and the Last , is a divine title that applies to Jesus in new testament,revelation 1:17.......revela2212_13 he is coming to judge the alpha and omega ,christ is only judge..... revelation 21:6 the source of spring of life refers ONLY to JESUS ,he is the alpha and omega........ By the way "a god" can t be created,the father doesn t create little gods besides him...we cannot have faith ,love in our hearts and pray created beings.....
OK, I'm not a JW, I belong to no Christian denominations, only Jesus teaches me and guides my research. Anyway, in Greek there is no indefinite article, but there is in the Sahidic Coptic language and it's Bible, which was translated from Greek manuscripts much older than the Greek manuscripts we have today. The Sahidic Coptic language was spoken while Koine was a living language, so the Coptic translators would have a much better understanding of how Koine Greek was understood than the trinitarian scholars we have today. The Coptic translation also predates the trinity doctrine. The point is, John 1.1 have the definite article and the indefinite article: ϩⲛ̅ ⲧⲉϩⲟⲩⲉⲓⲧⲉ ⲛⲉϥϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲛ̅ϭⲓ ⲡϣⲁϫⲉ. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡϣⲁϫⲉ ⲛⲉϥϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲛ̅ⲛⲁϩⲣⲙ̅ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ ⲡϣⲁϫⲉ. Translates to: In the beginning the word was, and the word was in the presence of the god, and the word was a god. The Coptic translators clearly understood that The word was a god but not the almighty God. The Sahidic Translation is a wonderful witness to how this verse was understood and provides excellent evidence for the JW claim.
When we say Jesus is God JW people automatically accuse us of believing that Jesus is God Almighty... whereas it is clear that Jesus himself said that God the Father is greater than him... This statement is evidence that Jesus is God but not the Almighty God but Son of God... this is the power hierarchy in the realm of Kingdom of God and in a kingdom such hierarchy is common . JW claims that Jesus in fact is the Archangel Michael and this is not correct.. Archangel Michael never called as the Only Begotten ( monogenes) of God and nowhere in the Bible Archangel Michael is called as Immanuel which means God with us (Matthew 1:23). and never was Archangel Michael in a place mentioned as the in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18)..all these verses refer to Jesus not to Archangel Michael..
I witnessed to some Jehovah Witnesses today and am displeased with my efforts. I will listen to this video and pray that God remove my false sense of guilt of poor defense of our faith
Don't feel bad. Just realize , The Trinity doctrine has been around 2000 years.. it has had a long time to cover its bloody history... appreciate your integrity but . In time and study you will see the false essence of trinity.. be humble and continue your search. 😊
Rev 10:1 And I saw another MIGHTY ANGEL come down from heaven, CLOTHED WITH A CLOUD: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire: Rev 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, HAVING GREAT POWER; and the earth was lightened with HIS GLORY. Rev. 10:1 QUESTION: Who is the MIGHTY ANGEL coming down from heaven CLOTHED WITH A CLOUD ? Rev. 18:1 QUESTION; Who is the angel coming down from heaven HAVING GREAT POWER AND GLORY ? ANSWER: Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven WITH POWER AND GREAT GLORY. IF THE SPIRIT OF SATAN IS ON YOU, SIMPLE TRUTH CAN NOT BE GRASPED AND UNDERSTOOD.
Videos cannot do the impossible. If Jesus was not God, how can that be changed by fiddling around with Greek grammar? 'No man has SEEN God at ANY TIME. ' wrote the very same John at 1John 4:12,20. Obviously Jesus was never God.
Rev 10:1 And I saw another MIGHTY ANGEL come down from heaven, CLOTHED WITH A CLOUD: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire: Rev 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, HAVING GREAT POWER; and the earth was lightened with HIS GLORY. Rev. 10:1 QUESTION: Who is the MIGHTY ANGEL coming down from heaven CLOTHED WITH A CLOUD ? Rev. 18:1 QUESTION; Who is the angel coming down from heaven HAVING GREAT POWER AND GLORY ? ANSWER: Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven WITH POWER AND GREAT GLORY. IF THE SPIRIT OF SATAN IS ON YOU, SIMPLE TRUTH CAN NOT BE GRASPED AND UNDERSTOOD.
John clearly refers here to Jesus. Furthermore, in his epistle he confirms it: “The one who existed from the beginning is the one we have heard and seen. We saw him with our own eyes and touched him with our own hands. He is Jesus Christ, the Word of life” (1 John 1:1).
1 John 1v1: if you keep reading you will see that it is eternal life that was manifested unto them...it reads 'that which existed from the beginning' not 'the one who existed'; it even goes on to say … "and shew unto you that ETERNAL LIFE, which was with the father, and was manifested unto us". God raised Jesus from the dead; eternal life was made manifest unto them.
@@josephglover4546 If God raised Jesus And Jesus said in John 2:19 that HE will raise his temple up (Meaning his body) either Jesus lied, Or Jesus is God
@@leoCase you misunderstand the scriptures...the numerous verses that flat out tell you that Jesus is not God. "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;" -John 5v26 Does God need to be given life? The son was given life. “No man taketh it from me (the life God gave him), but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.” -John 10v18 This 'commandment' that he is talking about is a 'divine birthright'; as one born of the king. He was given power, authority, and dominion over all things which are under God. Did Jesus claim to be God or the Son of God? “Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” -John 10:36 Who did the evil spirit say he was? "...I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God." -Mark 1:24 .OF GOD. Who did the angel say he was? "...that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” -Luke 1:35 Son...of God...OF...GOD. Who did God say he was? "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." -Matthew 3:17 and again... “For unto which of the angels said he (God) at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” -Hebrews 1v5 I 'will be to him' a Father and he 'shall be to me' a Son; sounds like an adoption to me. If God calls him his son then why do you call him God? Jesus is not the God of Abraham or part of a triune makeup that is God: “[The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers], hath glorified [his Son Jesus]; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.” HE IS NOT THE GOD OF ABRAHAM! He is the Son of God: 1 Corinthians 15 27 For he hath put all things under his (Jesus') feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he (God) is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him (unto God), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (God) that put all things under him, that God (not Jesus) may be all in all. THEN SHALL THE SON ALSO HIMSELF BE SUBJECT UNTO HIM THAT PUT ALL THINGS UNDER HIM -->THAT GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL
@@josephglover4546 Also, you preach of one God, So do I... Rightfully so. you even call Jesus "A god" in John 1:1 meaning one amongst many... how can that be?
@@leoCase It is not wrong to call the express image of the invisible God 'God'. As the image of God, the word of God, the authority of God, the power (right hand) of God, he 'IS' God...but he himself is not God: whether I speak my words or you speak my words my words are me and they carry the same authority. "...therefore God (the true God), even thy God (even the same one), hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” -Hebrews 1:9 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:" -Philippians 2 "Who being in the form of God (the Son of God), thought it not robbery to be equal --- WITH -- God. "Wherefore --- God --- also hath highly exalted him (his Son), and given him a name which is above every name (his surname).
The Greek theon in “the word was toward the god,” is in the accusative case ending and has the definite article (Gr. ho; English the) preceding it. It is correctly translated, “the Word was with God” in English. However, the 3rd clause in the verse contains theos in the nominative, singular form without an article: “and god was the word.” As controversial as it may sound to trinitarians, it is correctly translated as “and a god was the Word.” A minimal literal (“formal equivalence”) translation would rearrange the word order to match the proper English expression: “And the Word was a god.” This is consistent with other occurrences in the Greek. For example, the following are instances where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article (“a”) to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns. Examples are taken from the King James Version, New International Version, Revised Standard Version, and Today’s English Version: Mark 6:49: “a spirit” or “a ghost” Mark 11:32: “a prophet” or “a real prophet” John 4:19: “a prophet” John 6:70: “a devil” or “an informer” John 8:44: “a murderer” John 8:44: “a liar” John 8:48: “a Samaritan” John 9:17: “a prophet” John 9:24: “a sinner” John 10:1: “a thief” John 10:13: “an hireling” or “a hired man” John 10:33: “a man” or “a mere man” John 12:6: “a thief” John 18:35: “a Jew” John 18:37: “a king” If you study these occurrences in many translations, you will note that most translators consistently apply these translation rules, except when it comes to John 1:1c. Why the exception here? Bias. Bias has shaped most of these translations much more than has accurate attention to the wording of the Bible. The NW translation (New World Translation) of John 1:1 is superior to that of the other eight translations we are comparing. . . .it breaks with the KJV tradition followed by all the others, and it does so in the right direction by paying attention to how Greek grammar and syntax actually work. No translation of John 1:1 that I can imagine is going to be perfectly clear and obvious in its meaning. John is subtle, and we do him no service by reducing his subtlety to crude simplicities. All that we can ask is that a translation be an accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation. Only the NW achieves that, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader. The other translations cut off the exploration of the verse’s meaning before it has even begun. - Truth in Translation - Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, Jason David BeDuhn, page 218 (ebook) Is There Scholarly Work that Shows How These Nouns Should Be Translated From the Greek? Philip B. Harner: In his article, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1” (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973): “anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb may function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject, and this qualitative significance may be more important than the question whether the predicate noun itself should be regarded as definite or indefinite.” (page 75) “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite.” (page 85) “In John 1:1, I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite. . . .Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’ This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.” (page 87) What About the Other Occurrences of ‘Theos?’ Some insist that the New World Translation is inconsistent here because theos without the article in John 1 is not translated the same way in other locations. For example, some will claim that if the NWT was truly consistent and applied the grammatical rule of inserting the indefinite article “a” where the definite article (English “the”) was not present in Greek, we would have the following: There came a man who was sent as a representative of [a] God (theou); his name was John. - John 1:6 However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become [a] God’s (theou) children. - John 1:12 And they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from [a] God (theou). - John 1:13 And others. What they fail to note is that not only are the Greek constructs different in these other verses, but these other uses are genitive (theou), not nominative (theos). The genitive form of the noun, in this case theou, does not require the article (Gr. “ho;” English “the”) to be definite, whereas the nominative form normally does. In Koiné Greek, the nominative case ending usually indicates the subject of a sentence. It is normally preceded by the definite article. However, in John 1:1c, this nominative form (theos) is not preceded by the article. That being the case, the noun becomes “primarily qualitative in meaning,” as explained by Bible scholar, Philip B. Harner, in his article posted above.
1)Who are the translators names of the NWT and their qualifications. ??????? 2)Also what are the Hebrew and Greek Qualifications of Jason David BeDuhn ????? Is he qualified in these languages or are you quoting someone with no qualifications in these 2 Languages. ? 3) why don't you (Witness of an erroneous name (Jehovah) ever quote your own scholars. I'll put in in simple terms for you. Why do you quote Christendom Scholars. Why do you refuse to quote your own. WHY ???????? WHERE ARE YOUR SCHOLARS ????? 4) Is "“Frederick Franz, a scholar of Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, and Latin FAITH MARCH, p. 182” AND “Frederick W. Franz . . . an eminent Bible scholar” WT 8/1/1977, p. 463” Are the above statements true ???????
I've noticed you have remained very very silent regarding my questions. You talk as if you are well versed in Greek. It's always the case that people like you who are Witnesses just pretend to know. Basically a fake and fraud. I'll ask the questions again 1)Who are the translators names of the NWT and their qualifications. ??????? 2)Also what are the Hebrew and Greek Qualifications of Jason David BeDuhn ????? Is he qualified in these languages or are you quoting someone with no qualifications in these 2 Languages. ? 3) why don't you (Witness of an erroneous name (Jehovah) ever quote your own scholars. I'll put in in simple terms for you. Why do you quote Christendom Scholars. Why do you refuse to quote your own. WHY ???????? WHERE ARE YOUR SCHOLARS ????? 4) Is "“Frederick Franz, a scholar of Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, and Latin FAITH MARCH, p. 182” AND “Frederick W. Franz . . . an eminent Bible scholar” WT 8/1/1977, p. 463” Are the above statements true ??????? Come on MR Jehovah Witness, prove me wrong.
Vickers is not up to date with his Greek studies! He claims that theos of 1.1c is definite. But scholars have acknowledged this would contradict the previous clause where the logos is "with (the)God".
He is up to date ! The previous clause construction is a little bit different. The last phrase construction is called a predicate nominative. It occurs when you have two nominatives in a clause linked by a 'to be' like verb such as ειμι used in this verse (ην is the aorist tense form), γινομαι used in the verse 14 with the same construction (εγενετο is the aorist tense form). The question is how to distinguish both nominatives ? Which one is the subject and which on is the predicate ? Usually, you put the definite article in front of the subject and drop it before the predicate. Another point is that, in the preceding clause, προς which is a preposition is used. Prepositions do not occur with a nominative case (θεος), hence we don't have a predicate nominative, no need to distinguish subject from object because they do not have the same case ; we can use the article before both. If you are still not convinced, in the same verse, Εν αρχη which is translated "In the beginning", does not have the definite article either but is still rendered as definite. That's just how Greek works!
@@perseverancembuku9223 The subject of both the first and second clauses is ὁ λόγος and hence we know which noun in the third clause is the subject, same, ὁ λόγος. Hence, John did not use the article before θεὸς to show which noun is the subject of the third clause. He did not use it for a different reason. I've not revisited this video since I made the comment I did. I will have to listen to it again. But it is probably because Vickers is arguing for a definite understanding for the anarthrous θεὸς of 1.1c. Most scholars today reject this and since Harner's article in the JBL 1973 'Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1.' JBL 92 (1973): 75-87. But I will listen to it as soon as I can to see if this is what I meant to convey with my comment.
@@perseverancembuku9223Yes, after listening to Vickers again he claims John dropped the article for θεὸς in 1.1c but that *it was meant to be understood as if it had it* , that is, John meant it to be understood to be there, as definite, *one of identification* , and hence 'the god', in English as 'God.' So yes, Vickers is not up to date with the scholarly consensus today that the anarthrous predicate nominative θεὸς is not definite but qualitative. Of course, this does not mean the scholarly community disagree with the "and the Word was God" rendering but several translations do not so translate, such as The New English Bible 1960/Revised English Bible 1989, because they recognise John did not say that. Others agree, such as William Barclay and John Robinson, two I recall from memory.
In Coptic, "ounoute" can mean "a god" or "one with divine nature"; "So literally, the Sahidic and Bohairic texts say "a god" in the extant mss. ... A rather clumsy reading might be: The Logos was in the beginning. The Logos was with God. The Logos was like God (or godlike, or divine) with the emphasis on his nature; not his person."
If the word was divine. This should mean it was that actual "God" then "a God." Due to Jehovah witness; Jesus is Michael the arcángel. Him not being the actual God. Then this would mean... Jesus is like those other angels or arcángels. So, this means John 1:1 should end like this.... *"And the word was of god's," the word is of gods," "the word was for gods," Or "the word was for the gods."* So, this would litterly go against their own theology. John 1:1 must end *"And the word was God"* or *"God was the word."*
@@rafaelguerra5875 According to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, the•oʹtes (the nominative form, from which the•oʹte•tos is derived) means “divinity, divine nature.” (Oxford, 1968, p. 792) Being truly “divinity,” or of “divine nature,” does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, anymore than the fact that all humans share “humanity” or “human nature” makes them coequal or all the same age.
@@rafaelguerra5875 or, " In the beginning was the angel Michael, and the angel Michael was with God, and the angel Michael was a god. All authority was given to Michael, His name Michael is a name above all names🤔🤔🤔😜
This was very helpful. I now understand why Jehovah's Witnesses say many earlier translators also used a/uh God in the sentence but what I get now is that the last word for God has the OS at the end making the word also the subject noun being spoken of. That's what I get so far and I will keep listening to this video over and over for more understanding thank you.
DrJeffVickers seems to only know very basic N.T. Greek and not advanced. The "logos" without the article in this equative construction, signifies equality, not identity. Certainly, most would agree Jesus is not the Father.
@@NTGreekGeek The Greek word "logos" mentioned 3 times in John 1:1 was always preceded by an article. I don't know NT Greek but if you want to point out Dr. Vickers' error or errors here please make sure you're right and more advanced than him.
@@suisse38 Vickers mistake is that he misses what is very obvious in that the first two clauses of the sentence the λόγος is the subject so there would be no confusion over which noun in the 3rd is the subject if both had the article. So John did not use it to make clear which noun is the subject and which the predicate of the clause. The reason John did not use it is because he was not identifying 'who' the λόγος was("God" in English is a definite noun, a 'who' noun)but saying *what* the λόγος was. The λόγος was either a member of the category of the class θεὸς(hence a categorical use) or had the quality of that class(hence a qualitative use). But they mean the same thing and do not mean that the λόγος was o θεὸς, "the god", "God."
Thanks for this opportunity, once again to address the meaning of this scripture. I'm looking (as an example) at "Got Questions" online. The subject - What does it mean that the word was in the beginning? Here is a quote from the article: "The account of creation in Genesis begins with the phrase 'In the beginning...' That is an incontrovertible statement in the Bible. "In the beginning" always refers to creation. Since the "Word" is mentioned with reference to 'the beginning', the "Word", Jesus, was the first created thing. And, thus, John 1:3 rightly applies to him since he assisted in the creation of all the other things.
the bible NEVER TELLS YOU JESUS "aSSISTED" creation...Never...the bible tells you He is the beginning wich is arkhe ,means architect of creation............ Since genesis is the book of all creation account ,jesus is never mentionned as being created........the word "bara" is used again and again for each created account ,never for jesus. Thereso Jesus can t be creator and created... Since jws call Jesus the unbiblical " a god" ,cant by essence be created.........nowhere that notion can be found in the bible.... The father don t create small gods by his side,unbiblical. A god is by essence uncreated. Since jws call Jesus the archangel mickeal ,an angel can t be "a god",nor be creator... The succession of flip flop unbiblical jws doctrines is laughable....
This is deep. Could this be that, where ever the Bible records those who have seen God, it was the son who has revealed Him. I do understand, that the Son was the only one who has come down from heaven to reveal the Father. What type of person in capacity and being who it take to express the invisible Father perfectly.
If the son was God Himself, then people _would_ have seen God (since they saw the son, who is God). So, the fact that "no one has seen God at any time" is proof that the son is not God.
@@vedinthorn I'm not sure what means (since the statement is not "no one has ever seen a God except the son"), but this would not explain 1 John 4:12 (where there is no exception). Try again.
John 1:14 - The New International Version (NIV) 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14 - King James Version (KJV 1900) 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14 - New Living Translation (NLT) 14 So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son. John 1:14 - The New King James Version (NKJV) 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14 - New Century Version (NCV) 14 The Word became a human and lived among us. We saw his glory-the glory that belongs to the only Son of the Father-and he was full of grace and truth. John 1:14 - American Standard Version (ASV 1901) 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.
Sort of cracks me up. Why is this always directed toward JWs? *It was not an invention by JWs it came from Christendom own scholars!* They looked at the information presented concerning translation and the context of the Holy Scriptures. Gee the NWT is not the only Bible … 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. 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 “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
You need to look at Luke and Mark....both say in the beginning which might actually mean "In the beginning of the teaching of Jesus through the Word of God". Remember when Jesus was Baptized, the spirit of god entered into Jesus! The beginning of the gospel of the new covenant promised in the old testament by God. Jesus fulfilled all that was written, he was and is the Missiah!! Jesus prayed to God, Jesus said: love God with all your heart...ONE GOD! and love thy nieghbor as you love yourself. Jesus is the Son of God!! 3:16 Amen!
WOAW BROTHER! you really took some liberty with that scripture! The trinirarians overlooked the (the) on front of first theos ( ton theos) and NOW you want to put (IN) in order to create a new word (within) ! WOW! you've been smoking house plants again! The word ... with.. derived from ... toward ..as in two persons facing each other. Jesus was toward the God . In no way can ,,,with.. be altered to within! No no. !! And the ,,pre-existing... God. Another wamny.. ! A total fabrication! However , I'm sure your fellow trinutarians will be proud of you. Next year this could be the next trinitarian revelation . Trinity had had 2000 years of bloody history and razzle dazzle word games. If you play it right you could have a new translation rule named after you. The donbach -sharp rule. 😊😊
You can ask AI in this matter but is not your side: Chatgpt said: John 1:1 in the New Testament is a key verse often discussed in terms of its grammatical structure, particularly the use of articles in Greek. The verse reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In Greek, it is written as: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος." Let's break down the relevant parts where the article is involved: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ" (En archē) - "In the beginning": The phrase does not have an article before "ἀρχῇ" (beginning), which is common in Greek when referring to abstract concepts or to emphasize the generality of the term. "ὁ Λόγος" (ho Logos) - "the Word": "ὁ" is the definite article, meaning "the". This specifies "the Word" rather than "a word". "πρὸς τὸν Θεόν" (pros ton Theon) - "with God": "τὸν" is the definite article, specifying "the God". "καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος" (kai Theos ēn ho Logos) - "and the Word was God": Here, "Θεὸς" (Theos) does not have an article before it. The lack of an article before "Θεὸς" has been a significant point of discussion. Without the article, "Θεὸς" is qualitative, meaning it describes the nature or essence of "the Word" rather than identifying "the Word" as a specific entity called "God". Thus, the phrase can be understood as "the Word was divine" or "the Word was of the same nature as God." In summary, the use of the definite article in Greek is critical for understanding specificity and definiteness. In John 1:1, the absence of the article before "Θεὸς" while it is present before "Λόγος" and "Θεόν" indicates a qualitative sense, emphasizing the divine nature of "the Word" rather than equating "the Word" as a specific entity named "God." This nuanced grammatical structure has been central to theological interpretations of the nature of Christ in Christian doctrine.
Vickers is just plain wrong on two accounts. See my previous comments on one of them(the 1st and 2nd clauses tell us who the subject is in the 3rd so John could have used the article before theos and without any confusion which is the subject). But also Vickers is wrong to say there is a "rule" that when there are two nouns in the nominative case(with the 'be' verb) it means the article is dropped from the noun that is the predicate but is to be then understood as if it has it. Wrong, there is no such rule as anyone who reads the Greek NT could see. There are plenty of times the predicate nominative lacks the article in this sentence construct and have been translated with the English indefinite article(with an 'a'). To all who reads this... Vickers is misleading you. I invite Vickers to interact with me on this here, on his own video! But will he?
There’s other examples that John 1:1 uses that an indefinite article is inserted. Those are ok but all of a sudden when John 1:1 is implying the use of an indefinite article according to English grammar it’s all of a sudden wrong. Why? Theological biases. If anyone wants examples I can reply with those examples 💯💯
Bible scholar Jason David BeDunn in Truth in Translations; Accuracy and Bias in English translations of the New testament pages 115.122.123. states, the absence of the definite article before the second Theos makes the occurences of God as different as a god is from GOD. Making the Word not God, but rather a god, or a divine being. it is an adjectival quality meaning the word was divine, not that the Word was God. The translators New Testament pg. 451 The fact that this verse states the word was with God indicates that two seperate persons are being discussed. John 1:18 States that no one has at any time seen God. Yet thousands saw Jesus Christ. John 1:14. Other Translations that render John 1:1 as divine James Moffatt version 1950 The William Newcome Translation of the New Testament 1808 Authentic New Testament by Hugh Schonfield 1958 Ask your self a simple question. If Gods word spends entire chapters on, and the apostles spent meeting after meeting after meeting on the subject of circumcision. Why would the Holy Scriptures use only 1 Single solitary verse to explain the very make up and essence of Almighty God, whos will it is that all men come to know him. Is a mans foreskin more important ? The Trinity must be proven by more than the Gramatical insistance of just 1 scripture. The witnesses can proove by way of many many other scriptures that Jesus Christ is Gods only begotten son. But he is not God. He was the very first of his fathers creations. Rev 3:14, Colossians 3:15, Prov 8:22-31. The witnesses are not wrong.
Excellent contribution to this conversation! Do you hold to your statement that, "The witnesses are not wrong." on just this topic or in all topics? I seem to recall that teachings have changed over the years. I myself wonder how does one claim to be a spokesperson of the True God when there doesn't seem to be the same mechanism of baptism in holy spirit as there was in the first century ie. Acts chapter 8. Your thoughts?
❤There are more than 2.2 billion people who call themselves Christians and over 2 billion believe that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh or the Word becoming flesh. Some cults like the Mormons, Jehovah’s witnesses and Muslims believe that Jesus is not God
How come can a person BE WITH SOMEONE and BE THAT SOMEONE at the same time..??? If I am with you does that mean that I am YOU and that you are ME..??? If my wife and I are ONE FLESH, does that mean that we share the same physical body ..??? I think that we are ONE BEING united by the same mind and purpose...I think it's the same in this case,Jesus and The Almighty God are One in purpose, not literally one person but two different and separate beings united by the same frame of mind and purpose...
I didn't know 1 word in the Greek language but now I have learned a few. I just hope to remember them. This is still hard to understand but I did like english in school ( hated trying to learn poems) but grammar I use to love. I am old now and I think I have ADHD so any youtube stuff over 10 minutes I can't usually stay with. I have to break down into parts and come back to gt all.
Knowing Geeek is not a prerequisite to learning what the Bible teaches. Logic should dictate that no one can be WITH someone and also be the someone he is WITH. If I was WITH my mother at some event, can I be my own mother? Similarly Jesus, know as the Word, was WITH God at the beginning. Jesus himself was a god. Meaning a mighty being. An angel.
It’s quite clear that nobody understands the mystery of Christ. First, you must understand that there were 2 natures to Christ. One that has no beginning, and one that had a beginning. The nature that has no beginning is eternal, perpetual, everlasting. The one one that had a beginning was flesh and blood. Also had an ending. Let me explain... Deuteronomy 6:4 say that God is one. This is true, there is only one God. Isaiah 43:11 says “I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour” So we now know that there is one God and that there is no other saviour besides Him. In John 1:1 “in the beginning was the Word” what was it that brought EVERYTHING into existence?? Speech! God used WORDS to create ALL THINGS. John 1:2 “and be Word was with God” this means He is a God of His word. His word never falls to the ground. John 1:3 “and the Word was God” this plainly tells you who the Word is. It is God. There was. No baby Jesus in the beginning with God. John 1:14 “and the Word became flesh” now what does it mean that the Word became flesh?? Isaiah 9:6-7 “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. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.” For unto us a child IS born”.... this is the “Word” testifying what He is making Then He let’s you know what material it will consist of “CHILD” (flesh and blood) ... this means he’s human Unto us a son IS given. Means he’s gone. The death of Jesus! God used His WORD though the prophets to prophesy about the coming of Jesus. He used Words. He was speaking that flesh into existence! Eventually the WORD(Gods Word) what the prophets of old spoke of became flesh! Luke 1:31 says “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.” The “sonship” started in the womb of Mary. In the tribe of Judah. In the house of David. God needed flesh and blood to redeem us and there was no flesh and blood in heaven. There was no blood in heaven “Thou shalt conceive in thy womb”.... that is where the son of man came from... Hence the second nature of Christ that had a beginning. Luke 1:35 “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee”... That’s what came down from heaven. Not flesh and blood. This is why you guys have Jesus as the second person in the godhead because you do not understand the mystery The power of the Highest(God) will overshadow you.. it would also overshadow the “holy thing” inside you. He said the call the “holy thing” inside you the “Son of God”. This is where the “Sonship” started!!! When God says the “word” became flesh that means that God brought flesh into the world by the creating power of His words!!! 1 peter 1:19-20 says “ But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you” Foreordained... God already knew what kind of salvation plan he would give us That is the only way Jesus Christ existed. It was though the mind and concept of God. Pre existing not in a physical sense it in a foreordained sense by God. All things were created by Him(God) and for Him(Jesus) All things were created for the salvation of Christ “Precious blood of Christ”...God does not have blood!! Christ is not Gods name It is a title How did Jesus get His name?? Hebrews 1:4 says “Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” His name was inherited. Who gave it to Him? God. God’s name is Jesus. Jesus means “Jehovah saves” or “Jehovah is salvation”. When Jesus says he comes in His fathers name, that’s because they have the same name! This also tells you that the son of God was “made”. Mary birthed that body. So you have flesh and blood (Jesus) and you have the Holy Spirit ( God) dwelling inside that body. That’s why Jesus says “I do nothing on my own, but the father that dwelleth in me He does all the work. Jesus always praised God and never took credit. So we now know the 2 natures of Christ. The holy thing that dwells inside Jesus then you had Jesus flesh and blood. 2 Corinthians 5:19 say “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation” God was reconciling the world back to Himself but he needed a body because god is a spirit and a spirit is invisible. He also needed a body for the shedding of blood. God doesn’t not have blood. Amen and God bless
So where does it say that God Almighty has 2 natures ... not one scripture you use explains that God has 2 natures! You're not applying 2 Tim 3:16,17! "That men may know that thou, whose name *alone* is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth. - Ps 83:18 KJV "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" - Num 23:19 KJV. "The Deity is not a man, to lie, nor human, to change his mind. Has He said and will not do, promised and will not make it good?" - Num 23:19 Byington. According to 2 Tim 3:16,17 the scriptures need to tell us that God has 2 natures ... ??? The scriptures don't tell us that ...
Juan Lopez no need to curse my friend, especially from a Christian. Secondly, I literally just used nothing but scripture to argue my point and your saying it’s Hinduism? Are we reading the same bible? You need to leave the pastor your under brother because he has you confused and twisted about the work so of God.
❤I’ve subscribed to your RUclips channel and thanks for your great efforts explaining the truth. You are a gifted teacher and it’s refreshing listening to your explanation. All blessings to you and your family and ministry in Jesus name from Ireland. When I’m talking to the Jehovah’s Witnesses I always avoid arguing and instead point them to John 1:3 in that the Lord Jesus created all things and without Jesus nothing was created that was created. This end their objections and they are forced to rethink. They end up with 2 gods ❤
FYI - Jesus did not create - only the Father can create - Jesus was the first of all creation - he was created before the angels and the material Universe. It was through Jesus that all other things were brought into existence - Jesus became God's master worker alongside his heavenly Father. - Proverbs 8:22-31 You need to study the bible properly.
@@Chris_Sheridan Thanks the Lord Jesus created all things and without Jesus nothing was created that was created John 1:3 Jesus is the first and the last who was dead and now lives forevermore. Jesus is the Word becoming flesh. Was the word created or eternal. ? It’s the eternal word of God
@@seanrathmakedisciples1508 Note the context of Habakkuk 1:12 The Almighty God cannot die - he is 'from everlasting to everlasting' - nothing in scripture denies the everlasting immortality of the Creator who himself gives life to everything. Even the angels were not created immortal and neither were humans. Jesus Christ is God's Son, who through his obedient life course now has immortality - he didn't have it before. You deny scripture which is evident from your wilful contortion of bible text to support a false 'Trinity' doctrine. Your mistranslation of John 1:1 is grammatically and logically incorrect - you also force a contradiction with other bible verses that clearly show Jesus to be the only-begotten son of God. Note 1John 2:22 'Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ?' 'Christ' means 'anointed one' - Jesus is the anointed of Jehovah, the 'Most High' - Psalm 83:18 You deny both the Father and the Son. 1John 2:4 You have no share in the disciple making work that Jesus assigned his true followers - Matthew 28:19 & 20 You have no share in fulfilling Jesus' words stated at Matthew 24:14 You are not obedient to the command given at Mark 13:10
the sons of the God (a.k.a. angels) ALSO existed with the God BEFORE the earth was formed. Being WITH the God BEFORE the earth the was formed is not a QUALIFIER to be the God if it were so then all angels and Satan himself would be the God also as they too were in the beginning with the God. Job 38:4-7
James - glad you asked - yes "first born" does mean Eldest and even Egypt had "first born" sons - because that was an esteemed or superior title it came to be applied to mean "supreme" or "pre-eminent" - Ismael was Abraham's "First Born" and Eldest son yet when God asked him to sacrifice his "first born" he chose the younger Isaac - WHY ? - look it up in any Bible Glossary except the NWT because it's missing there.... for obv reasons...
Hey Rob, just curious but are you referencing John 17:5 when you mention Jesus existed with God before the earth was formed? "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed."
Where are all the ppl who oppose the fact that it’s stated in the NT Jesus is God. They show up every where else to argue you down, but no here for some strange reason. Or is it, that they were here, but refuse to post?
Rev 10:1 And I saw another MIGHTY ANGEL come down from heaven, CLOTHED WITH A CLOUD: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire: Rev 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, HAVING GREAT POWER; and the earth was lightened with HIS GLORY. Rev. 10:1 QUESTION: Who is the MIGHTY ANGEL coming down from heaven CLOTHED WITH A CLOUD ? Rev. 18:1 QUESTION; Who is the angel coming down from heaven HAVING GREAT POWER AND GLORY ? ANSWER: Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven WITH POWER AND GREAT GLORY. IF THE SPIRIT OF SATAN IS ON YOU, SIMPLE TRUTH CAN NOT BE GRASPED AND UNDERSTOOD.
If Jesus is The Great "I'm", the Father who is in heaven, why Peter and John said while they were preaching: Acts 3:13 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant and Son Jesus 15 But you killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead. and Paul in Galatians 1:1 God The Father resurrected Jesus and why Jesus himself said John 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not observe my words. The word that you are hearing is NOT MINE, but belongs to the Father WHO SENT ME...John12: 49 For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment means* everlasting life. So whatever I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.
"In the Beginning" was the time point of creation. The only One that existed before the creation was God. No angels or animals existed before this time. Then the Father iniated the creation through the Word [Jesus] the exact expressed image of God the Father. Now, did Jesus exist before the beginning? Yes, therefore, He is God, because He existed before the creation, and nothing that was made was made without him (John 1:3).
Very similar understanding until recent comparison of the opening prologue each of the gospels. Now , john 1:1, l can see clearly, refers to the ministry of the Messiah.
@Aubrey Shatner , Is Jesus Lord? Is He the Lord of Lords? It is written, according to the Holy Bible, "for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord." (Luke 2:11 NASB) It is written again, "Behold, I am going to send My messager, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messager of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming" says the YHWH of hosts." (Malach 3:1) It is written again, "You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right for so I am." (John 13:13) It is written, "....and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many Lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through him." (1Corinthians 8:4-6) If Jesus created "all things," how could he be a created being? In Collosians 1:15, the Greek word is "Prototokos," signifies priority, the "firstborn" means the preemince one, if Jesus was a created being, the Greek word "Protoktisis" would have been used. Read Philippians 2:9-11. If Jesus is Lord, He is God (Titus 2:13) Read Deuteronomy 10:17.
It´s pretty clear, but why both words are in the nominative when in the previous sentence one are in the object form and the other in the subject form?
Because it is how Greek works. That particular construction is called a predicate nominative and works with "to be" like verbs such as ειμι (to be) as in this verse (ην is the aorist tense forme), γινομαι (to became) is used with the same construction in verse 14 (εγενετο is the aorist tense) form). Another thing is that, usually prepositions do not appear with a nominate case (subject). That means that you cannot have προς which is a preposition with θεος !
Because it is how Greek works. That particular construction is called a predicate nominative and works with "to be" like verbs such as ειμι (to be) as in this verse (ην is the aorist tense forme), γινομαι (to became) is used with the same construction in verse 14 (εγενετο is the aorist tense) form). Another thing is that, usually prepositions do not appear with a nominate case (subject). That means that you cannot have προς which is a preposition with θεος !
The Trinity claims that God became man in order for man to be like God. But notice with Genesis 3:5 States when the serpent spoke to Eve; "For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad.” Look at what's mentioned in Psalms 83:18; May people know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth." So who alone is the most high? The Trinity doesn't even acknowledge Jehovah as the sovereign of the universe. The Trinity doesn't even acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh rather a claims that God himself came in the flesh but notice what Second John verse 7 says: "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist." The only mention of the Trinity in The Bible is recorded at revelation 16:13,14 it states: "And I saw three unclean inspired expressions that looked like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the wild beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. They are, in fact, expressions inspired by demons and they perform signs, and they go out to the kings of the entire inhabited earth, to gather them together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty. The dragon is referring to satan The wild beast is referring to the kings of the Earth or the political elements. And the false prophets as mention is referring to those who are deceiving the people of the knowledge of Jehovah. Notice with psalms 2 verse 2 States: The kings of the earth take their stand And high officials gather together as one Against Jehovah and against his anointed one. The Trinity's purpose is to gather the peoples of the Earth to wage war against the only true God whose name is Jehovah. Notice what Revelation 8:10,11 states; "The third angel blew his trumpet. And a great star burning like a lamp fell from heaven, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of waters. The name of the star is Wormwood. And a third of the waters turned into wormwood, and many of the people died from the waters, because these had been made bitter. Did you know that a 3rd of the population believe in the Trinity. Satan has spread his wormwood on religion. Jesus never mentioned that God was multiple entities in fact these are his words as recorded at John 4 verse 24; "God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.”
If Jesus is The Great "I'm", the Father who is in heaven, why Peter and John said while they were preaching: Acts 3:13 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant and Son Jesus 15 But you killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead. and Paul in Galatians 1:1 God The Father resurrected Jesus and why Jesus himself said John 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not observe my words. The word that you are hearing is NOT MINE, but belongs to the Father WHO SENT ME...John12: 49 For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment means* everlasting life. So whatever I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.
7:00 You have a problem with your explanation DrJeffVickers. First, Logos still has the "os" in the third line, and it contains the direct article before it. Also, the "theos" in the third line doesn't contain the direct article before it, like it does in the second line. Doesn't that make it qualitative, and not identifying?
The fact is, this translation is not exclusive to JW. 1808: "and the Word was a god" - Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London. 1822: "and the Word was a god" - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.) 1829: "and the Word was a god" - The Monotessaron; 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) 1864: "the LOGOS was God" - A New Emphatic Version (right hand column) 1864: "and a god was the Word" - The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading) 1867: "and the Son was of God" - The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible 1879: "and the Word was a god" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979) 1885: "and the Word was a god" - Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885) 1911: "and [a] God was the word" - The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, by George William Horner.[21] 1924: "the Logos was divine" - The Bible: James Moffatt Translation, by James Moffatt.[22] 1935: "and the Word was divine" - The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.[23] 1955: "so the Word was divine" - The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.[24] 1956: "And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" - The Wuest Expanded Translation[25] 1958: "and the Word was a god" - The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed(J. L. Tomanec, 1958); 1962, 1979: "'the word was God.' Or, more literally, 'God was the word.'" - The Four Gospels and the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979) 1966, 2001: "and he was the same as God" - The Good News Bible. 1970, 1989: "and what God was, the Word was" - The New English Bible and The Revised English Bible. 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" - Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried
777Tralfaz777 Even if it's a qualitative meaning...think about that implication. What does it mean for a being to be QUALITATIVELY God? Put another way, if we switch out God for a less controversial word, like 'human', what does it mean for a being to be qualitatively human? It means the essence, nature, "kind" of species the being is belongs to the same group to which it's being compared. Therefore, the Logos is the SAME essence, SAME nature, SAME kind (as in the term used in Genesis, to each their own kind) as God. Put even simpler, when a human 'begets' a being, what kind of being is it? A cat? A whale? A plant? No. Humans 'beget' humans, just as cats beget cats, etc. Therefore, what kind of being would you expect God to 'beget'? An angel? A human? No. those are different species/kinds. I realize God didn't literally procreate the Logos into existence, so my parallel is not exact. Yet that is precisely what John says in the beginning of his book: Logos already existed whenever the beginning happened, Logos was face-to-face with Deity, and the Logos was Deity. The real question then becomes, how many Deity's exist? If only one Deity exists (who fulfills all the criteria of Deity, as in omnipotence, omniscience, omniagape, omnipresent, etc), then Logos was in some way the same Deity yet distinctive enough to be 'with' the Deity. Hence, the Triune understanding of YHVH begins.
@@777Tralfaz777 Yes, He is. He is a Being, therefore He has a species...Deity. He is different than other heavenly beings like angels. Therefore He is a different species than they. By saying Jesus was "a" god you proclaim you are polytheistic. Henotheistic at best. Those are very different than being monotheistic.
@@christinel1857 Species are capable of "exchanging genes or interbreeding." You are incorrect. What God creates is not itself "God". It is a false argument. God doesn't breed to make other God's. You said "By saying Jesus was "a" god you proclaim you are polytheistic." Then you are polytheistic too if you believe the Bible. Angels are called gods. And the judges of Israel were called gods by God Himself. IF such ones can be called gods, certainly Jesus would be a god.
OK. YOU ASKED FOR IT? The Greek theon in “the word was toward the god,” is in the accusative case ending and has the definite article (Gr. ho; English the) preceding it. It is correctly translated, “the Word was with God” in English. However, the 3rd clause in the verse contains theos in the nominative, singular form without an article: “and god was the word.” As controversial as it may sound to trinitarians, it is correctly translated as “and a god was the Word.” A minimal literal (“formal equivalence”) translation would rearrange the word order to match the proper English expression: “And the Word was a god.” This is consistent with other occurrences in the Greek. For example, the following are instances where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article (“a”) to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns. Examples are taken from the King James Version, New International Version, Revised Standard Version, and Today’s English Version: Mark 6:49: “a spirit” or “a ghost” Mark 11:32: “a prophet” or “a real prophet” John 4:19: “a prophet” John 6:70: “a devil” or “an informer” John 8:44: “a murderer” John 8:44: “a liar” John 8:48: “a Samaritan” John 9:17: “a prophet” John 9:24: “a sinner” John 10:1: “a thief” John 10:13: “an hireling” or “a hired man” John 10:33: “a man” or “a mere man” John 12:6: “a thief” John 18:35: “a Jew” John 18:37: “a king” If you study these occurrences in many translations, you will note that most translators consistently apply these translation rules, except when it comes to John 1:1c. Why the exception here? Bias. Bias has shaped most of these translations much more than has accurate attention to the wording of the Bible. The NW translation (New World Translation) of John 1:1 is superior to that of the other eight translations we are comparing. . . .it breaks with the KJV tradition followed by all the others, and it does so in the right direction by paying attention to how Greek grammar and syntax actually work. No translation of John 1:1 that I can imagine is going to be perfectly clear and obvious in its meaning. John is subtle, and we do him no service by reducing his subtlety to crude simplicities. All that we can ask is that a translation be an accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation. Only the NW achieves that, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader. The other translations cut off the exploration of the verse’s meaning before it has even begun. - Truth in Translation - Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, Jason David BeDuhn, page 218 (ebook) Is There Scholarly Work that Shows How These Nouns Should Be Translated From the Greek? Philip B. Harner: In his article, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1” (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973): “anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb may function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject, and this qualitative significance may be more important than the question whether the predicate noun itself should be regarded as definite or indefinite.” (page 75) “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite.” (page 85) “In John 1:1, I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite. . . .Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’ This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.” (page 87) What About the Other Occurrences of ‘Theos?’ Some insist that the New World Translation is inconsistent here because theos without the article in John 1 is not translated the same way in other locations. For example, some will claim that if the NWT was truly consistent and applied the grammatical rule of inserting the indefinite article “a” where the definite article (English “the”) was not present in Greek, we would have the following: There came a man who was sent as a representative of [a] God (theou); his name was John. - John 1:6 However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become [a] God’s (theou) children. - John 1:12 And they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from [a] God (theou). - John 1:13 And others. What they fail to note is that not only are the Greek constructs different in these other verses, but these other uses are genitive (theou), not nominative (theos). The genitive form of the noun, in this case theou, does not require the article (Gr. “ho;” English “the”) to be definite, whereas the nominative form normally does. In Koiné Greek, the nominative case ending usually indicates the subject of a sentence. It is normally preceded by the definite article. However, in John 1:1c, this nominative form (theos) is not preceded by the article. That being the case, the noun becomes “primarily qualitative in meaning,” as explained by Bible scholar, Philip B. Harner, in his article posted above
JOHN 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning “with” God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” ……….. Jesus is the living “Word” of the living ONE True God Almighty. The WORD was GOD. NOT JESUS THE SON, WAS ALSO GOD ALMIGHTY, But The “WORD was GOD”. JESUS ONLY SPEAKS TEACHING THROUGH GODS WORD. We can only go through the word of Jesus (our mediator) to know the Fathers Word. This is how we all learned about His Father, the “ONE” true God who SENT HIM. Jesus “Only does the WILL of his Father who SENT him”. Jesus only speaks the word of GOD. Gods word is manifested into the world, taught through HIS SON. This is not about how God Almighty Himself came into the world as Human Flesh. The WORD of God Almighty came into the world through His Son. Jesus who does the will of his Father who sent him. God ALMIGHTY SENT HIS SON. God DID NOT Send Himself. But Gods Word comes to us through His Son Jesus. His Son is NOT HIM. His Son is the living word of His Father who is GOD ALMIGHTY The ONE TRUE GOD, WHO CHANGES NOT. __________ JOHN 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. JOHN 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? JOHN 13:3 “Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God” JOHN 16:28 “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.” JOHN 17:5 “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” JOHN 13:3 “Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God” 1 TIMOTHY 2:5 “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” REVELATION 19:13 "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God." ________ Trinity is false.
Many believers are coming to the knowledge that trinity is a false doctrine, developed over hundreds of years. It doesn't take hundreds of years to "figure out" critical scriptural truth. Much less 1600 years in the failed attempt to adequately explain it.
@@texassmokingmonkey Many,,,??? This is your view, the by far majority believes in the Trinity. Check for yourself. Even the SDA, 25 million changed to the Trinity. The Jews and Muslims dont believe in the Trinity and a few small Christian cults
There is just to many versus stating the Holy Spirit as a individual, with feelings, power, making decisions of His own, and sinning against Him will you not be forgiven
Francois De Bruyn What you say is very true, my friend. No argument there. The vast majority of Jews reject Jesus as Messiah, as they have for 2000 years. A billion Catholics worship Mary and pray to dead people. Jesus made it very clear that the accepted establishment doctrines of the Jewish leaders were not in keeping with Moses or the prophets. Consensus does not make truth. Believing everything that's been handed down to us by the establishment hierarchy comes with its own set of challenges, since almost nobody studies these inherited doctrines independently, with an open heart. They "study" only to reinforce what they were taught, to strengthen their ability to debate "heretics." This is not investigation, to verify truth. Finding what you were told to look for is what's called confirmation bias. Seeing only what one already is trained to see. This is not testing the spirits, and is not proving scripture. I believed trinity like everyone else until i was 50 years old, and never once thought to "look into" its origins, or when it came to be established, and by whom. The resulting discovery was cataclysmic, and heartbreaking. It was not lightly undertaken, and not what i was expecting. I'm merely a believer, no member of any church association, mainstream or otherwise. I grew up Baptist. I sought the wisdom of the Most High God, and this was shown to me (among other things). A person who seeks after God's own heart must be open to the possibility than humans can be wrong. We expect Jews, Catholics, Muslims, cults, everyone but US to really open their hearts and seek God's truth. But we would never see any need to do what we expect others to do. And everyone in every one of those groups are just as sure as the mainstream Christians are with their consensus beliefs, received from their teachers, and not one time questioned. God does not deal in majorities, and he never has.
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.
*The Real Truth About "Mighty God"* ***[Isaiah 9:6]*** It is true that at Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is prophetically referred to as *"Mighty God" (Hebrew, ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ)* Yet, no where in scripture is Jesus ever referred to as *God Almighty (Hebrew ʼEl Shad·daiʹ)* as in Gen. 17:1,) This title ONLY applies to the Father (YHWH /Yehowah/Jehovah)... So to say that Jesus is *God* @ John 1:1 would be a complete contradiction.
@@catalinul1461 Catalinul, Respectfully, I am a Devout Christian, A Bible / Theology Researcher who stands by The JWs 100% on the issue raised @ John 1:1...To say that the word was [GOD] here is a direct contradiction of Jesus' own words... Would U not agree??? I hereby present Non-JW References: ▪︎The New Encyclopædia Britannica: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”-(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. ▪︎The New Catholic Encyclopedia: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”-(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299. ▪︎The EncyclopediaAmericana: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”-(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L. ▪︎Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel: “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”-(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467. ▪︎Dictionary of the Bible: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are Greek philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”-(New York, 1965), p. 899.
***{NO TRINITY}*** ***I Trust Jesus Words. Let Jesus Speak for Himself:*** • John 4:22 - Jesus said: You worship what you do not know; *WE WORSHIP* what we know! • John 5:19 - Jesus say, "The Son can't do anything on his own, only what he sees the Father doing." • John 10:33 - After the Jewish Leaders attempted to stone Jesus, accusing him of calling himself "God" (KJV) ... Why did Jesus correct them by saying, *"I said I am God's Son?"* (verse 36) • John 14:28 - Jesus says: The Father is greater than I. • John 17:3 - Why does Jesus call the Father *THE ONLY TRUE GOD*? "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, *"THE ONLY TRUE GOD,"* [and] the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ." (Clear Distinction Here) • John 20:17 - ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to *MY GOD and YOUR GOD.’”* • John 20:28 - After Thomas said, "My God & My Lord," ...Why does "vs 31" say "But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, ***THE SON OF GOD?"*** • Rev. 3:12 - [After Jesus Ascends Back To Heaven, (in the Spirit) he still calls his Father ***"MY GOD"***] (4 times) ~~~~~~ RESPECTFULLY, IF JESUS WORSHIPS HIS "GOD & FATHER," HOW CAN HE BE OF THE SAME ESSENCE OR GODHEAD?
@@catalinul1461 Not to bombard U but plz consider: *Translations That Trinitarian Theologians Hate & Hide* ***[John 1:1]*** *[Other Bibles before JWs NWT: JWs Did Not Invent The Indefinite Article Here]* • 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. • 1822: "and the Word was *a god"*- The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.) • 1863: "and the Word was *a god"*- A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863) • 1864: “and *a god* was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson. • 1879: "and the Word was *a god*" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes • 1885: "and the Word was *a god*" - Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885) • 1911: "and *[a] God* was the word" - The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, by George William Horner. • 1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Gogue • 1950: “and the Word was *a god*.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.☆ • 1958: “and the Word was *a God*.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek. • 1975: “and *a god* (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz. • 1978: “and *godlike* kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider. ~~~~~~ John 1:18 plainly tells us that no man has seen God "*at any time*." Yet John the Baptizer beheld both Jesus [*vs 29*] & the Holy Spirit [*vs 32*] *Question???* How can Jesus & the Holy Spirit be equal to Almighty God if they were seen my humans???
But this does not mean nouns in Greek are not indefinite. Look at any translation into English! Vickers appears to have missed an obvious fact of context, that the subject of 1.1c is shown simply from the previous 2 clauses! Hence John did not omit the article in the 3rd to show which noun is the subject and which the predicate. To argue that QEOS of 1.1c is "God" is modalism! Most trinitarians up to date with Greek studies reject that QEOS of 1.1c is definite. Seems to me Dr Vickers need to update his own knowledge. But missing what is obvious from the context is really inexcusable. Talk about misleading his listeners!
Pls. enlighten me. Theos without an article denotes the quality rather the being? In other Bible translation it reads "and the Word was Divine." Am I correct on this?
If it was an adjective it would stress the nature of, like ‘God is love’ stresses the nature of being Love because it has no article but agrees with in case/number/gender of the subject. God is the subject, but love isn’t God so the two aren’t interchangeable. Here in John 1 acopulative or ‘equal’ verb is used so it is stressing the equality subjects, God and the Word, two things that are the same.
Correct. Note that John never uses the Greek word "pros" which means towards, as 'with' when representing 2 or more individuals. He, as all others, uses the normal Greek word for with - "meta". Also, the number one rule of interpretation is: when a verse has two or more possible meanings, the correct one is the one which agrees with the preponderance of scripture - not the opposite!
correct. If theos in the final clause was referring to the deity of israel YHWH in the hebrew bible, there should be a definite article, because in the Greek, if we have a predication, and the predicate is a definite noun and it is in first position, meaning it appears before the “to be” verb (both that would be the case if the final clause would read “and GOD was the Word”, then if it is a being that is well known, and/or it has already been named in close context, both of which would be true if this verse were to be talking about YHWH in John 1:1, it would have the definite article,but it doesn’t, so “God” here is to be understood qualitatively (which can be DIVINE)
@@777Slater well anyone comes along giving their understand with something pulled out of no where.... dear,divine ,in the case of Jesus would mean His God...... Tell me how many creatures you know wich are divine ??? Actually NONE........Angels are angelic creatures.........divine is a quality that strictly belongs to GOD.... colossians tells us jesus is the exact image of the Father ,that ALL THE DIVINE QUALITIES DWELLS IN HIM........qualities that belong to God ONLY....... By trying to disprove jesus deity ,anti trinatarians actually bring more water against them...thank you.
Instead of responding to the Jehovah's Witnesses view of John 1:1, can you please respond to Greek scholar Jason David BeDuhn who is not a Jehovah's Witness and who agrees with John 1:1 of the New World Translation. Please read chapter 11 of his book, "Truth in translation", where he say's, "only one, the NW, adheres to the literal meaning of the Greek, and translates "a god" on page 124.
Easily check Genesis " without him (jesus) nothing was made that was made " . Jesus IS divine and moreover if he is simply " a " God then there is not only "one God " therefore Jehovahs witnesses are not only polytheists but God is a liar in Isaiah for he said " there is no God formeds other than me "
If Jesus is The Great "I'm", the Father who is in heaven, why Peter and John said while they were preaching: Acts 3:13 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant and Son Jesus 15 But you killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead. and Paul in Galatians 1:1 God The Father resurrected Jesus and why Jesus himself said John 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not observe my words. The word that you are hearing is NOT MINE, but belongs to the Father WHO SENT ME...John12: 49 For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment means* everlasting life. So whatever I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.
Who appointed Jesus as high priest? Hebrews 3: consider the apostle and high priest whom we acknowledge-Jesus. 2 He was faithful to the One who appointed him, Hebrews 5:5 the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: “You are my son; today I have become your father.” -- John 5:24 Jesus said: Most truly I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes the One who sent me has everlasting life, and he does not come into judgment but has passed over from death to life.
I am not JW but Jesus said that his Father was the ONE true God, all so none can see God and live. yet many saw Jesus. and John in Revelation saw Jesus in heaven and lived. and then there is this text. To us there is but one God the Father. and in John 1:1 there are two different words that get translated as God yet they are both translated God with no difference if there is a difference in Greek there should be a difference in English.
The word was not "a" God - this is false jw reasoning. Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega and Yahweh is also the Alpha and the Omega. Are you trying to tell us the Alpha and the Omega are two persons now @Reasonablemanyouare (not) the false jw bible is a Satanic twisting of scripture.
Jesus says the the Father and him are one (John 10:30 +) , so saying the Father is the one true God doesnt disqualify Jesus, and Jesus follows that statement with his name as well. You are right that no one can see God the Father and live. No one but Jesus has seen the father (John 6:46) and this complements John 1:18 which also calls Jesus God. Yet God was seen by Isaiah 6:1-5, could he have been Jesus there? Also greek and english differ from eachother greatly, for example they have 7 words that mean love and we translate it to only one word, theon and theos can both mean God in English. I hope this was helpful to you :)
If Jesus is The Great "I'm", the Father who is in heaven, why Peter and John said while they were preaching: Acts 3:13 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant and Son Jesus 15 But you killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead. and Paul in Galatians 1:1 God The Father resurrected Jesus and why Jesus himself said John 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not observe my words. The word that you are hearing is NOT MINE, but belongs to the Father WHO SENT ME...John12: 49 For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment means* everlasting life. So whatever I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.
Who appointed Jesus as high priest? Hebrews 3: consider the apostle and high priest whom we acknowledge-Jesus. 2 He was faithful to the One who appointed him, Hebrews 5:5 the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: “You are my son; today I have become your father.” -- John 5:24 Jesus said: Most truly I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes the One who sent me has everlasting life, and he does not come into judgment but has passed over from death to life.
KJV Mathew 3-17 “And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Clearly God the Father affirms who Jesus is and approves.) Mathew 17-5 (“While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” (Again God the Father affirms who Jesus is, approves, and commands us to hear him/listen.) John 14-6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (If we are to do what God the Father said.. then clearly Jesus is stating that you aren't going to ever get to the Father except through Jesus.) Angels of God (not fallen) do not accept worship. We are to worship God only. Mathew 14-33 “Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.” (Jesus did not rebuke them for worshipping Him.) This was not the only time He allowed worship. So staying out of the one God... a god turmoil.. it is clear that God affirms Jesus and tells us to hear him. If we do so then clearly we Must go through Jesus to get to heaven. John 14-9 “Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” (Jesus is clearly making a distinction between Himself and the Father ..yet seeing Jesus is the same as seeing the Father. He has the same exact status of the Father in every way.) You can continue to debate big G or little g but what is crystal clear (at least to me) from just this small amount of versus is that: God the Father affirms Jesus as His beloved Son, and we are to listen to Him. Don't listen or follow Jesus and you won't be seeing heaven or the Father.
Not sure I can relay this to the JWs I meet on the street. Will need to prepare a *LOT* in advance. But definitely this explanation is useful so thankyou!
Dr Vickers, I just watched your video here and I believe that you have made some mistakes. In the last line oh John 1:1 you seem to be referring to Colwell's rule. There are many people that follow the leadings of Walter Martin in his book “Kingdom of the Cults” when he said “In fact, the late New Testament Greek scholar Dr. E. C. Colwell formulated a rule that clearly states that a definite predicate nominative (in this case, theos- God) never takes an article when it precedes the verb (was), as we find in John 1:1. It is therefore easy to see that no article is needed for theos (God), and to translate it "a god" is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek since theos is the predicate nominative of was in the third sentence-clause of the verse and must refer back to the subject, Word (Logos). Christ, if He is the Word "made flesh" (John 1:14), can be no one else except God unless the Greek text and consequently God’s Word be denied.” That appears to be the position that you are taking. The problem is Dr Colwell never had a rule that said the “definite predicate nominative.... never takes an article when it precedes the verb” In the “Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933): 12-21” Dr Colowell said “Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb USUALLY lack the article,” (all capitals mine) “The following rules may be tentatively formulated to describe the use of the article with definite predicate nouns in sentences in which the verb occurs (1) Definite predicate nouns here regularly take the article (2) The exceptions are for the most part due to a change in word-order (a) Definite predicate nouns which follow the verb (this is the usual order) usually take the article, (b) Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article, (c) Proper names regularly lack the article in the predicate, (d) Predicate nominatives in relative clauses regularly follow the verb whether or not they have the article.” His thesis has been re-evaluate and found to be wanting. Aslo Dr Colwell did not fully understand his own rule. Other scholars for some time time just accepted his conclutions. Please see the followings ntresources.com/blog/documents/colwell.pdf bible.org/article/revisiting-colwell-construction-light-masscount-nouns dangitbill.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/colwells-rule-and-john-1-1c.pdf Those are just a few examples. I could give you a more in depth explanation of John 1:1 and how there are only a handful of texts that actually match the grammatical make up and where translators have absolutely no problems in inserting the indefinite article. Why do they do that. Because there is no theology involved. They completely ignore the true grammar of John 1:1 in favor of theology. The correct rendering is as many Bibles before and after the NWT have done and rendered it is “and the Word was a god” Are you willing to see the evidence that shows that the NWT and many other Bibles are correct.
***** I have studied the issues on this text very carefully. Colwell's rule just does not apply to John 1:1. That seems to be the rule that is being discussed in the video. If you do not think that those web sites I posted show that Colwell's does not apply then you did not read them carefully. Most Biblical Greek grammar books that I have support the rule behind the rendering “a god”. What is interesting is that when they discuss John 1:1 the conveniently forget what they wrote. Of those three links Rodney Decker said of Colwells rule and John 1:1 That his rue can not be used to prove definiteness and as often been misused by well meaning scholars to try to prove a pint about John 1:1. He admits that John 1:1 needs more investigation. Donald Harytly says “Colwell appears to be responsible, because of his application to Jihn 1:1, for laying the groundwork of a logical blunder” The third article backs up the other two in that Colwells rule can not be used in the translation of John 1:1 All those scholars recognise that the last theos in John 1:1 is an anarthrous predicate nominative noun. As the predicate it is telling us something about the subject of the sentence. We know that the subject is the “WORD”. It is not telling us identity. The word theos is telling us what the Word is not who he is. The question now is what does theos mean. It originally meant a “might one”. English has borrowed the word god from an old Germanic origin meaning “invoked one” In John 1:1 it is telling us that the Word is a might one and was with the Almighty one. The word theos here is acting as an adjective. Now when John uses the same construction as John 1:1, that is, an anarthrous singular nominative count noun preceding a copulative verb, translators will add the word “a”. The only place that most translators do not do that is John 1:1. Some translators recognise that the word theos is not to be capitalised so they use words like “divine” or “god like” or “what God was the Word was”. They use that sort of language because they recognise that to say “and the Word was God” goes against the grammar but to say “a god” goes against theology. There are several scholars that will say that “a god” is grammatically correct, but they do not prefer it because of their theology.
Yeah, you're right ... You can also sort of view this issue as three competing "camps." First are two Trinitarian camps on interpreting the predicate QEOS at Jn. 1:1c. The "definite camp" of which there aren't many of nowadays, which argue for a definite understanding of the QEOS at 1:1c like Colwell with his supposed "rule" in 2b of the JBL article along with the many who misapplied his rule including a number in the other camp like William Barclay not seeming to realize they were actually citing a source against their own position! And the "qualitative camp" where the majority of Trinitarian scholars reside today, who insist on a solely qualitative interpretation of the QEOS at 1:1c. The funny thing is, both of these camps make valid points against the other and thus effectively make either one untenable by themselves. The definite camp correctly points out the absurdity of a purely qualitative QEOS. And that irrespective of any qualitative aspect, QEOS is still a bounded or singular count noun and must be either definite or (God forbid for the sake of the Trinity) indefinite. But then the qualitative camp correctly points out that the omission of the article before the QEOS at 1:1c is both significant, and that a definite translation is ruled out by the context of the Word being "with God" just prior in Jn. 1:1b and following in verse 2. As this would be an obvious contradiction or at best modalism or Sabellianism if the QEOS is definite there. So now enter in the third camp held by Jehovah's Witnesses and many Unitarians who point out that by the two previous Trinitarian camp's own correct admissions against each other. The QEOS at 1:1c can be neither definite nor fully qualitative. Therefore what else remains then, but the indefinite option "the Word was a god" much to the disdain of both the previous Trinitarian camps? :)
***** Chris, There is too much in your post for me to respond to at this time. I would like to correct a coupe of statements that you assumed I had said. In my first response that you replied to, I never said that “the traditional understanding of John 1:1 is dependent on Colwell” I was making the point that the way that Dr Vickers presents his material, it comes across as if he advocating for Colwell I said “In the last line oh John 1:1 you seem to be referring to Colwell's rule “ We are not separating Johns theology from his gramma. The gramma of John 1:1 as per the NWT and many other Bibles, is, as per Johns theology. To render “and the Word was God” goes against both Johns grammar and his theology. The position that we have always taken with the rendering of “kai theos en ho logos” is as the scholars you mentioned above, and that is “ the majority opinion is to understand it as Qualitative” That is what “a god” does. It is shows a quality not identity. Also, I never said that theos was an adjective. I said “The word theos here is acting as an adjective.” It acts like an adjective in this case because it is QUALITATIVE. Being qualitative, it is describing the quality of something in size, appearance, value, etc. The NT Bible writere4s were Jews. They used both the Hebrew and Greek versions of the “OT”. The Hebrew word that we have translated as “god” did not me ““god” as we now understand the word. The Hebrew words basically meant “mighty one” or “strong one”. The Hebrew “God” was referred to as the Almighty, Mighty One”. That is why Moses, judges and angels were rightly called “gods”. They were mighty ones but not the Almighty one. At John 1:1, to a Hebrew back then, they would have understood that to say “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the “Almighty One” and the word was a mighty one” The word mighty is an adjective. We know that the Jews accepted that because John records what Jesus said when Jesus quoted from Psalms 82:1 as recorded at John 10:35 “ If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;” (KJV) Lets compare Psalms 82:1 “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.” (JKV) The word mighty in that text is El which the KJV translates as “God” 213 times and “god” 16 times puss several sundry renderings. The first word in that text “God” is the Hebrew word “Elohim”. The last word in the text “gods” also “Elohim” We today have borrowed the word “god” not from Hebrew or Greek writers of the Bible but from a Germanic language where the word “god” (probably gott) and means invoked one. In Biblical Greek lexicons you will more than likely find that they say that theos is of unknown origin. Therefore to say that at John 1:1 the last occurrence of the word theos that it acts like an adjective is correct. I found this web site that has a good argument for the word god at times, being an adjective. facebook.com/notes/will-graham/god-as-an-adjective/454940771209287 The other factors that argue to the NWT is that when ever John uses the same construction as found in John 1:1c Bible translators have absolutely no problem in inserting the word “a”. That construction is when we find an anarthrous singular nominative count noun preceding a copulative verb. I made a chart using Phillip B. Harner's, 1973 JBL article, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1." lists of texts in the book of John and examined them. I found about 15 other examples of constructions that follow John 1:1c where the indefinite article is added.
+Ben Burns Here is a list of other anarthrous pre-verbal count noun predicate nominatives like at 1:1c in John's Gospel compiled several years ago I use to consult with on occasion. And as you can see, Bible translators have no qualms about regularly inserting the indefinite article before the predicate noun. All except at John 1:1c ... Why? The answer is of course quite obvious. Theology and not scholarship is primarily driving the translations of Trinitarian scholars. And they have the nerve to excoriate Jehovah's Witnesses and their NWT for bias, dishonesty and Arianism? Or others that render likewise of always assuming Unitarianism like they don't assume Trinitarianism? Please gimme a break .... 1. John 4:19 PROFHTHS EI SU "a prophet you are" 2. John 6:70 DIABOLOS ESTIN "a devil is" 3. John 8:34 DOULOS ESTIN "a slave is" 4. John 8:44 ANQRWPOKTONOS HN "a manslayer was" 5. John 8:44 YEUSTHS ESTIN "a liar he is" 6. John 8:48 SAMARITHS EI SU "a Samaritan are you" 7. John 9:17 PROFHTHS ESTIN "a prophet he is" 8. John 9:24 hAMARTWLOS ESTIN "a sinner is" 9. John 9:25 hAMARTWLOS ESTIN "a sinner he is" 10. John 10:1 [see footnote to John 10:1] KLEPTHS ESTIN "a thief is" 11. John 10:13 MISQWTOS ESTIN "a hired hand he is" 12. John 12:6 KLEPTHS HN "a thief he was" 13. John 18:35 EGO IOUDAIOS EIMI "I a Jew am" 14. John 18:37a BASILEUS EI SU "a king are you?" 15. John 18:37b BASILEUS EIMI "a king I am" Footnote to John 10:1: Note: At John 10:1, notice that there's no difference between how KLEPTHS (=thief) is handled, which occurs before the verb, and LhiSTHS (=robber) is handled, which occurs after the verb.
The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Society know everything, but truly don't know anything. God Himself can stand before a Jehovah's Witness and correct him, and yet he would call God a liar! That's how brain-washed and indoctrinated they are in believing their false teachers. It's not only John 1:1 that proves that Jesus is the true God, it's the Scriptures that proceed it. It is written, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life: and the life was the light of men." (John 1:1-4 KJV) If all things were made by Jesus Christ, and without Him was not any thing made that was made, how could Jesus be a created being? This not possible, unless He created Himself! It also states, "In him was life: and the life was the light of men? This means Jesus is our life, without him, we have no life! It is written, "All things were made by him: and without him was not any thing made that was made?" We know for a fact that God created all things! It is written, according to the Holy Bible, "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him: and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Corinthians 8:6 KJV) It is written, "In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was not anything made that was made." (John 1:1-3 KJV) It is written, "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30 KJV) It is written again, "Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also." (John 8:19 KJV)
Demetrius3434 when Jesus sacrificed his life for all, his father YHWH gave him the god given authority to be god for those that he died for , and he is still the son of God, when all things are established by him he will return everything back to his father, And he will submit himself to his father so his father YHWH will all in all,
Henry Santiago You conclude John 1:1 says that Lord Jesus was created? How do explain the Word was or existed and not created? Was the Word a god? Lord Jesus is the Savior? Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no god formed, neither shall there be after me. Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and besides me there is no savior. His kingdom is ETERNAL and He is SAVIOR: 2 Peter 1:11 For thus you will be richly supplied with the entrance into the eternal Kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus is Eternal: 1 John 1:2, John 5:39, 1 John 5:20 since He is eternal life He must also be the true God. Isaiah 9:6 Author of Eternal life - Everlasting Father. Vs 3 proved His deity as the Creator of all things. ISV Bible: John 1:1 In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. Webster Bible: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. Colossians 1:15 The passage does not say that he was the first created, but the first-born. He was before creation. Rev 3:14 ISV Bible: Rev 3:14 "To the messenger of the church in Laodicea, write: 'The Amen, the witness who is faithful and true, the originator of God's creation, says this: ERV Bible: Rev 3:14 "Write this to the angel of the church in Laodicea: "Here is a message from the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of all that God has made. Young's Literal Translation: Rev 3:14 'And to the messenger of the assembly of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the witness-the faithful and true-the chief of the creation of God; John 10:28 And I give to them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand. John 10:29 My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than all; and none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. Do the disciples give eternal life or believers will be in their hands? if you want to compare with John 17:20-21. John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Henry J. WILSON Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no god formed, neither shall there be after me. Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and besides me there is no savior. Hosea 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no God but me: for there is no savior besides me.
@Azay Dee Lord Jesus Christ the great God. *[[Tit **2:13**]] KJV* Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who is appearing? *[[1Ti **6:14**]] KJV* That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: *[[1Pe 1:7]] KJV* That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
I suggest Henry you are a former Jdub , since before Abraham "I am" Jezus - the pharisees underztood this claim fully , to them it was blasphemy. But wait , a couple of bible translations dont say that so the origi nal teaching dont count ! Pl ease post your alleged " qualifications"
This verse, as discussed with the Jehovah’s Witness, is why I began my adventure to learn Greek. I’m now on year 2 and really interested in the complexity of learning a second language. My mind is really expanded in the effort. And while your explanation sounds very complicated to the uneducated, it really is basic first year stuff in the Greek language! It is fun to know that my adventure began here, but now I am well beyond these basics as I learn more about how the Greek language works. This was a very good presentation… with maybe one exception: you indicated that the JWs have an acceptable translation with the missing article, but I don’t believe that’s correct: it WOULD HAVE BEEN if the word God was spelled in another way, suggesting it was the object, but it wasn’t. Having two subjects and no objects in the sentence doesn’t make one an imagined object but rather makes both subjects equal. Even in English if I am speaking of the table and chair, I eliminate the second the, because that makes them both equals in subject as a set. It would simply be incorrect to allow an interpretation to suggest the chair was the object because it doesn’t have a the.
Anybody who denies what God says about his son Jesus Christ, is actually calling God a Liar, bcuz he doesnt believe what God has said about his Son. 1John 5:10.
The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”-(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”-(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299. In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”-(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L. According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”-(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467. John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”-(New York, 1965), p. 899. Even though, as Trinitarians acknowledge, neither the word “Trinity” nor a statement of the Trinitarian dogma is found in the Bible, are the concepts that are embodied in that dogma found there? Historian Arthur Weigall: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord." -- The Paganism in Our Christianity Prior to the end of the 4th century the pagan trinity was not a doctrine of Christendom. Edward Gibbons stated, “If paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians.... was changed, by the church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.” History of Christianity, Edward Gibbon. Preface.
Fergus Odonnell on your comment here, have you considered that the word Bible is not used in the Bible as well. However you are not averse to using it to describe the corpus of Scripture. As far as Trinity being a late 4th century development remember Christianity was an illegal religion in the Empire for those first 300 years of church history with sporadic and violent persecution breaking out. Can you rightly expect to see church councils meeting publicly during that time until the ban was lifted?
+Fergus O’Donnell Unfortunately you are following the ways of the watchtower. The quote is misleading. You are misleading! Why don’t you include the full quote from the Encyclopaedia Britannica? Here is what you left out, "Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity"
I understand that Jesus is the visible face of invisible God. So he has all the characteristics of God his Father. That's why he said if you have seen me you have seen the Father. You should have this mentality in you that although he existed in God's form he never thought of eaquality with God. The Father is greater than I am. Not only that but let's reason this.. God said he is Jehovah alone. That us only the Father. Jesus had a beginning, he was created by God.. direct from Him before anything else. If you say God is more than one you're opposing the scriptures. If you say Jesus is equal to God you're opposing the scriptures.
Wow, are U approving NWT? are U saying that the Word is genetical to the Creator, that we have two gods? Well to me the begettor can only produce one of his own spice, so the NWT is correct in this matter & the Word is truly a god but not God the Creator but a lesser god' right? a second in rank god right? So, are you saying that the only beggoten of The Creator is NOT a spirit resident of spiritual realm heaven?
A simple "no or yes" WILL not be enough, still: The Father/Tha Creator): yes is individual (one) The Son "or" The beggoten: is also an individual like you & me, but He is not human nor spirit from Haven; He is (a god) not God The Creator but a one of a kind super being from a realm above spiritual heaven. Neh 6:9.
A simple "no or yes" WILL not be enough, still: The Father/Tha Creator): yes is individual (one) The Son "or" The beggoten: is also an individual like you & me, but He is not human nor spirit from Haven; He is (a god) not God The Creator but a one of a kind super being from a realm above spiritual heaven. Neh 6:9.
He is yes, a god. Don't you see? When He was physical He mentioned that He was from other regions not from physical territorial, remember? but He is not from spirit grounds either, Neh 9:6 heavens didn't existed when He was BORN from The Father & The Father beggoten one of HIS spice, kind, gender. get it?
I'm surprised: On your reply to " Real Alpha men" you tried to make him see the difference between (created v/I beggoten) concerning The Son of God or the only beggoten of the Father. Only The Creator God or the Self Always Living, THE ETERNAL gave birth, gave life, brought to existence to a (new born) child, descendant, an offspring; so yes I'm completely aware of the truly Origen, substance, matter, ingredients that my Lord Jessy was produced off, manufactured, fabricated, bring about, GENERATED. YES, Jesus brought forth from The Most Highest essence, mass, substance and at the moment when nothing else was in existence ( ONLY THE ETERNAL) I'm promted to acknowledge yes JESUS is truly a god.
I'm not educated in Greek, but to my understanding (I've done a lot of research, but correct me if I'm wrong), the old Greek that was used to originally write the bible, had only plain letters. Nothing else. Only much, much later, scholars decided to add all kinds of punctuation marks. So... the question is: who decided that the punctuation marks to those words pointed towards a subject or an object noun? Following that, te next question is: how much of that choice was influenced by certain dogma's that were accepted, in some cases hundreds of years after the completion of the books in the bible? Dogma's even the Catholic church that believes those dogma's, agrees definitely weren't believed by the early christians, at the time those biblebooks were written and shortly after. With that in mind, wouldn't it be more logical to weigh the meaning of these (and other) sentences, according to other verses in the bible? If one would truly objectively do so, I believe a lot of people would be surprised. I would also encouraged people to do their own study, and include the change of written languages over time, before making any assumptions or embrace thought's of others. It's really not that hard, even when you're not educated in those lost languages. Base your conclusions on your own study, not on what others are saying.
Jehovah God in the last days is spoken of by his Son, Jesus Christ being the WORD and whom the Son was appointed by his Father as an heir of all things. Therefore if the Son is the same as the father and also as God who will inherit its things bcuz the Son is likewise the fathet. Very absurd trinitarian.
I guess JWs don't listen to what the doctrines of the Godhead really is then. There isn't a Christians out there that believes Jesus is the Father, that is modalism and it's heresy. Colossians 2:9 says that all the fulness of the GODHEAD dwells in bodily form. It's pretty simple. Verse 8 describes JWs perfectly; being deceived by the doctrines of men and not according to Christ.
If Jesus is The Great "I'm", the Father who is in heaven, why Peter and John said while they were preaching: Acts 3:13 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant and Son Jesus 15 But you killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead. and Paul in Galatians 1:1 God The Father resurrected Jesus and why Jesus himself said John 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not observe my words. The word that you are hearing is NOT MINE, but belongs to the Father WHO SENT ME...John12: 49 For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment means* everlasting life. So whatever I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.
John 1:1 is one of the biggest, misunderstood verses in the entire New Testament. Let's examine this more closely, shall we? Most Trinitarian Bibles render it as, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." That rendering is completely asinine and contradicts the Torah, Prophets, Writings, and pretty much the entire New Testament. The Word (Jesus) was not God, nor did the Messiah ever claim to be! Consider some verses such as John 20:17 which reads, "Do not hold onto me, for I haven't ascended to the Father yet. Go to my brethren instead and tell them, "I'm returning to my Father and to your Father. To my God and to your God."' Now let's stop a minute and think, if Jesus really was God as most claim to be, then why would he say he was returning to his God and to ours? It is illogical to believe the Lord here is the true God. Let's continue, "Jesus answered, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good except God."' (Luke 18:19; Mark 10:18) OK, this one is just too easy. If Jesus was God as Trinitarians proudly declare, then why didn't he take credit for his deeds? It's quite bizarre for "God" to direct praise to a different god, huh? I thought he was the Almighty, so why did he say only God is good? Why didn't so-called "God" accept it? In another place it's written, "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it." (Acts 2:32) So, wait? God raised God from the dead? That's ridiculous! Torah teaches us that there's only one God, "Hear, O Israel. Jehovah our God, Jehovah is one." (Deuteronomy 6:4) Not only that, but Jesus prayed to God on multiple occasions: Hebrews 5:7, Luke 3:21, Matthew 14:23, Mark 6:46, Luke 6:12, Mark 1:35, Luke 5:16, Luke 9:18, Matthew 26:36, ect. Why would God pray to himself? Sounds pretty eccentric, to me. Now that we've provided solid evidence that Jesus is not God, let's now examine more closely what's really being said by John in the fist chapter. John 1:1 in the Greek reads, "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος." It reads, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word." W-What!? But how!? See, there's no definite article before the word "Theos" (god) and when that happens in the Greek it's actually referring to a lesser, second god. There's literally a Sahidic Coptic manuscript that literally reads, "ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥШ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥШ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ". It translates, "In the beginning existed the word and the word existed with the god and a god was the word." As you can see, even ancient manuscripts agreed with the rules of Greek grammar unlike modern Bible translators today. According to the Bible, there's only one, true God: "That men may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalm 83:18) Amen! Show less REPLY
You prefer a later Coptic manuscript to the Greek? How many of these Coptics are there with this reading? Different place, language and time I suppose as well. What is the date on that manuscript?
I'm not sure of the actual date of the manuscript, for I haven't researched its history. The point I was trying to make was how most Trinitarians mistranslated and misunderstood John 1:1 to the point of insanity. It's quite clear from Scripture that Jesus is not God and that he's simply his Son. (Matthew 16:16)
Ok Thanks for your honesty. Its just that you are supporting your view with a Coptic text that reads differently from the ancient Greek manuscripts. The Greek are no doubt much earlier and involve much fewer translation issues. Just curious why you would place so much stock in a Coptic reading?
Was clear as mud to me. John also wrote, 'No man has SEEN God AT ANY TIME.' - 1 John 4:12.20. Thus, John wouldn't be that crazy to even hint that Jesus was God.
thats correct, so whenever it was the case the translator had to have the insight where to translate the noun with an indefinite article and where to leave it without an article. This pretends a good possession of the language, BUT more important the good understanding of the context.
THE CORRECT WAY TO UNDERSTAND JOHN 1:1. JOHN 1:1 SHOULD SAY "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, and THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND THE WORD WAS DIVINE (GODLY). NOT BEING GOD. YOU CANT "BE WITH" AND BE SOMETHING. ITS EITHER OR.
Bronze ... Angels and Jesus are created beings ... Jehovah God is not! Jesus was even made lower than the angels as the scripture point out (Hebrews 2:7 ). How can God Almighty be made lower than the things he created? Your reasoning is invalid and simply makes no sense.
It's nature, In the beginning was the woman and the woman was with the man and the woman was human. True or false? In the beginning was the word (Jesus) and the word (Jesus) was with God (the father) and the word (jesus) was God (divine). Like begets like. Jesus can have the divine nature of his Father without being his father. The father is the OTG and he has a son, Jesus Christ!
In the beginning was the [Bible] and the [Bible] was with God and the [Bible] was [the Word of] God: This same [Bible] was in the beginning with God. Spirits do not multiply in the sense that something is physically created but rather that 'something' inherits a likeness of the Spirit. Asam Asam, God's 'divine nature' is that he is exactly 1: and this is [the sum of] ETERNAL LIFE, to understand and to know the 1 true God, and Jesus Christ whom God has sent (John 17v3)
@@josephglover4546 In the verse you just quoted is the answer, eternal life that they may know the one true God. Who is that ONE true God? None other than the Father. As it goes on AND Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. In order to be numerically one it must be one; the words and, with, & also all state there is more than one being referred to. God is one, Jesus is one, 1 + 1 does not equal 1. Jesus is divine as the son of God, but he isn't the OTG. John 8:17 It is also written in your law that the testimony of TWO men is true. I am one who bears witness of myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness of Me. TWO WITNESSES Two beings, not 3, not a trinity, not 1, not Oneness, but two divine beings and one that is the source of the other. God the Father is the source of all including his son.
'ONLY' means 1, 'TRUE' means none other than the 1, & God the Father is that 1: the rest of the verse could refer to the whole angelic host and it would not change the first part of the sentence. Just because it says that God wants you to know his Son does not mean that the Son is God with God or that somehow they are '1' in unison. Christ is the heir of the things of God; nothing is intrinsically his...or he wouldn't be an 'heir': Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom [he hath appointed] heir of all things, by whom also [he made the worlds];" -Hebrews 1v2 God, the Father, made the worlds by giving the commandment to his son to execute. Think also of the verse "[And God said] let us make man in our image": God said, and someone was listening, 'let us make man in our image': God is not the image of his Son, his Son is the image of him; the Son/image of God...OF...GOD.
John chapter one causes more controversy than any other one in the bible! Its good to remember that when Jude ( Jesus brother!) said "The faith was delivered once for all time to the holy ones" ( Jude 3) this was around 55AD! At least 40 years BEFORE John wrote his gospel! So the use of the title 'The Word' cannot be essential for faith since its NOT found in any of the other three gospels or the epistles! Also I am NOIT a JW but their understanding of the 'Word' is shared by a number of bible scholars! Christianity spread by the 'word of God' they had AT THAT TIME, and the Holy spirit!
Rev 10:1 And I saw another MIGHTY ANGEL come down from heaven, CLOTHED WITH A CLOUD: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire: Rev 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, HAVING GREAT POWER; and the earth was lightened with HIS GLORY. Rev. 10:1 QUESTION: Who is the MIGHTY ANGEL coming down from heaven CLOTHED WITH A CLOUD ? Rev. 18:1 QUESTION; Who is the angel coming down from heaven HAVING GREAT POWER AND GLORY ? ANSWER: Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven WITH POWER AND GREAT GLORY. IF THE SPIRIT OF SATAN IS ON YOU, SIMPLE TRUTH CAN NOT BE GRASPED AND UNDERSTOOD.
My Question is: Why does the nominative predicate drop the article "the" when talking about God? Why are we assuming that it is there? He said it himself, when there is no "The" behind theos, then it becomes "a god". But why under the Nominative Predicate rule does "a god" turn into "the god" in meaning? Why not leave it simply as "a god" as in: "The word was a god". Why does the Nominative Predicate add "the" to god?
• 1808: "and the Word was a god" - Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London. • 1822: "and the Word was a god" - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.) • 1829: "and the Word was a god" - The Monotessaron; 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) • 1864: "and a god was the Word" - The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading) • 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 [a] God was the word" - The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, by George William Horner.[17] • 1958: "and the Word was a god" - The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958); • 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" - Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany • 1975: "and the Word was a god" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975); • 1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin • (Source - Wikipedia - John 1:1) 'and the Word WAS God' doesn't even make sense. It would imply that Jesus had been God at some point in time. But now he ISN'T God.
Your last statement on Jesus being a God in some point in time and not anymore is just stupid. if God is God, then he is not affected by time. So whether it says was, or is it really doesn't matter. He remains God regardless. I've seen this used to many times and it needs to be stopped because it doesn't work. If I say "I was a footballer in 1993" that says nothing about whether I'm still a footballer today. All you know that in the past I was a "footballer". What we have is human beings, using human language to describe and infinite ever existing God. That's it!
*My Question To Trinitarians Who Prefer The King James Version* Please explain why the KJV Bible (and other off-shoot bibles) add the indefinite article [a] in several texts but remove it at John 1:1? [Some Examples]: a) Acts 28:6 - People viewed Paul as *[a] god* (In Ancient Koine Greek, there is no “a” before “God, right?”) b) Mark 6:49 - [a] spirit c) John 6:70 - Judas called [a] devil ~~~~~~~ d)* Exodus 7:1 - Moses called [a] god to Pharaoh... *[NOTE]: There were "no" vowels in Ancient Hebrew, only consona nts.* They wrote the way we text msg & abbreviate today: Examples: • msg (message) • ystrdy (yesterday) • btw (between), etc.
People truly do NOT understand our Creator and Redeemer. Christians, or anyone belonging to a worldly religion of any kind will NEVER understand. Why? And I heard another voice from the heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. Ḥazon (Revelation) 18:4 TS2009 Our Creator is Spirit and everywhere as well as eternal. What we need to understand is that He therefore lives in us. We cannot be alive without the Spirit in us. When the Spirit in us withdraw we return to dust. And יהוה Elohim formed the man out of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils breath of lives. And the man became a living being. Berĕshith (Genesis) 2:7 TS2009 Now, the only way we can know or communicate to the Spirit in us, is by talking to His Voice we hear. This is the reason why Yahshua IS Yahweh, because Yahweh's Voice (The Word) is Yahshua. Yahweh can manifest in many ways to us, but a manifestation is only part of Yahweh. On the other hand a manifestation can never be an entity on it's/his or her own. Therefore Yahweh our Creator manifested as a man on earth (a branch / an arm) as an example and testimony to us what His intentions were, when He created us. THERE IS ONLY ONE! = YAHWEH I AM And His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns, having a Name that had been written, which no one had perceived except Himself - and having been dressed in a robe dipped in blood - and His Name is called: The Word of יהוה. Ḥazon (Revelation) 19:12-13 TS2009 Therefore יהושע said to them again, “I am going away, and you shall seek Me, and you shall die in your sin. Where I go you are unable to come.” And He said to them, “You are from below, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you shall die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins. Then they said to Him, “Who are You?” And יהושע said to them, “Altogether that which I even say to you! Yoḥanan (John) 8:21, 23-25 TS2009 “Thus said יהוה, Sovereign of Yisra’ĕl, and his Redeemer, יהוה of hosts, ‘I am the First and I am the Last, besides Me there is no Elohim. Thus said יהוה, your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb, “I am יהוה, doing all, stretching out the heavens all alone, spreading out the earth, with none beside Me, Yeshayah (Isaiah) 44:6, 24 TS2009 JESUS = THE ANTICHRIST THE LAWLESS ONE THE CROSS = THE MARK OF SATAN POPE FRANCIS = THE FALSE PROPHET (SATAN MANIFESTED AS A MAN) THE 2 LAMP STANDS OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW The old testify to the new and vice versa. The new covenant only remove the offerings and man-made traditions, not the 10 Commandments and Yahweh's appointed times. He in fact wrote it on our hearts. The whole Bible in one word = OBEDIENCE. Obedience to Yahweh = LOVE “For I am יהוה, I shall not change, and you, O sons of Ya‛aqoḇ, shall not come to an end. Mal’aḵi (Malachi) 3:6 TS2009 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of turning. Ya‛aqoḇ (James) 1:17 TS2009 SEARCH FOR YAHWEH IN YOU WITH ALL YOUR HEART AND SOUL, DIE TO THE SELF AND MONEY, FIND MEEKNESS AND COMPASSION, BE OBEDIENT TO YAHWEH AND FOLLOW THE TESTIMONY OF YAHSHUA AND YOU WILL FIND THE TRUTH, LIFE AND ETERNAL LOVE!
The Trinitarian blunder is the result of a fatal assumption at Hebrews 1:7 where they assumed God is the speaker at Psalm 104:4 which is being quoted in verse 7. Having assumed God is the speaker at Hebrews 1:7, they presume God is the speaker at verses 8 to 9 and again at verses 10-12. Hence, they require God to be the speaker in verse 7 for Him to be the speaker in verse 10. However, we have seen God is not the speaker of Psalm 102 being quoted at Hebrews 1:10-12. And God is not the speaker in verse 7 either. Again, the Psalmist is the speaker and he is speaking to God and about God. Bless the LORD, O my soul!
No, this is actually a very poor explanation of the grammar used at Jn. 1:1c. And Dr. Vickers even contradicts most Trinitarian scholars and their theology on the issue today. For instance, among other problems Vickers claims that the anarthrous θεος at 1:1c should be read as though θεος has the Greek article written before it, even though it is not actually there. And that the omission of the article before θεος is only used to indentify the predicate in the phrase from the subject. But this would mean the predicate θεος at Jn. 1:1c is grammatically definite, which virtually no Trinitarian scholar or grammarian today would agree with. As (again, according to their own theology) it would make the clause at Jn. 1:1c a fully "convertible proposition" and therefore either make Jesus the Father. And thus the heresy modalism or Sabellianism. Or it would make Jesus "all of God" or the entire God-head. And thus exclude the other Persons of the Trinity.
If Jesus is The Great "I'm", the Father who is in heaven, why Peter and John said while they were preaching: Acts 3:13 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant and Son Jesus 15 But you killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead. and Paul in Galatians 1:1 God The Father resurrected Jesus and why Jesus himself said John 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not observe my words. The word that you are hearing is NOT MINE, but belongs to the Father WHO SENT ME...John12: 49 For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment means* everlasting life. So whatever I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.
Who appointed Jesus as high priest? Hebrews 3: consider the apostle and high priest whom we acknowledge-Jesus. 2 He was faithful to the One who appointed him, Hebrews 5:5 the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: “You are my son; today I have become your father.” -- John 5:24 Jesus said: Most truly I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes the One who sent me has everlasting life, and he does not come into judgment but has passed over from death to life. -
There's a lot of problems with John 1:1. Grammar etc. It should be translated as the word was divine. The way mainstream Christianity understands the logos of John 1 is not how the 1st Century CE Christians understood it. So the teaching of the logos came about from a Greek Philosopher known as Heraclitus in 600 BCE who designated the logos as divine reason or plan. Later Philo mentioned how logos of G-d is the bond of everything including creation. So what is the logos? The logos is one's thoughts, idea, plan etc. So in John's prologue (John 1) the author is stating how G-d's logos (thoughts, ideas, plan) was made manifest in the life and testimony of Jesus. Now in John 1 the logos is not a person. Also the chapter is subjected to translator bias. As mentioned earlier John 1:1 should be rendered as the word was divine. Also one should note that in Greek there is only 1 case of letters. So translators biasly capitalize the W for Word to make it appear it's refering to a person. Also they translate the word as he or him. But there are no other places in Scripture where “word,” (logos) is translated as “he” or “him.” It is never a person. The translators always exchange the masculine pronoun for “it.” For example: Matthew 13:20 (NASB)”The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word [logos] and immediately receives it with joy.” Notice how the Tyndale and Geneva Bible doesn't captialize the W in word or call it a he or him John 1:1-5 (Tyndale Bible 1526) In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men 5and the lyght shyneth in the darcknes but the darcknes comprehended it not. John 1:1-5 (Geneva Bible 1560) In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was [e]with God, and that [f]Word was God. 2 This same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. 4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 And that light shineth in the wilderness, Another consideration to take is in English, we differentiate between G-d and other so called gods by capitalizing the “G” when it refers to The G-d of Israel YHVH. But since New Testament Greek manuscripts were written using all one case of letters, another way was needed to differentiate between G-d and gods. So in order to signal to the reader that theos is referring to G-d (YHVH), the New Testament writers add the definite article “the” which is “ho” in Greek. So ho theos or “the G-d” is used to refer to YHVH. This contrasts with the first mentioning of this noun expressed by ton theon, the accusative case of ho theos (“the G-d”), the noun theos preceded by the definite article ho It is evident from the Greek text, where, as we have just seen, the definite article ho appears before the first mention of G-d in the sentence, but is omitted before the second For this reason, some translators render John 1:1 as “the word was deity” or “was divine.” Conclusion: The logos is not a person in John 1 but simply was understood by 1st Century CE Christians that the logos was G-d's thoughts, ideas, plan made manifest in the life and testimony of Jesus
"In the beginning" What beginning? The Creation or the beginning of Christ's ministry? John is talking about the start of Christ's ministry, and the verse doesn't need any interpretation.
Even if you take your supposition, The Baptism of Jesus has The Father speaking from Heaven “This is My Son”! & The Holy Spirit coming down and filling and remaining with Jesus! Read Hebrews chapter 1 God never called an angel His Son!
If Jesus is The Great "I'm", the Father who is in heaven, why Peter and John said while they were preaching: Acts 3:13 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant and Son Jesus 15 But you killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead. and Paul in Galatians 1:1 God The Father resurrected Jesus and why Jesus himself said John 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not observe my words. The word that you are hearing is NOT MINE, but belongs to the Father WHO SENT ME...John12: 49 For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment means* everlasting life. So whatever I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.
Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB Bibles have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.) Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses (5-7) say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him. Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·osʹ] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·osʹ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·himʹ] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·osʹ] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”-The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26. So this is probably over your head……isn’t it? How did watchtower in acts 20:28 inserted the nonexistent word “Son”? Is the word of God with or without “Son” on this verse?
Good video thanks. Question: 1) In this case, is the only way to translate it is .." God" and not "a god." JW is wrong? 2) Why didn't John write greek version of "the God" in the 3rd sentence like in 2nd sentence? 3) How would John write if the 3rd sentence is "a god."
1. Yes, the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong. 2. He didn't use the definite article in the third phrase like he did in the second phrase because of the position of the other article with logos. 3. If John were to write "a god" in the third phrase, he would have had to remove the ὁ in front of λόγος so we can grammatically say that his intention was to communicate "a god" separate and distinct from by nature that is God. Considering the position of θεὸς and λόγος in the third phrase, it is impossible not to read it as The Word (Jesus) being as to its nature deity.
I think Vickers would answer the 2nd question that it had to be omitted to show which noun in the clause is the subject, but to be understood by it's original readers as if it did. This is nonsense of course as the previous two clauses show that the logos is the subject and no confusion would have arisen if both nouns had the article. Hence John omitted it because the logos is not ho theos, the god, God, but theos, god, who was "with" **another** theos, who is ho theos, the god, God(1.1b). Vickers is misleading the uninformed and showing his own lack of knowledge.
@@jeremiahh.3383 Every other scholar? No, most scholars who are not biased toward a man-made teaching of the Trinity would know the truth of what I stated respecting the subject of John. 1.1.
@@brucebarnard The majority of scholars, even non Christian scholars adhere to the neutrality expected of those teaching in academia and teach the same regarding this issue of language. This is an issue of language and not of one's beliefs. Your, nore their beliefs dictate the rule of languages no more than it dictates the rule of mathematics.
The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority The Sahidic Coptic text reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.” The Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God. Coptic John 1:1, Assumptions vs. Facts coptictruch.blogspot.com/ Not ONE of the scholars appealed to by the apologists said that Coptic John 1:1 should be translated to say "The Word was God." Not one. Not one said that "a god" was an incorrect translation of Coptic ou.noute. In fact, the interlinear reading for Sahidic Coptic John 1:1c in scholar Bentley Layton's Coptic in 20 Lessons (2007)specifically reads "a-god is the-Word." The Coptic text of John 1:1c was made prior to the adoption of the Trinity doctrine by Egyptian and other churches, and it is poor scholarship to attempt to perform eisegesis by "reading back" a translation such as "the Word was God" into any exegesis of the Coptic text. Such a rendering is foreign to Coptic John 1:1c, which clearly and literally says, "the Word was a god." Trinitarian NT Greek experts Dana and Mantey specifically give us an example of "a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1"! Yes, these prominent trinitarian scholars have translated "market was the place" in the literal ancient Greek as "and the place was a market." They even described this example as a parallel to John 1:1! - p. 148, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Macmillan Publ. The trinity was developed by philosophy and deceit. The word trinity first used in 150 AD did not say God was 3 persons in one God. The Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. did not include the holy spirit. The holy spirit was added in the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. This means the trinity doctrine took centuries to develop. Jesus and his apostles warned about the apostasy that would occur in later times. The ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes was common. PLATO, it is thought, lived from 428 to 347 before Christ. While he did not teach the Trinity in its present form, his philosophies paved the way for it. Later, philosophical movements that included triadic beliefs sprang up, and these were influenced by Plato’s ideas of God and nature. The French Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (New Universal Dictionary) says of Plato’s influence: “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.” The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge shows the influence of this Greek philosophy: “The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied.” The Church of the First Three Centuries says: “The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers.” By the end of the third century C.E., “Christianity” and the new Platonic philosophies became inseparably united. As Adolf Harnack states in Outlines of the History of Dogma, church doctrine became “firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians.” The church claimed that its new doctrines were based on the Bible. But Harnack says: “In reality it legitimized in its midst the Hellenic speculation, the superstitious views and customs of pagan mystery-worship.” In the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity: “We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.” Thus, in the fourth century C.E., the apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles came into full bloom. Greek Philosophy's Influence on the Trinity Doctrine www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/greek-philosophys-influence-on-the-trinity-doctrine Jesus never claimed to be the Almighty God and never taught a trinity. Jesus reply to the woman at the well was: “Believe me, woman, The hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you people worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation originates with the Jews. Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him. God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth.”-John 4:21-24. Jesus said we worship what we know and that person was the Father. Not himself and not the holy spirit. The trinity was not taught by Jesus. Trinitarians worship what they do not know. They don't try to understand it with human intellect. pagan mystery-worship. Again verse 24 says: “...the Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him...” This would include Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses but rules out trinitarians since trinitarians base their God on pagan mystery-worship. It goes on to say: “God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth.” So God is the Father (from the preceding sentence), not some trinity. This is what Jesus taught. Paul believed only the Father was God. 1 Corinthians 8:6 (ASV) yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him. In Paul's day God had not revealed himself to be a trinity. The Father was God and Jesus being Lord had authority over Paul, the authority given to Jesus by God. And no holy spirit mentioned. Now if God were a trinity Paul would have said so. Paul said God the Father created all things. He created all things THROUGH Jesus. Now this does not make Jesus the Almighty since God spoke THROUGH angels and men and it did not make them the Almighty. Notice too the holy spirit was not given any credit for creating all things. That is because the holy spirit is not a person. It is sometimes personified.
Trinitarians say that in John 1:1 God means just the First Person of the Trinity, namely, “God the Father,” and so the Word was with God the Father in the beginning. On the basis of this definition of God, how could it be said that the Word, who they say is “God the Son,” is “God the Father”? And where does their “God the Holy Ghost” enter into the picture? If God is a Trinity, was not the Word with “God the Holy Ghost” as well as with “God the Father” in the beginning? Suppose, now, they say that, in John 1:1, 2, God means the other two Persons of the Trinity, so that in the beginning the Word was with God the Father and God the Holy Ghost. In this case we come to this difficulty, namely, that, by being God, the Word was God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, the other two Persons of the Trinity. Thus the Word, or “God the Son,” the Second Person of the Trinity, is said to be also the First Person and the Third Person of the Trinity. It does not solve the difficulty to say that the Word was the same as God the Father and was equal to God the Father but still was not God the Father. If this were so, it must follow that the Word was the same as God the Holy Ghost and was equal to God the Holy Ghost but still was not God the Holy Ghost. Pagan mystery worship.
Joseph Tucker wrote; > Yep ... And the celebrated case of Dr. Mantey here is frequently cited by critics and opposers of JWs as a glaring example of the WT's alleged penchant for "quoting scholars out of context" .... When the reality is Mantey put his proverbial "foot in his mouth" and unintentionally gave support to the NWT's rendering of Jn. 1:1c. And then he actually displayed a glaring example of the paradoxical "Jekyll & Hyde" nature of "Trinitarian scholars." Where on one hand, Mantey is "Dr. Jekyll" and does honest work in his grammar by properly comparing the same grammatical syntax used at Jn. 1:1c "ΘΕΟΣ ΗΝ 'Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ" lit. "god was the Word." With a passage taken from the ancient secular Greek work "Xenophon's Anabasis" at 1:4:6 ... "EMPORION D' HN TO XWRION" ... Lit. "Market but was the place." Where Mantey translated from the Anabasis ... "The place was a market" And claimed "the place is not the only market." But then became "Mr Hyde where fails to follow through properly due to his religious bias for the Trinity by rendering Jn. 1:1c. "The Word was Deity" And stating that "neither is the Word all of God." Huh? ... "The place is not the only market" is parallel to "neither is the Word all of God?" Ah, no Dr. Mantey, that is NOT a true parallel comparison as you allege. But what you should have said had your obvious Trinitarianism not gotten in the way was .... "The place was a market" As the place was not the only market, as there are other markets of course And "the Word was a god" As there are other "gods" in scripture. Where all the angels as sons of God, are also called "gods." (Gen. 6:4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 8:5; 97:7; 138:1). Regrettably Mantey then continued being "Mr Hyde" by attempting all manner of spin-control to try an extricate himself and disavow the obvious proof he gave in his own grammar by lambasting the WTS after they cited from it in their '69 KIT. And also wrote in a famous, but totally ridiculous and error-laden letter to the Society further ridiculing them and demanding they remove the citation of his grammar. Though I do grant Mantey the somewhat of a pardon in this area, since he was under tremendous pressure by rabid WT antagonists and opponents in Christendom such as the infamous Walter Martin. Who repeatedly pushed and hounded him to attack the Society this way. ...
@@vedinthorn Notice how other translations render this part of the verse: 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. 1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson. 1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel. 1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible-An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed. 1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme. 1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. 1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek. 1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz. 1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider. At John 8:44. There Jesus says of the Devil: “That one was a manslayer” and “he is a liar.” Just as at John 1:1, the predicate nouns (“manslayer” and “liar”) precede the verbs (“was” and “is”) in the Greek. There is no indefinite article in front of either noun because there was no indefinite article in Koine Greek. But most translations insert the word “a” because Greek grammar and the context require it. The testimony of the entire Bible is that Jesus is not Almighty God.
James Moffatt Bible, Proverbs 8: 22-31 :"The Eternal formed me first of his creation, first of all his works in days of old; I was fashioned in the earliest ages, from the very first when earth began; I was born when there was no abysses, when there were no fountains full of water; ere he sunk the bases of the mountains, ere the hills existed I was born, when the earth and fields were not created, nor the very first clods of the world. When he set the heavens up I was there, when he drew the Vault o'er the abyss, when he made the clouds firm overhead, when he fixed the fountains of the deep, when he set the boundaries of the the sea, when he laid the foundation of the earth, I was with him then, his foster child, I was his delight day after day, playing in his presence constantly, playing here and there over his world, finding my delight in human-kind." Mr DrJeffVickers; who do you suppose this is talking about here? You need to stop kidding around. People are educated today.
god as a godlike makes sense for who wants to make a point that Jesuscristo is not the almighty God , but yet hence, as the brother who was explaining it needs to be thoughtful , in Theos, expression as God the article "the" will be great if it was there, but it doesn't show an article, but yet the Greek text still proves the Word was God because the clue is in the "Word" as capital letter the Logos as important to relationship with God and (Word ) was God( John wrote Theos to refer Jesus as a God if not John will say the Word was a Word . But he ended with as a God as the same as his Farher, not mentioning John using Genesis 1:1 in the beginning, that verse as it states elohim( plural)that God was never alone in the creation,
*[No Trinity]* 📍 *[QUESTION 🙋🏽♂️]* *John 1:1 [Indefinite Article [a] god]* *Please explain* why the *King James Version* Bible (and other off-shoot bibles) *'consistently'* add *the indefinite article *[a]* in several texts except at *John 1:1?* 🤔 *Some Examples:* a) *Acts 28:6* - People viewed Paul as *[a] god* (In *Ancient Koine Greek,* there is no “a” before “god,” right?... *Yet, when translated / transliterated into English, the "a" is inserted to correctly to complete the text.)* b) *John 4:24* - God is *[a] Spirit* ~~~~~~~ *[Hebrew Text (Old Testament)]* c) *Exodus 7:1* - *Almighty God appoints Moses* as *[a] god* to Pharaoh... *[NOTE]: There were "no" vowels in Ancient Hebrew, only consonents. They wrote the way we text msg & abbreviate today:* *Examples:* • *msg (message)* • *ystrdy (yesterday)* • *btw (between), etc* *[Plz Note] The King James Version* (1611) is just that *A Version* of other *English Bibles* B4 it... Namely, *Tyndale's Bible (1560) & Bishop's Bible (1568).* *It is NOT the First published English Bible*
the video ought to provide the way it would have been written if "theos" is used as a common noun "a god". Without doing so, he may have proven the validity of "theos" as a qualitative noun but this does not invalidated JW's reading as a common noun. Subject and Object nouns are not in dispute here. both camps are in agreement.
except there's no grammatical reason to change the meaning of theos in the middle of the sentence, so it must mean the same thing as in the first two instances.
So the last sentence essentially means that Jesus as the "word" and The God's first creation has a unified nature or is a direct representation of The God itself?
The expression kai theos een ho logos uses the predicative nominative without an article to say the equivalence is between the logos and a god. This goes with the logos being ho theos - He is both and there is no repetition. This formulation is unique in spiritual history & no previous grammar applies to theosis.
@@c19commander44 There are 2 RUclips videos Why Theosis is genius by Jim Overbeck & Theosis equals genius. The Greek of the Johannine Prologue should be seen with reference to Luke 24:45 > it doesn't matter how succinctly I explain the differences & distinctions between God & His gods, if He doesn't OPEN the mind of the percipient only the dead letter issues forth. No amount of explanation brings on the experience of becoming a god, only its spiritual reality.
@@JimOverbeckgenius - Since you believe that men are gods also and men can be worship.are you a god? can anyone worship you? you would be ok with that,right?
@@c19commander44 Deified men become gods in Christ Almighty by His Loving Grace, but He Alone is worthy of worship by us. I'm just a fucking dirty sinner enmeshed by the vile insanity of mortals & filthy imbeciles, of whom you no doubt are one.
Is this the same as Sharps Rule? Seems like it may be. In 1798 CE amateur scholar, Granville Sharp came up with this rule which has been rebunked, proved to be false.
@ACE WG No. This would be classified as Colwell's Rule. Words that are definite, as defined by the context, and precede the verb usually lack the article. In this case "God" is a definite noun preceding the verb so it will lack the article.
While it is true that in equative sentences the predicate noun might be omitted to identify the subject it is not a hard and fast rule. Context helps us identify the subject as well and in this instance λογος (Word) has been the subject twice in the preceding two clauses. Also, it is theologically problematic for trinitarians for θεος (god in the third clause, commonly called clause c (John 1:1c) to be definite event though anarthrous (that is it doesn't have a qualifying definite article) because that makes the sentence a convertible proposition. A convertible proposition is a sentence where the subject noun and the predicate noun can change places with no change in meaning. For example in the sentence Joe Biden is the president, the name Joe Biden is the subject and the president is the predicate noun (a predicate nouns predicates or makes a statement about the subject). So the predicate of the sentence is "is the president" which is a statement about the subject which is Joe Biden. As I mentioned this sentence is a convertible proposition, that is to say that the subject noun and predicate noun can swap places and the meaning is not changed. So if we make the phrase "the president" the subject and Joe Biden the predicate noun we have the sentence The president is Joe Biden. This is equal in meaning to Joe Biden is the president. So a definite reading of θεος (God) at John 1:1c is theologically problematic for trinitarians because this makes the Word the same being that he was with in clause b (The Word was with God) so that they share the same identity. Not only is this a paradox (how can the Word be with himself) but it suggests there is only one person (person as in personality and in the trinitarian sense and not a human person) in view which is against the trinitarian view that there are three persons in one God. The view that θεος (God) is definite in the third clause results in what is called Sabellianism or modalism. Which is that God is only one person but manifests himself in three different roles, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is anathema to orthodox trinitarianism. So to sum up, it's not necessary for the predicate noun to be without the definite article so as to identify the subject because the context points to the Word as being the subject and if the predicate noun was definite then the sentence is a convertible proposition and there is no change in meaning if the subject noun and predicate noun switch places. Also, if θεος in clause c is definite though it doesn't have the definite article it is a convertible proposition and supports modalism not trinitarianism. For this reason Dr Daniel B. Wallace argues for θεος as qualitative, that is functioning more like an adjective and should be read as divine. So his preferred reading is And the Word was Divine. This resolves the issue of the reading, And the Word was God as supporting modalism.
@@theonik6082 Smyth's translation in section 973 is informative on the omission of the article. Section 1129 speaks directly to the affect of the omission of the article. That is it is omitted when used of a class. But as you'll see it may also be omitted to distinguish the predicate noun from the subject noun. This isn't a hard and fast grammatical rule. So at John 1:1c we have the two above options to choose from. Either John is signaling that the Word belongs to the class called gods or he's worried that that the subject and predicate will be confused. But if the meaning is The Word was God then this is a convertible proposition and can be stated the other way around without loss of mean so that God was the Word is the same as The Word was God. This makes the identity of the Word the same as that of God which is Modalism not Trinitarianism. Smyth 973. A predicate substantive agrees with its subject in case: Μιλτιάδης ἦν στρατηγός Miltiades was a general. 1129. Words denoting persons, when they are used of a class, may omit the article. So ἄνθρωπος, στρατηγός, θεός divinity, god (ὁ θεός the particular god). Thus, πάντων μέτρον ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν man is the measure of all things P. Th. 178 b. 1150. A predicate noun has no article, and is thus distinguished from the subject: καλεῖται ἡ ἀκρόπολις ἔτι ὑπʼ Ἀθηναίων πόλις the acropolis is still called ‘city’ by the Athenians T. 2. 15. GRAMMAR FOR COLLEGES by HERBERT WEIR SMYTH Ph.D., University of Göttingen eliot professor of greek literature in harvard university
If your not going to confuse us “with deep technicalities of Greek” of what value is this video? It is after all the nuances and subtleties of the Greek language that is important, especially in this context.
thank you. this is exactly the information I was looking for.
Ted Mizerski Check our the Sahidic Coptic translation of JOHN 1:1.
Here is a good explanation found here:
ruclips.net/video/IdMV3PIEUco/видео.html&feature=player_embedded
Ted Mizerski Check our the Sahidic Coptic translation of JOHN 1:1.
Here is a good explanation found here:
ruclips.net/video/IdMV3PIEUco/видео.html&feature=player_embedded
If Jesus is The Great "I'm", the Father who is in heaven, why Peter and John said while they were preaching: Acts 3:13 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant and Son Jesus 15 But you killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead. and Paul in Galatians 1:1 God The Father resurrected Jesus and why Jesus himself said John 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not observe my words. The word that you are hearing is NOT MINE, but belongs to the Father WHO SENT ME...John12: 49 For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment means* everlasting life. So whatever I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.
Who appointed Jesus as high priest? Hebrews 3: consider the apostle and high priest whom we acknowledge-Jesus. 2 He was faithful to the One who appointed him, Hebrews 5:5
the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: “You are my son; today I have become your father.”
-- John 5:24 Jesus said: Most truly I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes the One who sent me has everlasting life, and he does not come into judgment but has passed over from death to life.
ruclips.net/video/HMiJyNGNVPw/видео.html
I have to say that this verse in the bible is by far my most favourite and most meaningful, every time I read it, it touches me deep inside. My name is John and I am Greek.
Firstly I agree mostly with this interpretation, however the Greek words can open the door to the true understanding of creation, let me explain what these words tell me.
Logos is the spoken word or words like in a speech or spoken statement which can give us Understanding, Reason, Purpose and Law. (Lexi is the direct translation to the Word in the English language)
Pros direct translation means towards, so the statement the word was with God should read The Word is towards God, in other words the Logos can give an understanding towards God.
This my understanding 🙏 with due respect to all.
This clearly shows that the logos is jesus. And Jesus is towards God. And jesus can explain about God as he only could have seen him. Ur understanding clearly proves that Jehovah (Yahweh) is the true God.
Only for this I am now a subscriber. Thanks.
Am so blessed Dr Jeff by this presentation. God bless you and God bless your ministry.
Excellent point Cliff. There are several examples that I could have used. I will ensure that I use more cross references when I update the video. Thank you for you suggestion. Blessings.
Who appointed Jesus as high priest? Hebrews 3: consider the apostle and high priest whom we acknowledge-Jesus. 2 He was faithful to the One who appointed him, Hebrews 5:5
the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: “You are my son; today I have become your father.”
-- John 5:24 Jesus said: Most truly I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes the One who sent me has everlasting life, and he does not come into judgment but has passed over from death to life.
If Jesus is The Great "I'm", the Father who is in heaven, why Peter and John said while they were preaching: Acts 3:13 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant and Son Jesus 15 But you killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead. and Paul in Galatians 1:1 God The Father resurrected Jesus and why Jesus himself said John 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not observe my words. The word that you are hearing is NOT MINE, but belongs to the Father WHO SENT ME...John12: 49 For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment means* everlasting life. So whatever I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.
Dr Jeff- The witnesses say that in the OT kings are called gods also.when Christians tell jw that JESUS was WORSHIP-the jw say-king Solomon,king David were also worship.
DR Jeff- from some of the comments in here .they keep bringing the "coptic" and sahidic texts. can you shed light on this. thanks
ruclips.net/video/HMiJyNGNVPw/видео.html
David is was called the first born and we all know that he was the last of the sons of Jesy.
Excellent video. Thank you
I love your approach
Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
that should say it all
Verse 30 of John 5 says:
I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative. Just as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me.
I seek (not my own will)
(But the will of HIM who Sent Me).
If they were both God, why wouldn't their will be the same? Why the distinction?
If they are the same personage.....?
@@billh4946this is a clear fact and people couldn't even understand
the son during his incarnation was obediant to the father........he still possessed the same nature as His father and even claims in revelation 1:8 to be God Almighty.....the alpha and omega.....
revelation21:6_7 Jesus is the only source of spring of life called here the alpha and omega again ...in every 3 instances in new testament ,the alpha and omega ,the beginning (arkhe in greek means architect of creation ) and the end is Christ revelation 1:17_18 im the first and the last ,i was dead ,im alive.....the expression "the first and the last " is a divine title fof God only. psalms102:27.........im afraid you have no case.
@@user-wg1ks6mk6x Incorrect ... first the Son has always been obediant to his Father. And the Incarnation is totally fabricated lie. Alpha and Omega Is Jehovah God Almighty. That title belongs to God Almighty the Father alone. Jesus never viewed himself as an Almighty God, and not one person address him as an Almighty God! Jesus viewed himself as "a god" who represented his Father. The scripture is quite clear ... I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, *the Almighty.* - KJV
*The account shows in John 10:33-36 how Jesus viewed himself!*
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and *because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.* - KJV
*How did Jesus respond to the Jews accusation?* How Jesus address them shows that Jesus view himself as "a god" not God Almighty! In John 10:34 Jesus says, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he (He=God) called them (them =men) gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; *because I said, I am the Son of God?*" - KJV
*What is Jesus referring to when he says, "Is it not written...?"* Jesus is referring to Ps 82, even God say’s he standing in the middle of gods in verse 1. These men who sat in power having authority by God to judge others are called gods by non-other than God himself. So, Jesus shows he views himself in the same manner as ‘a god” who represents God Almighty his Father.
*Some Reasoning and conclusion:*
If what the Jews said was true, Jesus shows us that he did not agree with them, and he also accused them of Blasphemy. So, if Jesus is indeed God, then in referring to Ps 82 he lied and Jesus not only lied but made a false accusation against the Jews accusing them of blasphemy. Does that make sense? Do you really want to agree with the Jews who blasphemed? I surely would not! That makes God word invalid and Jesus’ ransom sacrifice worthless! I believe Jesus, it does not make much sense to believe the Jews since Jesus accuses them of Blasphemy!*
My friend, I am a Jehovah’s Witness for 30+ years very knowledgeable in the Greek in Hebrew and I must say you did a very excellent job in representing John1:1 In terms of the Greek in the grammatical breakdown, I don’t agree with everything you said, but the great majority was very well done. I also appreciate the fact that you pointed out that a god is possible, but just simply that you did not agree with it… But respectfully I wanna point out what you did not do which is extremely crucial in understanding this verse …and that is that when you have a noun, lacking definiteness the context plays crucial part in whether it should be God or a God, and what is the context… John1:1b it says the word was with God(ton-Theon ) Which is the GOD of the Old Testament if he’s with that God’ he’s automatically contextually a god .. why because it’s telling us that the word, as God is with THE God, which makes him a god because it lacks the definite article in the C clause .. then you proceeded to say in the video that this points out three powerful understandings about Jesus and you said that it shows that Jesus as the word was with God. In the beginning I want to point out that so was the angels Job.38.7 .. then you did what I call a no no… and you said the word was with God as it distinct person of the godhead.. the distinctions here is not being made by personal terms like father and son, but yet you slid that in the distinction here it is being made by(Theon and Theos) the word God … and because of that distinction you have a God spoken of is being with another God, in the beginning, which again makes him a God… which makes him fully deity, not the God, which whom he was with.. i’ve tried to keep this very simple… but the point is if Jesus is God in the trinitarian sense at John1:1c … then he would be God at John1:1b … and do you know what that would read it would read God is with the God, which shows that we have two gods here.. which is ultimately why we as Jehovah’s Witnesses translate 1:1c as a god
well ,i dont think you are knowledgeable in bible theology at all..............First of all the one here having two gods is you ,jws....are henothists...believing in one powerful god and a smaller one........unbiblical.
the bible is clear psalms 115:4....deute32:39....isaiah44,45,46,47,48 THERE ARE NO GODS ,NONE WERE FORMED BESIDES GOD,THOSE CALLED GODS ARENT.............the notion that jesus would be "a god" is unbiblical ,can t be found anywhere else than in that verse in counterfeit translations like the NWT and the one of the spirit medium johannes greber.
Both counterfeit translations can t support anywhere else in their mistranslation their false rendering of jesus being a god........
The father would never ask in john for humans to honor "a god" like we honor Him.
Furthermore, the apostles claimed they made known the Name of God to the nations........They only claimed the Name of JESUS ,and were JESUS S withnesses.....
To finish nor the apostles ,nor jesus knew ,nor ever used the name jehova ,wich is an another unbiblical dogma of the watchtower....we know that unbiblical doctrines are not from god ,but satanic teachings.
@@user-wg1ks6mk6x then you might want to explain how in Hebrews 1:8,9… where It calls Jesus God and then turns right around in the next verse and says he has a God… your God has a God… secondly who did Jesus say was the only true God that’s who I say is the only true God, who did Jesus pray to that’s who I pray to who did Jesus worship that’s who I worship… it’s quite interesting that Trinitarian end up with a different God than Jesus… does it say about Jesus it says he’s the life, the truth and the way.. the Bible tells us to follow his footsteps closely… if you believe what Jesus believe you end up with the father and father alone… Jesus is on my side… food for thought… OK
@@markjackson5035 that s why trinitarians have it right.........the verses you quoted agree with trinitarians ,like all verses in the bible........on the other hand ,im afraid you gonna find impossible to explain the verses i gonna quote ,becaus unitarians such as jws disagree with so many verses ,they have to twist verses to make it fit their doctrines.
john 17:3 is clear ,the only true God AND THE ONE WHOM YOU HAVE SENT is everlasting life....means that everlasting life CAN T BE WITHOUT Jesus......the problem is he has to be God himself if everlasting life is intrinsically attached to HIM as well a sthe father.
You ve said it yourself,hebrew calls jesus not "a god" but GOD.........while on earth jesus was submitted to the father ,nonetheless possessed the very same nature as his Father..........well the bible calls jesus relentlessly...isaih 9:6,titus2:13,revelation1:8;reve4:11;revela15:5,revelat16:6.....well actually jesus claims to be God Almighty in revelation 1:8.........
@@user-wg1ks6mk6x nope the Bible says nothing about because Jesus was on earth is why he has a God… number two the supreme being could never have a God for no reasons and under no condition according to the Bible….. and again it calls him God and we is Joe witnesses believe Jesus is a God why because verse nine says he has a God, which automatically makes him a God… trinitarian are just unwilling to accept what they’re reading .. it’s unfortunate… Jesus is not calling himself. God in revelations.1:8… you better read revelations 1:6…. Once again, Jesus has a God that literally means Jesus was created… just like we read in revelations3:14
@@markjackson5035 you should stick to your own rules.....since jesus is called MIGHTY GOD in isaiah,in titus,in john ,you should respect what the bible tells you first of all.
deuteronomy 32:39....isaiah 44,45,46,47,48,psalms 115:4 are clear ...THERE ARE NO GODS BESIDES GOD.
THOSE CALLED GODS ARENT...that there is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD........ isaiah is rather clear ,,,,"there was NO god formed besides me"....either you read and accept what the bible says or not.
You must tell us now following your interpretation if jesus is a true or false god then ,since the bible tells you there is only one true God?????
Now since we must obey ,love ,have faith ,pray to in our hearts Jesus wich are all acts of worship we must do towards the father..the father himself says to honor the son as we honor the father wich is worship ,we cannot exercise faith ,love and pray in our hearts towards " a god" ,or any created being ,but we must do it to Jesus...you see how your unbiblical doctrines are falling like rotten apples
Either JESUS IS THEN A FALSE OR TRUE GOD??????????
hebrew 1 does not call Jesus " a god ",but GOd ,your God oh GOD........trinitarian view of God...unitarians jws henotheistic non christian can t understand nor accept......isaiah calls jesus MIGHTY GOD ,NOT " a god".....
There aren t verses in the bible calling jesus a created being,not one.
jesus is creator ,can t be created.
revelation 1: 6_8 calls jesus "the alpha and the omega",the "one who was ,who is ,who is coming" the Lord God Almighty.....
the messianic expression "the one who was ,who is ,who is coming" ONLY APPLY TO JESUS as the only ONE COMING is Jesus ....revelation22:20,revela16:15,etc....Unless you can provide verses stating jehova is coming you have no case,debate close.
Then the alpha and omega wich is the "First and the Last , is a divine title that applies to Jesus in new testament,revelation 1:17.......revela2212_13 he is coming to judge the alpha and omega ,christ is only judge.....
revelation 21:6 the source of spring of life refers ONLY to JESUS ,he is the alpha and omega........
By the way "a god" can t be created,the father doesn t create little gods besides him...we cannot have faith ,love in our hearts and pray created beings.....
OK, I'm not a JW, I belong to no Christian denominations, only Jesus teaches me and guides my research. Anyway, in Greek there is no indefinite article, but there is in the Sahidic Coptic language and it's Bible, which was translated from Greek manuscripts much older than the Greek manuscripts we have today. The Sahidic Coptic language was spoken while Koine was a living language, so the Coptic translators would have a much better understanding of how Koine Greek was understood than the trinitarian scholars we have today. The Coptic translation also predates the trinity doctrine. The point is, John 1.1 have the definite article and the indefinite article:
ϩⲛ̅ ⲧⲉϩⲟⲩⲉⲓⲧⲉ ⲛⲉϥϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲛ̅ϭⲓ ⲡϣⲁϫⲉ. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡϣⲁϫⲉ ⲛⲉϥϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲛ̅ⲛⲁϩⲣⲙ̅ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ ⲡϣⲁϫⲉ.
Translates to:
In the beginning the word was, and the word was in the presence of the god, and the word was a god.
The Coptic translators clearly understood that The word was a god but not the almighty God. The Sahidic Translation is a wonderful witness to how this verse was understood and provides excellent evidence for the JW claim.
When we say Jesus is God JW people automatically accuse us of believing that Jesus is God Almighty... whereas it is clear that Jesus himself said that God the Father is greater than him... This statement is evidence that Jesus is God but not the Almighty God but Son of God... this is the power hierarchy in the realm of Kingdom of God and in a kingdom such hierarchy is common . JW claims that Jesus in fact is the Archangel Michael and this is not correct.. Archangel Michael never called as the Only Begotten ( monogenes) of God and nowhere in the Bible Archangel Michael is called as Immanuel which means God with us (Matthew 1:23). and never was Archangel Michael in a place mentioned as the in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18)..all these verses refer to Jesus not to Archangel Michael..
I witnessed to some Jehovah Witnesses today and am displeased with my efforts. I will listen to this video and pray that God remove my false sense of guilt of poor defense of our faith
Don't feel bad. Just realize , The Trinity doctrine has been around 2000 years.. it has had a long time to cover its bloody history... appreciate your integrity but . In time and study you will see the false essence of trinity.. be humble and continue your search. 😊
Rev 10:1 And I saw another MIGHTY ANGEL come down from heaven, CLOTHED WITH A CLOUD: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire:
Rev 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, HAVING GREAT POWER; and the earth was lightened with HIS GLORY.
Rev. 10:1 QUESTION: Who is the MIGHTY ANGEL coming down from heaven CLOTHED WITH A CLOUD ?
Rev. 18:1 QUESTION; Who is the angel coming down from heaven HAVING GREAT POWER AND GLORY ?
ANSWER: Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven WITH POWER AND GREAT GLORY.
IF THE SPIRIT OF SATAN IS ON YOU, SIMPLE TRUTH CAN NOT BE GRASPED AND UNDERSTOOD.
I love this would be playing this video until. I've mastered it, thanks for this video
Andre Holder Who is the God of Jesus?
Videos cannot do the impossible. If Jesus was not God, how can that be changed by fiddling around with Greek grammar?
'No man has SEEN God at ANY TIME. ' wrote the very same John at 1John 4:12,20.
Obviously Jesus was never God.
Rev 10:1 And I saw another MIGHTY ANGEL come down from heaven, CLOTHED WITH A CLOUD: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire:
Rev 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, HAVING GREAT POWER; and the earth was lightened with HIS GLORY.
Rev. 10:1 QUESTION: Who is the MIGHTY ANGEL coming down from heaven CLOTHED WITH A CLOUD ?
Rev. 18:1 QUESTION; Who is the angel coming down from heaven HAVING GREAT POWER AND GLORY ?
ANSWER: Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven WITH POWER AND GREAT GLORY.
IF THE SPIRIT OF SATAN IS ON YOU, SIMPLE TRUTH CAN NOT BE GRASPED AND UNDERSTOOD.
John clearly refers here to Jesus. Furthermore, in his epistle he confirms it:
“The one who existed from the beginning is the one we have heard and seen. We saw him with our own eyes and touched him with our own hands. He is Jesus Christ, the Word of life” (1 John 1:1).
1 John 1v1: if you keep reading you will see that it is eternal life that was manifested unto them...it reads 'that which existed from the beginning' not 'the one who existed'; it even goes on to say … "and shew unto you that ETERNAL LIFE, which was with the father, and was manifested unto us".
God raised Jesus from the dead; eternal life was made manifest unto them.
@@josephglover4546 If God raised Jesus And Jesus said in John 2:19 that HE will raise his temple up (Meaning his body) either Jesus lied, Or Jesus is God
@@leoCase you misunderstand the scriptures...the numerous verses that flat out tell you that Jesus is not God.
"For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;" -John 5v26
Does God need to be given life? The son was given life.
“No man taketh it from me (the life God gave him), but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.” -John 10v18
This 'commandment' that he is talking about is a 'divine birthright'; as one born of the king.
He was given power, authority, and dominion over all things which are under God.
Did Jesus claim to be God or the Son of God?
“Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” -John 10:36
Who did the evil spirit say he was?
"...I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God." -Mark 1:24
.OF GOD.
Who did the angel say he was?
"...that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” -Luke 1:35
Son...of God...OF...GOD.
Who did God say he was?
"And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." -Matthew 3:17
and again...
“For unto which of the angels said he (God) at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” -Hebrews 1v5
I 'will be to him' a Father and he 'shall be to me' a Son; sounds like an adoption to me.
If God calls him his son then why do you call him God?
Jesus is not the God of Abraham or part of a triune makeup that is God:
“[The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers], hath glorified [his Son Jesus]; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.”
HE IS NOT THE GOD OF ABRAHAM! He is the Son of God:
1 Corinthians 15
27
For he hath put all things under his (Jesus') feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he (God) is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28
And when all things shall be subdued unto him (unto God), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (God) that put all things under him, that God (not Jesus) may be all in all.
THEN SHALL THE SON ALSO HIMSELF BE SUBJECT UNTO HIM
THAT PUT ALL THINGS UNDER HIM
-->THAT GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL
@@josephglover4546 Also, you preach of one God, So do I... Rightfully so. you even call Jesus "A god" in John 1:1 meaning one amongst many... how can that be?
@@leoCase It is not wrong to call the express image of the invisible God 'God'.
As the image of God, the word of God, the authority of God, the power (right hand) of God, he 'IS' God...but he himself is not God:
whether I speak my words or you speak my words my words are me and they carry the same authority.
"...therefore God (the true God), even thy God (even the same one), hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” -Hebrews 1:9
5
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:" -Philippians 2
"Who being in the form of God (the Son of God), thought it not robbery to be equal --- WITH -- God.
"Wherefore --- God --- also hath highly exalted him (his Son), and given him a name which is above every name (his surname).
Very informative 👏 👌 👍 😀 🙌 😊 👏
The Greek theon in “the word was toward the god,” is in the accusative case ending and has the definite article (Gr. ho; English the) preceding it. It is correctly translated, “the Word was with God” in English.
However, the 3rd clause in the verse contains theos in the nominative, singular form without an article: “and god was the word.” As controversial as it may sound to trinitarians, it is correctly translated as “and a god was the Word.” A minimal literal (“formal equivalence”) translation would rearrange the word order to match the proper English expression: “And the Word was a god.”
This is consistent with other occurrences in the Greek. For example, the following are instances where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article (“a”) to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns. Examples are taken from the King James Version, New International Version, Revised Standard Version, and Today’s English Version:
Mark 6:49: “a spirit” or “a ghost”
Mark 11:32: “a prophet” or “a real prophet”
John 4:19: “a prophet”
John 6:70: “a devil” or “an informer”
John 8:44: “a murderer”
John 8:44: “a liar”
John 8:48: “a Samaritan”
John 9:17: “a prophet”
John 9:24: “a sinner”
John 10:1: “a thief”
John 10:13: “an hireling” or “a hired man”
John 10:33: “a man” or “a mere man”
John 12:6: “a thief”
John 18:35: “a Jew”
John 18:37: “a king”
If you study these occurrences in many translations, you will note that most translators consistently apply these translation rules, except when it comes to John 1:1c. Why the exception here? Bias.
Bias has shaped most of these translations much more than has accurate attention to the wording of the Bible. The NW translation (New World Translation) of John 1:1 is superior to that of the other eight translations we are comparing. . . .it breaks with the KJV tradition followed by all the others, and it does so in the right direction by paying attention to how Greek grammar and syntax actually work. No translation of John 1:1 that I can imagine is going to be perfectly clear and obvious in its meaning. John is subtle, and we do him no service by reducing his subtlety to crude simplicities. All that we can ask is that a translation be an accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation. Only the NW achieves that, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader. The other translations cut off the exploration of the verse’s meaning before it has even begun. - Truth in Translation - Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, Jason David BeDuhn, page 218 (ebook)
Is There Scholarly Work that Shows How These Nouns Should Be Translated From the Greek?
Philip B. Harner: In his article, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1” (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973):
“anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb may function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject, and this qualitative significance may be more important than the question whether the predicate noun itself should be regarded as definite or indefinite.” (page 75)
“with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite.” (page 85)
“In John 1:1, I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite. . . .Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’ This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.” (page 87)
What About the Other Occurrences of ‘Theos?’
Some insist that the New World Translation is inconsistent here because theos without the article in John 1 is not translated the same way in other locations. For example, some will claim that if the NWT was truly consistent and applied the grammatical rule of inserting the indefinite article “a” where the definite article (English “the”) was not present in Greek, we would have the following:
There came a man who was sent as a representative of [a] God (theou); his name was John. - John 1:6
However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become [a] God’s (theou) children. - John 1:12
And they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from [a] God (theou). - John 1:13
And others.
What they fail to note is that not only are the Greek constructs different in these other verses, but these other uses are genitive (theou), not nominative (theos). The genitive form of the noun, in this case theou, does not require the article (Gr. “ho;” English “the”) to be definite, whereas the nominative form normally does.
In Koiné Greek, the nominative case ending usually indicates the subject of a sentence. It is normally preceded by the definite article. However, in John 1:1c, this nominative form (theos) is not preceded by the article. That being the case, the noun becomes “primarily qualitative in meaning,” as explained by Bible scholar, Philip B. Harner, in his article posted above.
Excellent comment Randall! Thanks for that.
1)Who are the translators names of the NWT and their qualifications. ???????
2)Also what are the Hebrew and Greek Qualifications of Jason David BeDuhn ?????
Is he qualified in these languages or are you quoting someone with no qualifications in these 2 Languages. ?
3) why don't you (Witness of an erroneous name (Jehovah) ever quote your own scholars. I'll put in in simple terms for you. Why do you quote Christendom Scholars.
Why do you refuse to quote your own.
WHY ????????
WHERE ARE YOUR SCHOLARS ?????
4) Is "“Frederick Franz, a scholar of Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, and Latin FAITH MARCH, p. 182”
AND
“Frederick W. Franz . . . an eminent Bible scholar”
WT 8/1/1977, p. 463”
Are the above statements true ???????
I've noticed you have remained very very silent regarding my questions.
You talk as if you are well versed in Greek.
It's always the case that people like you who are Witnesses just pretend to know.
Basically a fake and fraud.
I'll ask the questions again
1)Who are the translators names of the NWT and their qualifications. ???????
2)Also what are the Hebrew and Greek Qualifications of Jason David BeDuhn ?????
Is he qualified in these languages or are you quoting someone with no qualifications in these 2 Languages. ?
3) why don't you (Witness of an erroneous name (Jehovah) ever quote your own scholars. I'll put in in simple terms for you. Why do you quote Christendom Scholars.
Why do you refuse to quote your own.
WHY ????????
WHERE ARE YOUR SCHOLARS ?????
4) Is "“Frederick Franz, a scholar of Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, and Latin FAITH MARCH, p. 182”
AND
“Frederick W. Franz . . . an eminent Bible scholar”
WT 8/1/1977, p. 463”
Are the above statements true ???????
Come on MR Jehovah Witness, prove me wrong.
Vickers is not up to date with his Greek studies! He claims that theos of 1.1c is definite. But scholars have acknowledged this would contradict the previous clause where the logos is "with (the)God".
He is up to date !
The previous clause construction is a little bit different. The last phrase construction is called a predicate nominative. It occurs when you have two nominatives in a clause linked by a 'to be' like verb such as ειμι used in this verse (ην is the aorist tense form), γινομαι used in the verse 14 with the same construction (εγενετο is the aorist tense form).
The question is how to distinguish both nominatives ? Which one is the subject and which on is the predicate ?
Usually, you put the definite article in front of the subject and drop it before the predicate.
Another point is that, in the preceding clause, προς which is a preposition is used.
Prepositions do not occur with a nominative case (θεος), hence we don't have a predicate nominative, no need to distinguish subject from object because they do not have the same case ; we can use the article before both.
If you are still not convinced, in the same verse, Εν αρχη which is translated "In the beginning", does not have the definite article either but is still rendered as definite.
That's just how Greek works!
@@perseverancembuku9223
The subject of both the first and second clauses is
ὁ λόγος and hence we know which noun in the third clause is the subject, same, ὁ λόγος. Hence, John did not use the article before θεὸς to show which noun is the subject of the third clause. He did not use it for a different reason.
I've not revisited this video since I made the comment I did. I will have to listen to it again. But it is probably because Vickers is arguing for a definite understanding for the anarthrous θεὸς of 1.1c. Most scholars today reject this and since Harner's article in the JBL 1973 'Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1.' JBL 92 (1973): 75-87.
But I will listen to it as soon as I can to see if this is what I meant to convey with my comment.
@@perseverancembuku9223Yes, after listening to Vickers again he claims John dropped the article for θεὸς in 1.1c but that *it was meant to be understood as if it had it* , that is, John meant it to be understood to be there, as definite, *one of identification* , and hence 'the god', in English as 'God.' So yes, Vickers is not up to date with the scholarly consensus today that the anarthrous predicate nominative θεὸς is not definite but qualitative. Of course, this does not mean the scholarly community disagree with the "and the Word was God" rendering but several translations do not so translate, such as The New English Bible 1960/Revised English Bible 1989, because they recognise John did not say that. Others agree, such as William Barclay and John Robinson, two I recall from memory.
@@perseverancembuku9223 ....what is your considered opinion on my replies?
In Coptic, "ounoute" can mean "a god" or "one with divine nature"; "So literally, the Sahidic and Bohairic texts say "a god" in the extant mss. ... A rather clumsy reading might be: The Logos was in the beginning. The Logos was with God. The Logos was like God (or godlike, or divine) with the emphasis on his nature; not his person."
doomietrash Very true.
Here is a similar explanation found here:
ruclips.net/video/IdMV3PIEUco/видео.html&feature=player_embedded
Same meaning
If the word was divine. This should mean it was that actual "God" then "a God." Due to Jehovah witness; Jesus is Michael the arcángel. Him not being the actual God. Then this would mean... Jesus is like those other angels or arcángels. So, this means John 1:1 should end like this.... *"And the word was of god's," the word is of gods," "the word was for gods," Or "the word was for the gods."* So, this would litterly go against their own theology.
John 1:1 must end *"And the word was God"* or *"God was the word."*
@@rafaelguerra5875 According to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, the•oʹtes (the nominative form, from which the•oʹte•tos is derived) means “divinity, divine nature.” (Oxford, 1968, p. 792) Being truly “divinity,” or of “divine nature,” does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, anymore than the fact that all humans share “humanity” or “human nature” makes them coequal or all the same age.
@@rafaelguerra5875 or, " In the beginning was the angel Michael, and the angel Michael was with God, and the angel Michael was a god. All authority was given to Michael, His name Michael is a name above all names🤔🤔🤔😜
This was very helpful. I now understand why Jehovah's Witnesses say many earlier translators also used a/uh God in the sentence but what I get now is that the last word for God has the OS at the end making the word also the subject noun being spoken of. That's what I get so far and I will keep listening to this video over and over for more understanding thank you.
DrJeffVickers seems to only know very basic N.T. Greek and not advanced. The "logos" without the article in this equative construction, signifies equality, not identity. Certainly, most would agree Jesus is not the Father.
@@NTGreekGeek The Greek word "logos" mentioned 3 times in John 1:1 was always preceded by an article. I don't know NT Greek but if you want to point out Dr. Vickers' error or errors here please make sure you're right and more advanced than him.
@@suisse38 Vickers mistake is that he misses what is very obvious in that the first two clauses of the sentence the λόγος is the subject so there would be no confusion over which noun in the 3rd is the subject if both had the article. So John did not use it to make clear which noun is the subject and which the predicate of the clause. The reason John did not use it is because he was not identifying 'who' the λόγος was("God" in English is a definite noun, a 'who' noun)but saying *what* the λόγος was. The λόγος was either a member of the category of the class θεὸς(hence a categorical use) or had the quality of that class(hence a qualitative use). But they mean the same thing and do not mean that the λόγος was o θεὸς, "the god", "God."
John 1:2
New International Version
2 He was with God in the beginning.
You are not arguing jehovha witness bit ask your conscious
See what John who wrote verse 1 states at verse 34
Thanks for this opportunity, once again to address the meaning of this scripture. I'm looking (as an example) at "Got Questions" online. The subject - What does it mean that the word was in the beginning? Here is a quote from the article: "The account of creation in Genesis begins with the phrase 'In the beginning...' That is an incontrovertible statement in the Bible. "In the beginning" always refers to creation. Since the "Word" is mentioned with reference to 'the beginning', the "Word", Jesus, was the first created thing. And, thus, John 1:3 rightly applies to him since he assisted in the creation of all the other things.
the bible NEVER TELLS YOU JESUS "aSSISTED" creation...Never...the bible tells you He is the beginning wich is arkhe ,means architect of creation............
Since genesis is the book of all creation account ,jesus is never mentionned as being created........the word "bara" is used again and again for each created account ,never for jesus.
Thereso Jesus can t be creator and created...
Since jws call Jesus the unbiblical " a god" ,cant by essence be created.........nowhere that notion can be found in the bible....
The father don t create small gods by his side,unbiblical.
A god is by essence uncreated.
Since jws call Jesus the archangel mickeal ,an angel can t be "a god",nor be creator...
The succession of flip flop unbiblical jws doctrines is laughable....
no one has seen God at any time, but the son who reveals him.
This is deep. Could this be that, where ever the Bible records those who have seen God, it was the son who has revealed Him. I do understand, that the Son was the only one who has come down from heaven to reveal the Father. What type of person in capacity and being who it take to express the invisible Father perfectly.
If the son was God Himself, then people _would_ have seen God (since they saw the son, who is God). So, the fact that "no one has seen God at any time" is proof that the son is not God.
@@Bowen12676 the second clause is an exception clause to the first.
@@lampkin9287 that is correct.
@@vedinthorn
I'm not sure what means (since the statement is not "no one has ever seen a God except the son"), but this would not explain 1 John 4:12 (where there is no exception). Try again.
John 1:14 - The New International Version (NIV)
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 1:14 - King James Version (KJV 1900)
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 1:14 - New Living Translation (NLT)
14 So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son.
John 1:14 - The New King James Version (NKJV)
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 1:14 - New Century Version (NCV)
14 The Word became a human and lived among us. We saw his glory-the glory that belongs to the only Son of the Father-and he was full of grace and truth.
John 1:14 - American Standard Version (ASV 1901)
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.
In Greek it does not say the Word was God it really does say god
john 6:57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
Thank you brother… this is great
Sort of cracks me up. Why is this always directed toward JWs? *It was not an invention by JWs it came from Christendom own scholars!* They looked at the information presented concerning translation and the context of the Holy Scriptures. Gee the NWT is not the only Bible …
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.
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 “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
In the beginning was the Word, (Jesus) and the Word (Jesus) was with(in) God, and the Word (Jesus) was (the pre-existing) God. (John 1:1)
You need to look at Luke and Mark....both say in the beginning which might actually mean "In the beginning of the teaching of Jesus through the Word of God". Remember when Jesus was Baptized, the spirit of god entered into Jesus! The beginning of the gospel of the new covenant promised in the old testament by God. Jesus fulfilled all that was written, he was and is the Missiah!! Jesus prayed to God, Jesus said: love God with all your heart...ONE GOD! and love thy nieghbor as you love yourself. Jesus is the Son of God!! 3:16 Amen!
And where do you get the "with(in)" from in Jn. 1:1b?
As the Greek prep. "προς" there means "toward" or "with."
Not "within." ...
@@H.T.2forever probably a modalist
It could be that apostle John was being refered to Genesis ch one .and be inspired bywhen God was speaking to some one.
WOAW BROTHER! you really took some liberty with that scripture!
The trinirarians overlooked the (the) on front of first theos ( ton theos) and NOW you want to put (IN) in order to create a new word (within) ! WOW! you've been smoking house plants again! The word ... with.. derived from ... toward ..as in two persons facing each other. Jesus was toward the God . In no way can ,,,with.. be altered to within! No no. !! And the ,,pre-existing... God. Another wamny.. ! A total fabrication! However , I'm sure your fellow trinutarians will be proud of you. Next year this could be the next trinitarian revelation . Trinity had had 2000 years of bloody history and razzle dazzle word games. If you play it right you could have a new translation rule named after you. The donbach -sharp rule. 😊😊
Thank you🎉
You can ask AI in this matter but is not your side:
Chatgpt said:
John 1:1 in the New Testament is a key verse often discussed in terms of its grammatical structure, particularly the use of articles in Greek. The verse reads:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
In Greek, it is written as:
"Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος."
Let's break down the relevant parts where the article is involved:
"Ἐν ἀρχῇ" (En archē) - "In the beginning":
The phrase does not have an article before "ἀρχῇ" (beginning), which is common in Greek when referring to abstract concepts or to emphasize the generality of the term.
"ὁ Λόγος" (ho Logos) - "the Word":
"ὁ" is the definite article, meaning "the". This specifies "the Word" rather than "a word".
"πρὸς τὸν Θεόν" (pros ton Theon) - "with God":
"τὸν" is the definite article, specifying "the God".
"καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος" (kai Theos ēn ho Logos) - "and the Word was God":
Here, "Θεὸς" (Theos) does not have an article before it. The lack of an article before "Θεὸς" has been a significant point of discussion. Without the article, "Θεὸς" is qualitative, meaning it describes the nature or essence of "the Word" rather than identifying "the Word" as a specific entity called "God". Thus, the phrase can be understood as "the Word was divine" or "the Word was of the same nature as God."
In summary, the use of the definite article in Greek is critical for understanding specificity and definiteness. In John 1:1, the absence of the article before "Θεὸς" while it is present before "Λόγος" and "Θεόν" indicates a qualitative sense, emphasizing the divine nature of "the Word" rather than equating "the Word" as a specific entity named "God." This nuanced grammatical structure has been central to theological interpretations of the nature of Christ in Christian doctrine.
Vickers is just plain wrong on two accounts. See my previous comments on one of them(the 1st and 2nd clauses tell us who the subject is in the 3rd so John could have used the article before theos and without any confusion which is the subject). But also Vickers is wrong to say there is a "rule" that when there are two nouns in the nominative case(with the 'be' verb) it means the article is dropped from the noun that is the predicate but is to be then understood as if it has it. Wrong, there is no such rule as anyone who reads the Greek NT could see. There are plenty of times the predicate nominative lacks the article in this sentence construct and have been translated with the English indefinite article(with an 'a'). To all who reads this... Vickers is misleading you. I invite Vickers to interact with me on this here, on his own video! But will he?
There’s other examples that John 1:1 uses that an indefinite article is inserted. Those are ok but all of a sudden when John 1:1 is implying the use of an indefinite article according to English grammar it’s all of a sudden wrong. Why? Theological biases. If anyone wants examples I can reply with those examples 💯💯
This was amazing, thank you
Dr Jeff Vickers having a doctorate or PH/d in?
Bible scholar Jason David BeDunn in Truth in Translations; Accuracy and Bias in English translations of the New testament pages 115.122.123. states, the absence of the definite article before the second Theos makes the occurences of God as different as a god is from GOD. Making the Word not God, but rather a god, or a divine being. it is an adjectival quality meaning the word was divine, not that the Word was God. The translators New Testament pg. 451
The fact that this verse states the word was with God indicates that two seperate persons are being discussed. John 1:18 States that no one has at any time seen God. Yet thousands saw Jesus Christ. John 1:14.
Other Translations that render John 1:1 as divine
James Moffatt version 1950
The William Newcome
Translation of the New Testament 1808
Authentic New Testament by Hugh Schonfield 1958
Ask your self a simple question. If Gods word spends entire chapters on, and the apostles spent meeting after meeting after meeting on the subject of circumcision. Why would the Holy Scriptures use only 1 Single solitary verse to explain the very make up and essence of Almighty God, whos will it is that all men come to know him. Is a mans foreskin more important ? The Trinity must be proven by more than the Gramatical insistance of just 1 scripture. The witnesses can proove by way of many many other scriptures that Jesus Christ is Gods only begotten son. But he is not God. He was the very first of his fathers creations.
Rev 3:14, Colossians 3:15, Prov 8:22-31.
The witnesses are not wrong.
Excellent contribution to this conversation! Do you hold to your statement that, "The witnesses are not wrong." on just this topic or in all topics? I seem to recall that teachings have changed over the years. I myself wonder how does one claim to be a spokesperson of the True God when there doesn't seem to be the same mechanism of baptism in holy spirit as there was in the first century ie. Acts chapter 8.
Your thoughts?
❤There are more than 2.2 billion people who call themselves Christians and over 2 billion believe that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh or the Word becoming flesh. Some cults like the Mormons, Jehovah’s witnesses and Muslims believe that Jesus is not God
Yes they share each other’s talking points because they have the same father.
Not a single scripture says Jesus is god........
@@nicola2375 John I :1 does
How many people believe it ,,doesn't make it so at jesus time nearly the entire nation of isreal rejected Christ too. So you prove my point .
How come can a person BE WITH SOMEONE and BE THAT SOMEONE at the same time..??? If I am with you does that mean that I am YOU and that you are ME..???
If my wife and I are ONE FLESH, does that mean that we share the same physical body ..??? I think that we are ONE BEING united by the same mind and purpose...I think it's the same in this case,Jesus and The Almighty God are One in purpose, not literally one person but two different and separate beings united by the same frame of mind and purpose...
I didn't know 1 word in the Greek language but now I have learned a few. I just hope to remember them. This is still hard to understand but I did like english in school ( hated trying to learn poems) but grammar I use to love. I am old now and I think I have ADHD so any youtube stuff over 10 minutes I can't usually stay with. I have to break down into parts and come back to gt all.
MangoLanguages has Biblical Hebrew Greek courses. Check your local library to see if you can get a free account.
Knowing Geeek is not a prerequisite to learning what the Bible teaches.
Logic should dictate that no one can be WITH someone and also be the someone he is WITH.
If I was WITH my mother at some event, can I be my own mother?
Similarly Jesus, know as the Word, was WITH God at the beginning.
Jesus himself was a god. Meaning a mighty being. An angel.
What a blessing good job Brother.
It’s quite clear that nobody understands the mystery of Christ. First, you must understand that there were 2 natures to Christ. One that has no beginning, and one that had a beginning. The nature that has no beginning is eternal, perpetual, everlasting. The one one that had a beginning was flesh and blood. Also had an ending. Let me explain... Deuteronomy 6:4 say that God is one. This is true, there is only one God.
Isaiah 43:11 says “I, even I, am the Lord;
and beside me there is no saviour”
So we now know that there is one God and that there is no other saviour besides Him.
In John 1:1 “in the beginning was the Word” what was it that brought EVERYTHING into existence?? Speech! God used WORDS to create ALL THINGS. John 1:2 “and be Word was with God” this means He is a God of His word. His word never falls to the ground. John 1:3 “and the Word was God” this plainly tells you who the Word is. It is God. There was. No baby Jesus in the beginning with God. John 1:14 “and the Word became flesh” now what does it mean that the Word became flesh??
Isaiah 9:6-7 “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.
Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end,
upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom,
to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice
from henceforth even for ever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.”
For unto us a child IS born”....
this is the “Word” testifying what He is making
Then He let’s you know what material it will consist of
“CHILD” (flesh and blood) ... this means he’s human
Unto us a son IS given. Means he’s gone. The death of Jesus!
God used His WORD though the prophets to prophesy about the coming of Jesus. He used Words. He was speaking that flesh into existence! Eventually the WORD(Gods Word) what the prophets of old spoke of became flesh!
Luke 1:31 says “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.”
The “sonship” started in the womb of Mary. In the tribe of Judah. In the house of David.
God needed flesh and blood to redeem us and there was no flesh and blood in heaven.
There was no blood in heaven
“Thou shalt conceive in thy womb”.... that is where the son of man came from...
Hence the second nature of Christ that had a beginning.
Luke 1:35 “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee”...
That’s what came down from heaven. Not flesh and blood. This is why you guys have Jesus as the second person in the godhead because you do not understand the mystery
The power of the Highest(God) will overshadow you.. it would also overshadow the “holy thing” inside you.
He said the call the “holy thing” inside you the “Son of God”.
This is where the “Sonship” started!!!
When God says the “word” became flesh that means that God brought flesh into the world by the creating power of His words!!!
1 peter 1:19-20 says “ But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you”
Foreordained... God already knew what kind of salvation plan he would give us
That is the only way Jesus Christ existed. It was though the mind and concept of God.
Pre existing not in a physical sense it in a foreordained sense by God.
All things were created by Him(God) and for Him(Jesus)
All things were created for the salvation of Christ
“Precious blood of Christ”...God does not have blood!!
Christ is not Gods name
It is a title
How did Jesus get His name??
Hebrews 1:4 says “Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.”
His name was inherited. Who gave it to Him? God. God’s name is Jesus. Jesus means “Jehovah saves” or “Jehovah is salvation”. When Jesus says he comes in His fathers name, that’s because they have the same name! This also tells you that the son of God was “made”. Mary birthed that body. So you have flesh and blood (Jesus) and you have the Holy Spirit ( God) dwelling inside that body. That’s why Jesus says “I do nothing on my own, but the father that dwelleth in me He does all the work. Jesus always praised God and never took credit.
So we now know the 2 natures of Christ. The holy thing that dwells inside Jesus then you had Jesus flesh and blood.
2 Corinthians 5:19 say “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation”
God was reconciling the world back to Himself but he needed a body because god is a spirit and a spirit is invisible. He also needed a body for the shedding of blood. God doesn’t not have blood.
Amen and God bless
This a load of shit. Jesus did not have creation point and second what you promoting is Hinduism as for all tense in purpose, Jesus is a semi-God.
So where does it say that God Almighty has 2 natures ... not one scripture you use explains that God has 2 natures! You're not applying 2 Tim 3:16,17! "That men may know that thou, whose name *alone* is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth. - Ps 83:18 KJV "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" - Num 23:19 KJV. "The Deity is not a man, to lie, nor human, to change his mind. Has He said and will not do, promised and will not make it good?" - Num 23:19 Byington.
According to 2 Tim 3:16,17 the scriptures need to tell us that God has 2 natures ... ??? The scriptures don't tell us that ...
Juan Lopez so apparently Jesus wasn't born through Mary
He just hopped down from Heaven as a baby
Steve Humphries so The Word didn't become Man, heretic I see
Juan Lopez no need to curse my friend, especially from a Christian. Secondly, I literally just used nothing but scripture to argue my point and your saying it’s Hinduism? Are we reading the same bible? You need to leave the pastor your under brother because he has you confused and twisted about the work so of God.
Thank you
❤I’ve subscribed to your RUclips channel and thanks for your great efforts explaining the truth. You are a gifted teacher and it’s refreshing listening to your explanation. All blessings to you and your family and ministry in Jesus name from Ireland.
When I’m talking to the Jehovah’s Witnesses I always avoid arguing and instead point them to John 1:3 in that the Lord Jesus created all things and without Jesus nothing was created that was created. This end their objections and they are forced to rethink. They end up with 2 gods ❤
There is only one true God - read John 17:3
The bible does not contradict itself so you need to study more.
FYI - Jesus did not create - only the Father can create - Jesus was the first of all creation - he was created before the angels and the material Universe.
It was through Jesus that all other things were brought into existence - Jesus became God's master worker alongside his heavenly Father. - Proverbs 8:22-31
You need to study the bible properly.
@@Chris_Sheridan Thanks the Lord Jesus created all things and without Jesus nothing was created that was created John 1:3 Jesus is the first and the last who was dead and now lives forevermore. Jesus is the Word becoming flesh. Was the word created or eternal. ? It’s the eternal word of God
@@seanrathmakedisciples1508 Note the context of Habakkuk 1:12
The Almighty God cannot die - he is 'from everlasting to everlasting' - nothing in scripture denies the everlasting immortality of the Creator who himself gives life to everything.
Even the angels were not created immortal and neither were humans.
Jesus Christ is God's Son, who through his obedient life course now has immortality - he didn't have it before.
You deny scripture which is evident from your wilful contortion of bible text to support a false 'Trinity' doctrine.
Your mistranslation of John 1:1 is grammatically and logically incorrect - you also force a contradiction with other bible verses that clearly show Jesus to be the only-begotten son of God.
Note 1John 2:22
'Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ?'
'Christ' means 'anointed one' - Jesus is the anointed of Jehovah, the 'Most High' - Psalm 83:18
You deny both the Father and the Son.
1John 2:4
You have no share in the disciple making work that Jesus assigned his true followers - Matthew 28:19 & 20
You have no share in fulfilling Jesus' words stated at Matthew 24:14
You are not obedient to the command given at Mark 13:10
@@Chris_Sheridan You’re right. The Lord Jesus was put to death in the flesh but His Spirit is lives forevermore.His Spirit left His body. James 2:26.
Yhwh is yahoshuah. Amen 💙
How do you know, since the vowels are not in the tetragrammaton 🤔❓
Are you aware that JESUS said he came down from heaven, and existed with GOD before the earth was formed
the sons of the God (a.k.a. angels) ALSO existed with the God BEFORE the earth was formed. Being WITH the God BEFORE the earth the was formed is not a QUALIFIER to be the God if it were so then all angels and Satan himself would be the God also as they too were in the beginning with the God. Job 38:4-7
did Jesus create all things ? did Jesus create angels ?
Why if he was God, does it say that he was the first born of all creation????
James - glad you asked - yes "first born" does mean Eldest and even Egypt had "first born" sons - because that was an esteemed or superior title it came to be applied to mean "supreme" or "pre-eminent" - Ismael was Abraham's "First Born" and Eldest son yet when God asked him to sacrifice his "first born" he chose the younger Isaac - WHY ? - look it up in any Bible Glossary except the NWT because it's missing there.... for obv reasons...
Hey Rob, just curious but are you referencing John 17:5 when you mention Jesus existed with God before the earth was formed? "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed."
Where are all the ppl who oppose the fact that it’s stated in the NT Jesus is God. They show up every where else to argue you down, but no here for some strange reason. Or is it, that they were here, but refuse to post?
Rev 10:1 And I saw another MIGHTY ANGEL come down from heaven, CLOTHED WITH A CLOUD: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire:
Rev 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, HAVING GREAT POWER; and the earth was lightened with HIS GLORY.
Rev. 10:1 QUESTION: Who is the MIGHTY ANGEL coming down from heaven CLOTHED WITH A CLOUD ?
Rev. 18:1 QUESTION; Who is the angel coming down from heaven HAVING GREAT POWER AND GLORY ?
ANSWER: Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven WITH POWER AND GREAT GLORY.
IF THE SPIRIT OF SATAN IS ON YOU, SIMPLE TRUTH CAN NOT BE GRASPED AND UNDERSTOOD.
Amen!
Jesus was only in the plan of God before He was born.Jesus was never an angel -Hebrews ch 2
In John 17:5 Jesus was speaking
And now o Father , glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
If Jesus is The Great "I'm", the Father who is in heaven, why Peter and John said while they were preaching: Acts 3:13 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant and Son Jesus 15 But you killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead. and Paul in Galatians 1:1 God The Father resurrected Jesus and why Jesus himself said John 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not observe my words. The word that you are hearing is NOT MINE, but belongs to the Father WHO SENT ME...John12: 49 For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment means* everlasting life. So whatever I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.
"In the Beginning" was the time point of creation. The only One that existed before the creation was God. No angels or animals existed before this time. Then the Father iniated the creation through the Word [Jesus] the exact expressed image of God the Father. Now, did Jesus exist before the beginning? Yes, therefore, He is God, because He existed before the creation, and nothing that was made was made without him (John 1:3).
Very similar understanding until recent comparison of the opening prologue each of the gospels.
Now , john 1:1, l can see clearly, refers to the ministry of the Messiah.
@Aubrey Shatner , Is Jesus Lord? Is He the Lord of Lords? It is written, according to the Holy Bible, "for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord." (Luke 2:11 NASB) It is written again, "Behold, I am going to send My messager, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messager of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming" says the YHWH of hosts." (Malach 3:1) It is written again, "You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right for so I am." (John 13:13) It is written, "....and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many Lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through him." (1Corinthians 8:4-6) If Jesus created "all things," how could he be a created being? In Collosians 1:15, the Greek word is "Prototokos," signifies priority, the "firstborn" means the preemince one, if Jesus was a created being, the Greek word "Protoktisis" would have been used. Read Philippians 2:9-11. If Jesus is Lord, He is God (Titus 2:13) Read Deuteronomy 10:17.
Continued from Part 21
C. Colwell offers a grammatical rule explaining the use of the article with a predicate nominative in the Greek New Testament.22 This rule seems to justify the trinitarian translation of John 1:1. Colwell says:
A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. Of course, this can be claimed as a rule only after it has been shown to describe the usage of the Greek New Testament as a whole or in large part. . . . 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. Kai Theos en ho logos looks much more like “And the Word was God” than “And the Word was divine” when viewed with reference to this rule. The absence of the article 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.23 On closer examination, one finds that rather than supporting the trinitarian view, Colwell’s evidence and conclusions disprove the belief that John teaches the doctrine of a triune deity. Colwell’s evidence indicates that this is not an absolute rule but one which has a number of exceptions.24 In addition, citing John 1:1 as an example, he states that context is important in determining whether a predicate nominative before a verb is indefinite. However, in support of his position that context demands that the predicate be definite in this verse, he states that this Gospel “reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas” (John 20:28) in which Thomas refers to Jesus as “my Lord and my God.” At the heart of Colwell’s statement is a theological bias on his part, not a judicious opinion based on either grammar or context. Colwell says: “The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when context demands it.” According to his explanation, a predicate noun, e.g., “god,” in the predicate nominative “and god was the Word,” is indefinite before the verb only when the context demands it. He then asserts that “the context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John.” Actually, the very opposite is true. In John 1:1, context does demand that the second “god” mentioned in this verse be indefinite. In fact, considering the context of the entire New Testament, Colwell’s rule is not applicable to John 1:1. John 1:1 is the most obvious exception to his rule; no definite article is to be implied before the second mention of “god” in John 1:1. Translating theos as “divine” or “a god” in order to express the nature of the Word, rather than identifying his person, is consistent with John’s use of Philo’s teachings and terminologies in order to explain his own Logos doctrine. The lack of the definite article before the word “god” most certainly represents John’s theological intention. 22 E.C. Colwell, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933), pp. 12-21. 23 Colwell, pp. 13, 21. 24 Colwell, pp. 16-18. © Gerald Sigal Continued…
It´s pretty clear, but why both words are in the nominative when in the previous sentence one are in the object form and the other in the subject form?
Because it is how Greek works. That particular construction is called a predicate nominative and works with "to be" like verbs such as ειμι (to be) as in this verse (ην is the aorist tense forme), γινομαι (to became) is used with the same construction in verse 14 (εγενετο is the aorist tense) form).
Another thing is that, usually prepositions do not appear with a nominate case (subject). That means that you cannot have προς which is a preposition with θεος !
Because it is how Greek works. That particular construction is called a predicate nominative and works with "to be" like verbs such as ειμι (to be) as in this verse (ην is the aorist tense forme), γινομαι (to became) is used with the same construction in verse 14 (εγενετο is the aorist tense) form).
Another thing is that, usually prepositions do not appear with a nominate case (subject). That means that you cannot have προς which is a preposition with θεος !
The Trinity claims that God became man in order for man to be like God. But notice with Genesis 3:5 States when the serpent spoke to Eve; "For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad.”
Look at what's mentioned in Psalms 83:18;
May people know that you, whose name is Jehovah,
You alone are the Most High over all the earth."
So who alone is the most high? The Trinity doesn't even acknowledge Jehovah as the sovereign of the universe.
The Trinity doesn't even acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh rather a claims that God himself came in the flesh but notice what Second John verse 7 says: "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist."
The only mention of the Trinity in The Bible is recorded at revelation 16:13,14 it states: "And I saw three unclean inspired expressions that looked like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the wild beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. They are, in fact, expressions inspired by demons and they perform signs, and they go out to the kings of the entire inhabited earth, to gather them together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty.
The dragon is referring to satan
The wild beast is referring to the kings of the Earth or the political elements.
And the false prophets as mention is referring to those who are deceiving the people of the knowledge of Jehovah. Notice with psalms 2 verse 2 States: The kings of the earth take their stand
And high officials gather together as one
Against Jehovah and against his anointed one.
The Trinity's purpose is to gather the peoples of the Earth to wage war against the only true God whose name is Jehovah.
Notice what Revelation 8:10,11 states; "The third angel blew his trumpet. And a great star burning like a lamp fell from heaven, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of waters. The name of the star is Wormwood. And a third of the waters turned into wormwood, and many of the people died from the waters, because these had been made bitter.
Did you know that a 3rd of the population believe in the Trinity. Satan has spread his wormwood on religion. Jesus never mentioned that God was multiple entities in fact these are his words as recorded at John 4 verse 24; "God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.”
That was EXTREMELY well laid out
If Jesus is The Great "I'm", the Father who is in heaven, why Peter and John said while they were preaching: Acts 3:13 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant and Son Jesus 15 But you killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead. and Paul in Galatians 1:1 God The Father resurrected Jesus and why Jesus himself said John 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not observe my words. The word that you are hearing is NOT MINE, but belongs to the Father WHO SENT ME...John12: 49 For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment means* everlasting life. So whatever I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.
Great
7:00 You have a problem with your explanation DrJeffVickers. First, Logos still has the "os" in the third line, and it contains the direct article before it. Also, the "theos" in the third line doesn't contain the direct article before it, like it does in the second line. Doesn't that make it qualitative, and not identifying?
The fact is, this translation is not exclusive to JW.
1808: "and the Word was a god" - Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
1822: "and the Word was a god" - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)
1829: "and the Word was a god" - The Monotessaron; 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)
1864: "the LOGOS was God" - A New Emphatic Version (right hand column)
1864: "and a god was the Word" - The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading)
1867: "and the Son was of God" - The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
1879: "and the Word was a god" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)
1885: "and the Word was a god" - Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)
1911: "and [a] God was the word" - The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, by George William Horner.[21]
1924: "the Logos was divine" - The Bible: James Moffatt Translation, by James Moffatt.[22]
1935: "and the Word was divine" - The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.[23]
1955: "so the Word was divine" - The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.[24]
1956: "And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" - The Wuest Expanded Translation[25]
1958: "and the Word was a god" - The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed(J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
1962, 1979: "'the word was God.' Or, more literally, 'God was the word.'" - The Four Gospels and the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979)
1966, 2001: "and he was the same as God" - The Good News Bible.
1970, 1989: "and what God was, the Word was" - The New English Bible and The Revised English Bible.
1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" - Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried
777Tralfaz777 Even if it's a qualitative meaning...think about that implication. What does it mean for a being to be QUALITATIVELY God? Put another way, if we switch out God for a less controversial word, like 'human', what does it mean for a being to be qualitatively human? It means the essence, nature, "kind" of species the being is belongs to the same group to which it's being compared. Therefore, the Logos is the SAME essence, SAME nature, SAME kind (as in the term used in Genesis, to each their own kind) as God. Put even simpler, when a human 'begets' a being, what kind of being is it? A cat? A whale? A plant? No. Humans 'beget' humans, just as cats beget cats, etc. Therefore, what kind of being would you expect God to 'beget'? An angel? A human? No. those are different species/kinds. I realize God didn't literally procreate the Logos into existence, so my parallel is not exact. Yet that is precisely what John says in the beginning of his book: Logos already existed whenever the beginning happened, Logos was face-to-face with Deity, and the Logos was Deity. The real question then becomes, how many Deity's exist? If only one Deity exists (who fulfills all the criteria of Deity, as in omnipotence, omniscience, omniagape, omnipresent, etc), then Logos was in some way the same Deity yet distinctive enough to be 'with' the Deity. Hence, the Triune understanding of YHVH begins.
@@christinel1857 God is not a species of being. Jesus was a god (mighty one), not the God.
@@777Tralfaz777 Yes, He is. He is a Being, therefore He has a species...Deity. He is different than other heavenly beings like angels. Therefore He is a different species than they.
By saying Jesus was "a" god you proclaim you are polytheistic. Henotheistic at best. Those are very different than being monotheistic.
@@christinel1857 Species are capable of "exchanging genes or interbreeding." You are incorrect. What God creates is not itself "God". It is a false argument. God doesn't breed to make other God's.
You said "By saying Jesus was "a" god you proclaim you are polytheistic."
Then you are polytheistic too if you believe the Bible. Angels are called gods. And the judges of Israel were called gods by God Himself. IF such ones can be called gods, certainly Jesus would be a god.
In order to not see JESUS AS THE SON OF GOD AND EQUAL WITH GOD then you ignore a multitude of things.
such as?
Amen
OK. YOU ASKED FOR IT? The Greek theon in “the word was toward the god,” is in the accusative case ending and has the definite article (Gr. ho; English the) preceding it. It is correctly translated, “the Word was with God” in English.
However, the 3rd clause in the verse contains theos in the nominative, singular form without an article: “and god was the word.” As controversial as it may sound to trinitarians, it is correctly translated as “and a god was the Word.” A minimal literal (“formal equivalence”) translation would rearrange the word order to match the proper English expression: “And the Word was a god.”
This is consistent with other occurrences in the Greek. For example, the following are instances where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article (“a”) to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns. Examples are taken from the King James Version, New International Version, Revised Standard Version, and Today’s English Version:
Mark 6:49: “a spirit” or “a ghost”
Mark 11:32: “a prophet” or “a real prophet”
John 4:19: “a prophet”
John 6:70: “a devil” or “an informer”
John 8:44: “a murderer”
John 8:44: “a liar”
John 8:48: “a Samaritan”
John 9:17: “a prophet”
John 9:24: “a sinner”
John 10:1: “a thief”
John 10:13: “an hireling” or “a hired man”
John 10:33: “a man” or “a mere man”
John 12:6: “a thief”
John 18:35: “a Jew”
John 18:37: “a king”
If you study these occurrences in many translations, you will note that most translators consistently apply these translation rules, except when it comes to John 1:1c. Why the exception here? Bias.
Bias has shaped most of these translations much more than has accurate attention to the wording of the Bible. The NW translation (New World Translation) of John 1:1 is superior to that of the other eight translations we are comparing. . . .it breaks with the KJV tradition followed by all the others, and it does so in the right direction by paying attention to how Greek grammar and syntax actually work. No translation of John 1:1 that I can imagine is going to be perfectly clear and obvious in its meaning. John is subtle, and we do him no service by reducing his subtlety to crude simplicities. All that we can ask is that a translation be an accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation. Only the NW achieves that, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader. The other translations cut off the exploration of the verse’s meaning before it has even begun. - Truth in Translation - Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, Jason David BeDuhn, page 218 (ebook)
Is There Scholarly Work that Shows How These Nouns Should Be Translated From the Greek?
Philip B. Harner: In his article, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1” (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973):
“anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb may function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject, and this qualitative significance may be more important than the question whether the predicate noun itself should be regarded as definite or indefinite.” (page 75)
“with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite.” (page 85)
“In John 1:1, I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite. . . .Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’ This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.” (page 87)
What About the Other Occurrences of ‘Theos?’
Some insist that the New World Translation is inconsistent here because theos without the article in John 1 is not translated the same way in other locations. For example, some will claim that if the NWT was truly consistent and applied the grammatical rule of inserting the indefinite article “a” where the definite article (English “the”) was not present in Greek, we would have the following:
There came a man who was sent as a representative of [a] God (theou); his name was John. - John 1:6
However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become [a] God’s (theou) children. - John 1:12
And they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from [a] God (theou). - John 1:13
And others.
What they fail to note is that not only are the Greek constructs different in these other verses, but these other uses are genitive (theou), not nominative (theos). The genitive form of the noun, in this case theou, does not require the article (Gr. “ho;” English “the”) to be definite, whereas the nominative form normally does.
In Koiné Greek, the nominative case ending usually indicates the subject of a sentence. It is normally preceded by the definite article. However, in John 1:1c, this nominative form (theos) is not preceded by the article. That being the case, the noun becomes “primarily qualitative in meaning,” as explained by Bible scholar, Philip B. Harner, in his article posted above
JOHN 1:1-3
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning “with” God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
………..
Jesus is the living “Word” of the living ONE True God Almighty.
The WORD was GOD.
NOT JESUS THE SON, WAS ALSO GOD ALMIGHTY, But The “WORD was GOD”.
JESUS ONLY SPEAKS TEACHING THROUGH GODS WORD.
We can only go through the word of Jesus (our mediator) to know the Fathers Word.
This is how we all learned about His Father, the “ONE” true God who SENT HIM.
Jesus “Only does the WILL of his Father who SENT him”. Jesus only speaks the word of GOD.
Gods word is manifested into the world, taught through HIS SON. This is not about how God Almighty Himself came into the world as Human Flesh. The WORD of God Almighty came into the world through His Son. Jesus who does the will of his Father who sent him. God ALMIGHTY SENT HIS SON. God DID NOT Send Himself. But Gods Word comes to us through His Son Jesus. His Son is NOT HIM. His Son is the living word of His Father who is GOD ALMIGHTY The ONE TRUE GOD, WHO CHANGES NOT.
__________
JOHN 6:38
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
JOHN 6:62
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
JOHN 13:3
“Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God”
JOHN 16:28
“I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.”
JOHN 17:5
“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”
JOHN 13:3
“Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God”
1 TIMOTHY 2:5
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”
REVELATION 19:13
"And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."
________
Trinity is false.
I love you sister, and God loves you; continue in his word.
Many believers are coming to the knowledge that trinity is a false doctrine, developed over hundreds of years. It doesn't take hundreds of years to "figure out" critical scriptural truth. Much less 1600 years in the failed attempt to adequately explain it.
@@texassmokingmonkey Many,,,??? This is your view, the by far majority believes in the Trinity. Check for yourself. Even the SDA, 25 million changed to the Trinity. The Jews and Muslims dont believe in the Trinity and a few small Christian cults
There is just to many versus stating the Holy Spirit as a individual, with feelings, power, making decisions of His own, and sinning against Him will you not be forgiven
Francois De Bruyn What you say is very true, my friend. No argument there.
The vast majority of Jews reject Jesus as Messiah, as they have for 2000 years. A billion Catholics worship Mary and pray to dead people. Jesus made it very clear that the accepted establishment doctrines of the Jewish leaders were not in keeping with Moses or the prophets.
Consensus does not make truth. Believing everything that's been handed down to us by the establishment hierarchy comes with its own set of challenges, since almost nobody studies these inherited doctrines independently, with an open heart. They "study" only to reinforce what they were taught, to strengthen their ability to debate "heretics." This is not investigation, to verify truth. Finding what you were told to look for is what's called confirmation bias. Seeing only what one already is trained to see. This is not testing the spirits, and is not proving scripture.
I believed trinity like everyone else until i was 50 years old, and never once thought to "look into" its origins, or when it came to be established, and by whom. The resulting discovery was cataclysmic, and heartbreaking. It was not lightly undertaken, and not what i was expecting.
I'm merely a believer, no member of any church association, mainstream or otherwise. I grew up Baptist. I sought the wisdom of the Most High God, and this was shown to me (among other things).
A person who seeks after God's own heart must be open to the possibility than humans can be wrong. We expect Jews, Catholics, Muslims, cults, everyone but US to really open their hearts and seek God's truth. But we would never see any need to do what we expect others to do.
And everyone in every one of those groups are just as sure as the mainstream Christians are with their consensus beliefs, received from their teachers, and not one time questioned.
God does not deal in majorities, and he never has.
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.
*The Real Truth About "Mighty God"*
***[Isaiah 9:6]***
It is true that at Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is prophetically referred to as *"Mighty God" (Hebrew, ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ)*
Yet, no where in scripture is Jesus ever referred to as *God Almighty (Hebrew ʼEl Shad·daiʹ)* as in Gen. 17:1,)
This title ONLY applies to the Father (YHWH /Yehowah/Jehovah)... So to say that Jesus is *God* @ John 1:1 would be a complete contradiction.
@@santino591 So I assume you are a JW?
@@catalinul1461
Catalinul,
Respectfully, I am a Devout Christian, A Bible / Theology Researcher who stands by The JWs 100% on the issue raised @ John 1:1...To say that the word was [GOD] here is a direct contradiction of Jesus' own words... Would U not agree???
I hereby present Non-JW References:
▪︎The New Encyclopædia Britannica: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”-(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.
▪︎The New Catholic Encyclopedia: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”-(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
▪︎The EncyclopediaAmericana: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”-(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
▪︎Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel: “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”-(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
▪︎Dictionary of the Bible: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are Greek philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”-(New York, 1965), p. 899.
***{NO TRINITY}***
***I Trust Jesus Words. Let Jesus Speak for Himself:***
• John 4:22 - Jesus said: You worship what you do not know;
*WE WORSHIP* what we know!
• John 5:19 - Jesus say, "The Son can't do anything on his own, only what he sees the Father doing."
• John 10:33 - After the Jewish Leaders attempted to stone Jesus, accusing him of calling himself "God" (KJV) ... Why did Jesus correct them by saying, *"I said I am God's Son?"* (verse 36)
• John 14:28 - Jesus says: The Father is greater than I.
• John 17:3 - Why does Jesus call the Father *THE ONLY TRUE GOD*?
"This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, *"THE ONLY TRUE GOD,"* [and] the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."
(Clear Distinction Here)
• John 20:17 - ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to *MY GOD and YOUR GOD.’”*
• John 20:28 - After Thomas said, "My God & My Lord," ...Why does "vs 31" say "But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, ***THE SON OF GOD?"***
• Rev. 3:12 - [After Jesus Ascends Back To Heaven, (in the Spirit) he still calls his Father ***"MY GOD"***] (4 times)
~~~~~~
RESPECTFULLY,
IF JESUS WORSHIPS HIS "GOD & FATHER," HOW CAN HE BE OF THE SAME ESSENCE OR GODHEAD?
@@catalinul1461
Not to bombard U but plz consider:
*Translations That Trinitarian Theologians Hate & Hide*
***[John 1:1]***
*[Other Bibles before JWs NWT:
JWs Did Not Invent The Indefinite Article Here]*
• 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.
• 1822: "and the Word was *a god"*- The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)
• 1863: "and the Word was *a god"*- A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)
• 1864: “and *a god* was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
• 1879: "and the Word was *a god*" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes
• 1885: "and the Word was *a god*" - Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)
• 1911: "and *[a] God* was the word" - The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, by George William Horner.
• 1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Gogue
• 1950: “and the Word was *a god*.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.☆
• 1958: “and the Word was *a God*.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
• 1975: “and *a god* (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
• 1978: “and *godlike* kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
~~~~~~
John 1:18 plainly tells us that no man has seen God "*at any time*."
Yet John the Baptizer beheld both Jesus [*vs 29*] & the Holy Spirit [*vs 32*]
*Question???* How can Jesus & the Holy Spirit be equal to Almighty God if they were seen my humans???
I know I'm late to this but it is my understanding that there is no indefinite article 'a' in Koine Greek?
But this does not mean nouns in Greek are not indefinite. Look at any translation into English! Vickers appears to have missed an obvious fact of context, that the subject of 1.1c is shown simply from the previous 2 clauses! Hence John did not omit the article in the 3rd to show which noun is the subject and which the predicate. To argue that QEOS of 1.1c is "God" is modalism! Most trinitarians up to date with Greek studies reject that QEOS of 1.1c is definite. Seems to me Dr Vickers need to update his own knowledge. But missing what is obvious from the context is really inexcusable. Talk about misleading his listeners!
Pls. enlighten me.
Theos without an article denotes the quality rather the being?
In other Bible translation it reads "and the Word was Divine."
Am I correct on this?
If it was an adjective it would stress the nature of, like ‘God is love’ stresses the nature of being Love because it has no article but agrees with in case/number/gender of the subject. God is the subject, but love isn’t God so the two aren’t interchangeable. Here in John 1 acopulative or ‘equal’ verb is used so it is stressing the equality subjects, God and the Word, two things that are the same.
Correct. Note that John never uses the Greek word "pros" which means towards, as 'with' when representing 2 or more individuals. He, as all others, uses the normal Greek word for with - "meta".
Also, the number one rule of interpretation is: when a verse has two or more possible meanings, the correct one is the one which agrees with the preponderance of scripture - not the opposite!
the noun "Theos" isn t an adjectiv,thereso can t be translated as "divine".........remains GOD....jesus is GOD.
correct. If theos in the final clause was referring to the deity of israel YHWH in the hebrew bible, there should be a definite article, because in the Greek, if we have a predication, and the predicate is a definite noun and it is in first position, meaning it appears before the “to be” verb (both that would be the case if the final clause would read “and GOD was the Word”, then if it is a being that is well known, and/or it has already been named in close context, both of which would be true if this verse were to be talking about YHWH in John 1:1, it would have the definite article,but it doesn’t, so “God” here is to be understood qualitatively (which can be DIVINE)
@@777Slater well anyone comes along giving their understand with something pulled out of no where....
dear,divine ,in the case of Jesus would mean His God...... Tell me how many creatures you know wich are divine ??? Actually NONE........Angels are angelic creatures.........divine is a quality that strictly belongs to GOD....
colossians tells us jesus is the exact image of the Father ,that ALL THE DIVINE QUALITIES DWELLS IN HIM........qualities that belong to God ONLY.......
By trying to disprove jesus deity ,anti trinatarians actually bring more water against them...thank you.
Instead of responding to the Jehovah's Witnesses view of John 1:1, can you please respond to Greek scholar Jason David BeDuhn who is not a Jehovah's Witness and who agrees with John 1:1 of the New World Translation. Please read chapter 11 of his book, "Truth in translation", where he say's, "only one, the NW, adheres to the literal meaning of the Greek, and translates "a god" on page 124.
Easily check Genesis " without him (jesus) nothing was made that was made " . Jesus IS divine and moreover if he is simply " a " God then there is not only "one God " therefore Jehovahs witnesses are not only polytheists but God is a liar in Isaiah for he said " there is no God formeds other than me "
If Jesus is The Great "I'm", the Father who is in heaven, why Peter and John said while they were preaching: Acts 3:13 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant and Son Jesus 15 But you killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead. and Paul in Galatians 1:1 God The Father resurrected Jesus and why Jesus himself said John 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not observe my words. The word that you are hearing is NOT MINE, but belongs to the Father WHO SENT ME...John12: 49 For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment means* everlasting life. So whatever I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.
Who appointed Jesus as high priest? Hebrews 3: consider the apostle and high priest whom we acknowledge-Jesus. 2 He was faithful to the One who appointed him, Hebrews 5:5
the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: “You are my son; today I have become your father.”
-- John 5:24 Jesus said: Most truly I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes the One who sent me has everlasting life, and he does not come into judgment but has passed over from death to life.
I am not JW but Jesus said that his Father was the ONE true God, all so none can see God and live. yet many saw Jesus. and John in Revelation saw Jesus in heaven and lived. and then there is this text. To us there is but one God the Father. and in John 1:1 there are two different words that get translated as God yet they are both translated God with no difference if there is a difference in Greek there should be a difference in English.
Open Heart you still want an answer?
The word was not "a" God - this is false jw reasoning. Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega and Yahweh is also the Alpha and the Omega. Are you trying to tell us the Alpha and the Omega are two persons now @Reasonablemanyouare (not) the false jw bible is a Satanic twisting of scripture.
Jesus says the the Father and him are one (John 10:30 +) , so saying the Father is the one true God doesnt disqualify Jesus, and Jesus follows that statement with his name as well. You are right that no one can see God the Father and live. No one but Jesus has seen the father (John 6:46) and this complements John 1:18 which also calls Jesus God. Yet God was seen by Isaiah 6:1-5, could he have been Jesus there? Also greek and english differ from eachother greatly, for example they have 7 words that mean love and we translate it to only one word, theon and theos can both mean God in English. I hope this was helpful to you :)
If Jesus is The Great "I'm", the Father who is in heaven, why Peter and John said while they were preaching: Acts 3:13 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant and Son Jesus 15 But you killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead. and Paul in Galatians 1:1 God The Father resurrected Jesus and why Jesus himself said John 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not observe my words. The word that you are hearing is NOT MINE, but belongs to the Father WHO SENT ME...John12: 49 For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment means* everlasting life. So whatever I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.
Who appointed Jesus as high priest? Hebrews 3: consider the apostle and high priest whom we acknowledge-Jesus. 2 He was faithful to the One who appointed him, Hebrews 5:5
the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: “You are my son; today I have become your father.”
-- John 5:24 Jesus said: Most truly I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes the One who sent me has everlasting life, and he does not come into judgment but has passed over from death to life.
KJV Mathew 3-17 “And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Clearly God the Father affirms who Jesus is and approves.)
Mathew 17-5 (“While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” (Again God the Father affirms who Jesus is, approves, and commands us to hear him/listen.)
John 14-6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (If we are to do what God the Father said.. then clearly Jesus is stating that you aren't going to ever get to the Father except through Jesus.)
Angels of God (not fallen) do not accept worship. We are to worship God only. Mathew 14-33 “Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.” (Jesus did not rebuke them for worshipping Him.) This was not the only time He allowed worship.
So staying out of the one God... a god turmoil.. it is clear that God affirms Jesus and tells us to hear him. If we do so then clearly we Must go through Jesus to get to heaven.
John 14-9 “Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” (Jesus is clearly making a distinction between Himself and the Father ..yet seeing Jesus is the same as seeing the Father. He has the same exact status of the Father in every way.)
You can continue to debate big G or little g but what is crystal clear (at least to me) from just this small amount of versus is that: God the Father affirms Jesus as His beloved Son, and we are to listen to Him. Don't listen or follow Jesus and you won't be seeing heaven or the Father.
Not sure I can relay this to the JWs I meet on the street. Will need to prepare a *LOT* in advance. But definitely this explanation is useful so thankyou!
why the word GOD is written two times but are not written equally in greek?
@@moisesbeyondI don't understand the question.
@@wordforever117 see in the greek text look for the Word God and see it is written in two differents forms are not written equally
Dr Vickers, I just watched your video here and I believe that you have made some mistakes.
In the last line oh John 1:1 you seem to be referring to Colwell's rule. There are many people that follow the leadings of Walter Martin in his book “Kingdom of the Cults” when he said
“In fact, the late New Testament Greek scholar Dr. E. C. Colwell formulated a rule that clearly states that a definite predicate nominative (in this case, theos- God) never takes an article when it precedes the verb (was), as we find in John 1:1. It is therefore easy to see that no article is needed for theos (God), and to translate it "a god" is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek since theos is the predicate nominative of was in the third sentence-clause of the verse and must refer back to the subject, Word (Logos). Christ, if He is the Word "made flesh" (John 1:14), can be no one else except God unless the Greek text and consequently God’s Word be denied.”
That appears to be the position that you are taking. The problem is Dr Colwell never had a rule that said the “definite predicate nominative.... never takes an article when it precedes the verb”
In the “Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933): 12-21” Dr Colowell said “Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb USUALLY lack the article,” (all capitals mine)
“The following rules may be tentatively formulated to describe the use of the article with definite predicate nouns in sentences in which the verb occurs (1) Definite predicate nouns here regularly take the article (2) The exceptions are for the most part due to a change in word-order (a) Definite predicate nouns which follow the verb (this is the usual order) usually take the article, (b) Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article, (c) Proper names regularly lack the article in the predicate, (d) Predicate nominatives in relative clauses regularly follow the verb whether or not they have the article.”
His thesis has been re-evaluate and found to be wanting. Aslo Dr Colwell did not fully understand his own rule. Other scholars for some time time just accepted his conclutions. Please see the followings
ntresources.com/blog/documents/colwell.pdf
bible.org/article/revisiting-colwell-construction-light-masscount-nouns
dangitbill.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/colwells-rule-and-john-1-1c.pdf
Those are just a few examples. I could give you a more in depth explanation of John 1:1 and how there are only a handful of texts that actually match the grammatical make up and where translators have absolutely no problems in inserting the indefinite article. Why do they do that. Because there is no theology involved. They completely ignore the true grammar of John 1:1 in favor of theology. The correct rendering is as many Bibles before and after the NWT have done and rendered it is “and the Word was a god”
Are you willing to see the evidence that shows that the NWT and many other Bibles are correct.
***** I have studied the issues on this text very carefully. Colwell's rule just does not apply to John 1:1. That seems to be the rule that is being discussed in the video.
If you do not think that those web sites I posted show that Colwell's does not apply then you did not read them carefully.
Most Biblical Greek grammar books that I have support the rule behind the rendering “a god”. What is interesting is that when they discuss John 1:1 the conveniently forget what they wrote.
Of those three links
Rodney Decker said of Colwells rule and John 1:1 That his rue can not be used to prove definiteness and as often been misused by well meaning scholars to try to prove a pint about John 1:1. He admits that John 1:1 needs more investigation.
Donald Harytly says “Colwell appears to be responsible, because of his application to Jihn 1:1, for laying the groundwork of a logical blunder”
The third article backs up the other two in that Colwells rule can not be used in the translation of John 1:1
All those scholars recognise that the last theos in John 1:1 is an anarthrous predicate nominative noun. As the predicate it is telling us something about the subject of the sentence. We know that the subject is the “WORD”. It is not telling us identity.
The word theos is telling us what the Word is not who he is.
The question now is what does theos mean. It originally meant a “might one”. English has borrowed the word god from an old Germanic origin meaning “invoked one”
In John 1:1 it is telling us that the Word is a might one and was with the Almighty one. The word theos here is acting as an adjective.
Now when John uses the same construction as John 1:1, that is, an anarthrous singular nominative count noun preceding a copulative verb, translators will add the word “a”. The only place that most translators do not do that is John 1:1. Some translators recognise that the word theos is not to be capitalised so they use words like “divine” or “god like” or “what God was the Word was”. They use that sort of language because they recognise that to say “and the Word was God” goes against the grammar but to say “a god” goes against theology.
There are several scholars that will say that “a god” is grammatically correct, but they do not prefer it because of their theology.
Yeah, you're right ...
You can also sort of view this issue as three competing "camps." First are two Trinitarian camps on interpreting the predicate QEOS at Jn. 1:1c. The "definite camp" of which there aren't many of nowadays, which argue for a definite understanding of the QEOS at 1:1c like Colwell with his supposed "rule" in 2b of the JBL article along with the many who misapplied his rule including a number in the other camp like William Barclay not seeming to realize they were actually citing a source against their own position!
And the "qualitative camp" where the majority of Trinitarian scholars reside today, who insist on a solely qualitative interpretation of the QEOS at 1:1c.
The funny thing is, both of these camps make valid points against the other and thus effectively make either one untenable by themselves.
The definite camp correctly points out the absurdity of a purely qualitative QEOS. And that irrespective of any qualitative aspect, QEOS is still a bounded or singular count noun and must be either definite or (God forbid for the sake of the Trinity) indefinite.
But then the qualitative camp correctly points out that the omission of the article before the QEOS at 1:1c is both significant, and that a definite translation is ruled out by the context of the Word being "with God" just prior in Jn. 1:1b and following in verse 2.
As this would be an obvious contradiction or at best modalism or Sabellianism if the QEOS is definite there.
So now enter in the third camp held by Jehovah's Witnesses and many Unitarians who point out that by the two previous Trinitarian camp's own correct admissions against each other. The QEOS at 1:1c can be neither definite nor fully qualitative.
Therefore what else remains then, but the indefinite option "the Word was a god" much to the disdain of both the previous Trinitarian camps? :)
My "you're right" is in reference to Ben that is ...
***** Chris, There is too much in your post for me to respond to at this time. I would like to correct a coupe of statements that you assumed I had said.
In my first response that you replied to, I never said that “the traditional understanding of John 1:1 is dependent on Colwell” I was making the point that the way that Dr Vickers presents his material, it comes across as if he advocating for Colwell I said
“In the last line oh John 1:1 you seem to be referring to Colwell's rule “
We are not separating Johns theology from his gramma. The gramma of John 1:1 as per the NWT and many other Bibles, is, as per Johns theology. To render “and the Word was God” goes against both Johns grammar and his theology.
The position that we have always taken with the rendering of “kai theos en ho logos” is as the scholars you mentioned above, and that is “ the majority opinion is to understand it as Qualitative”
That is what “a god” does. It is shows a quality not identity.
Also, I never said that theos was an adjective. I said “The word theos here is acting as an adjective.” It acts like an adjective in this case because it is QUALITATIVE.
Being qualitative, it is describing the quality of something in size, appearance, value, etc. The NT Bible writere4s were Jews. They used both the Hebrew and Greek versions of the “OT”. The Hebrew word that we have translated as “god” did not me ““god” as we now understand the word. The Hebrew words basically meant “mighty one” or “strong one”. The Hebrew “God” was referred to as the Almighty, Mighty One”. That is why Moses, judges and angels were rightly called “gods”. They were mighty ones but not the Almighty one.
At John 1:1, to a Hebrew back then, they would have understood that to say “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the “Almighty One” and the word was a mighty one” The word mighty is an adjective. We know that the Jews accepted that because John records what Jesus said when Jesus quoted from Psalms 82:1 as recorded at John 10:35 “ If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;” (KJV)
Lets compare Psalms 82:1 “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.” (JKV) The word mighty in that text is El which the KJV translates as “God” 213 times and “god” 16 times puss several sundry renderings.
The first word in that text “God” is the Hebrew word “Elohim”. The last word in the text “gods” also “Elohim”
We today have borrowed the word “god” not from Hebrew or Greek writers of the Bible but from a Germanic language where the word “god” (probably gott) and means invoked one.
In Biblical Greek lexicons you will more than likely find that they say that theos is of unknown origin. Therefore to say that at John 1:1 the last occurrence of the word theos that it acts like an adjective is correct. I found this web site that has a good argument for the word god at times, being an adjective. facebook.com/notes/will-graham/god-as-an-adjective/454940771209287
The other factors that argue to the NWT is that when ever John uses the same construction as found in John 1:1c Bible translators have absolutely no problem in inserting the word “a”. That construction is when we find an anarthrous singular nominative count noun preceding a copulative verb. I made a chart using Phillip B. Harner's, 1973 JBL article, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1." lists of texts in the book of John and examined them. I found about 15 other examples of constructions that follow John 1:1c where the indefinite article is added.
+Ben Burns
Here is a list of other anarthrous pre-verbal count noun predicate nominatives like at 1:1c in John's Gospel compiled several years ago I use to consult with on occasion.
And as you can see, Bible translators have no qualms about regularly inserting the indefinite article before the predicate noun.
All except at John 1:1c ... Why?
The answer is of course quite obvious. Theology and not scholarship is primarily driving the translations of Trinitarian scholars.
And they have the nerve to excoriate Jehovah's Witnesses and their NWT for bias, dishonesty and Arianism? Or others that render likewise of always assuming Unitarianism like they don't assume Trinitarianism?
Please gimme a break ....
1. John 4:19
PROFHTHS EI SU
"a prophet you are"
2. John 6:70
DIABOLOS ESTIN
"a devil is"
3. John 8:34
DOULOS ESTIN
"a slave is"
4. John 8:44
ANQRWPOKTONOS HN
"a manslayer was"
5. John 8:44
YEUSTHS ESTIN
"a liar he is"
6. John 8:48
SAMARITHS EI SU
"a Samaritan are you"
7. John 9:17
PROFHTHS ESTIN
"a prophet he is"
8. John 9:24
hAMARTWLOS ESTIN
"a sinner is"
9. John 9:25
hAMARTWLOS ESTIN
"a sinner he is"
10. John 10:1 [see footnote to John 10:1]
KLEPTHS ESTIN
"a thief is"
11. John 10:13
MISQWTOS ESTIN
"a hired hand he is"
12. John 12:6
KLEPTHS HN
"a thief he was"
13. John 18:35
EGO IOUDAIOS EIMI
"I a Jew am"
14. John 18:37a
BASILEUS EI SU
"a king are you?"
15. John 18:37b
BASILEUS EIMI
"a king I am"
Footnote to John 10:1: Note: At John 10:1, notice that there's no difference between how KLEPTHS (=thief) is handled, which occurs before the verb, and LhiSTHS (=robber) is handled, which occurs after the verb.
The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Society know everything, but truly don't know anything. God Himself can stand before a Jehovah's Witness and correct him, and yet he would call God a liar! That's how brain-washed and indoctrinated they are in believing their false teachers. It's not only John 1:1 that proves that Jesus is the true God, it's the Scriptures that proceed it. It is written, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life: and the life was the light of men." (John 1:1-4 KJV) If all things were made by Jesus Christ, and without Him was not any thing made that was made, how could Jesus be a created being? This not possible, unless He created Himself! It also states, "In him was life: and the life was the light of men? This means Jesus is our life, without him, we have no life! It is written, "All things were made by him: and without him was not any thing made that was made?" We know for a fact that God created all things! It is written, according to the Holy Bible, "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him: and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Corinthians 8:6 KJV) It is written, "In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was not anything made that was made." (John 1:1-3 KJV) It is written, "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30 KJV) It is written again, "Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also." (John 8:19 KJV)
Demetrius3434 when Jesus sacrificed his life for all, his father YHWH gave him the god given authority to be god for those that he died for , and he is still the son of God, when all things are established by him he will return everything back to his father,
And he will submit himself to his father so his father YHWH will all in all,
Henry Santiago
You conclude John 1:1 says that Lord Jesus was created?
How do explain the Word was or existed and not created?
Was the Word a god?
Lord Jesus is the Savior?
Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no god formed, neither shall there be after me.
Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and besides me there is no savior.
His kingdom is ETERNAL and He is SAVIOR:
2 Peter 1:11 For thus you will be richly supplied with the entrance into the eternal Kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
The Lord Jesus is Eternal:
1 John 1:2, John 5:39, 1 John 5:20 since He is eternal life He must also be the true God.
Isaiah 9:6 Author of Eternal life - Everlasting Father.
Vs 3 proved His deity as the Creator of all things.
ISV Bible:
John 1:1 In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Webster Bible:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Colossians 1:15
The passage does not say that he was the first created, but the first-born. He was before creation.
Rev 3:14
ISV Bible:
Rev 3:14 "To the messenger of the church in Laodicea, write: 'The Amen, the witness who is faithful and true, the originator of God's creation, says this:
ERV Bible:
Rev 3:14 "Write this to the angel of the church in Laodicea: "Here is a message from the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of all that God has made.
Young's Literal Translation:
Rev 3:14 'And to the messenger of the assembly of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the witness-the faithful and true-the chief of the creation of God;
John 10:28 And I give to them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand.
John 10:29 My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than all; and none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Do the disciples give eternal life or believers will be in their hands? if you want to compare with John 17:20-21.
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Henry J. WILSON
Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no god formed, neither shall there be after me.
Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and besides me there is no savior.
Hosea 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no God but me: for there is no savior besides me.
@Azay Dee
Lord Jesus Christ the great God.
*[[Tit **2:13**]] KJV* Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Who is appearing?
*[[1Ti **6:14**]] KJV* That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
*[[1Pe 1:7]] KJV* That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
I suggest Henry you are a former Jdub , since before Abraham "I am" Jezus - the pharisees underztood this claim fully , to them it was blasphemy. But wait , a couple of bible translations dont say that so the origi nal teaching dont count ! Pl ease post your alleged " qualifications"
This verse, as discussed with the Jehovah’s Witness, is why I began my adventure to learn Greek.
I’m now on year 2 and really interested in the complexity of learning a second language. My mind is really expanded in the effort.
And while your explanation sounds very complicated to the uneducated, it really is basic first year stuff in the Greek language!
It is fun to know that my adventure began here, but now I am well beyond these basics as I learn more about how the Greek language works. This was a very good presentation… with maybe one exception: you indicated that the JWs have an acceptable translation with the missing article, but I don’t believe that’s correct: it WOULD HAVE BEEN if the word God was spelled in another way, suggesting it was the object, but it wasn’t. Having two subjects and no objects in the sentence doesn’t make one an imagined object but rather makes both subjects equal. Even in English if I am speaking of the table and chair, I eliminate the second the, because that makes them both equals in subject as a set. It would simply be incorrect to allow an interpretation to suggest the chair was the object because it doesn’t have a the.
Anybody who denies what God says about his son Jesus Christ, is actually calling God a Liar, bcuz he doesnt believe what God has said about his Son. 1John 5:10.
So the son being a witness of God definitely means he's not God ...
The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”-(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”-(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”-(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”-(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”-(New York, 1965), p. 899.
Even though, as Trinitarians acknowledge, neither the word “Trinity” nor a statement of the Trinitarian dogma is found in the Bible, are the concepts that are embodied in that dogma found there?
Historian Arthur Weigall: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord." -- The Paganism in Our Christianity
Prior to the end of the 4th century the pagan trinity was not a doctrine of Christendom.
Edward Gibbons stated, “If paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians.... was changed, by the church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.” History of Christianity, Edward Gibbon. Preface.
Fergus Odonnell on your comment here, have you considered that the word Bible is not used in the Bible as well. However you are not averse to using it to describe the corpus of Scripture. As far as Trinity being a late 4th century development remember Christianity was an illegal religion in the Empire for those first 300 years of church history with sporadic and violent persecution breaking out. Can you rightly expect to see church councils meeting publicly during that time until the ban was lifted?
+Fergus O’Donnell Unfortunately you are following the ways of the watchtower. The quote is misleading. You are misleading! Why don’t you include the full quote from the Encyclopaedia Britannica? Here is what you left out, "Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity"
I understand that Jesus is the visible face of invisible God.
So he has all the characteristics of God his Father.
That's why he said if you have seen me you have seen the Father.
You should have this mentality in you that although he existed in God's form he never thought of eaquality with God. The Father is greater than I am.
Not only that but let's reason this..
God said he is Jehovah alone. That us only the Father.
Jesus had a beginning, he was created by God.. direct from Him before anything else.
If you say God is more than one you're opposing the scriptures.
If you say Jesus is equal to God you're opposing the scriptures.
Wow, are U approving NWT? are U saying that the Word is genetical to the Creator, that we have two gods?
Well to me the begettor can only produce one of his own spice, so the NWT is correct in this matter & the Word is truly a god but not God the Creator but a lesser god' right? a second in rank god right? So, are you saying that the only beggoten of The Creator is NOT a spirit resident of spiritual realm heaven?
A simple "no or yes" WILL not be enough, still:
The Father/Tha Creator): yes is individual (one)
The Son "or" The beggoten: is also an individual like you & me, but He is not human nor spirit from Haven; He is (a god) not God The Creator but a one of a kind super being from a realm above spiritual heaven. Neh 6:9.
A simple "no or yes" WILL not be enough, still:
The Father/Tha Creator): yes is individual (one)
The Son "or" The beggoten: is also an individual like you & me, but He is not human nor spirit from Haven; He is (a god) not God The Creator but a one of a kind super being from a realm above spiritual heaven. Neh 6:9.
He is yes, a god. Don't you see? When He was physical He mentioned that He was from other regions not from physical territorial, remember? but He is not from spirit grounds either, Neh 9:6 heavens didn't existed when He was BORN from The Father & The Father beggoten one of HIS spice, kind, gender. get it?
I'm surprised: On your reply to " Real Alpha men" you tried to make him see the difference between (created v/I beggoten) concerning The Son of God or the only beggoten of the Father.
Only The Creator God or the Self Always Living, THE ETERNAL gave birth, gave life, brought to existence to a (new born) child, descendant, an offspring; so yes I'm completely aware of the truly Origen, substance, matter, ingredients that my Lord Jessy was produced off, manufactured, fabricated, bring about, GENERATED.
YES, Jesus brought forth from The Most Highest essence, mass, substance and at the moment when nothing else was in existence ( ONLY THE ETERNAL) I'm promted to acknowledge yes JESUS is truly a god.
The fact that the word that is before, and not before the second one shows that it’s not talking about them being one god
I'm not educated in Greek, but to my understanding (I've done a lot of research, but correct me if I'm wrong), the old Greek that was used to originally write the bible, had only plain letters. Nothing else. Only much, much later, scholars decided to add all kinds of punctuation marks.
So... the question is: who decided that the punctuation marks to those words pointed towards a subject or an object noun?
Following that, te next question is: how much of that choice was influenced by certain dogma's that were accepted, in some cases hundreds of years after the completion of the books in the bible? Dogma's even the Catholic church that believes those dogma's, agrees definitely weren't believed by the early christians, at the time those biblebooks were written and shortly after.
With that in mind, wouldn't it be more logical to weigh the meaning of these (and other) sentences, according to other verses in the bible? If one would truly objectively do so, I believe a lot of people would be surprised.
I would also encouraged people to do their own study, and include the change of written languages over time, before making any assumptions or embrace thought's of others. It's really not that hard, even when you're not educated in those lost languages. Base your conclusions on your own study, not on what others are saying.
Jehovah God in the last days is spoken of by his Son, Jesus Christ being the WORD and whom the Son was appointed by his Father as an heir of all things. Therefore if the Son is the same as the father and also as God who will inherit its things bcuz the Son is likewise the fathet. Very absurd trinitarian.
I guess JWs don't listen to what the doctrines of the Godhead really is then. There isn't a Christians out there that believes Jesus is the Father, that is modalism and it's heresy. Colossians 2:9 says that all the fulness of the GODHEAD dwells in bodily form. It's pretty simple. Verse 8 describes JWs perfectly; being deceived by the doctrines of men and not according to Christ.
If Jesus is The Great "I'm", the Father who is in heaven, why Peter and John said while they were preaching: Acts 3:13 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant and Son Jesus 15 But you killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead. and Paul in Galatians 1:1 God The Father resurrected Jesus and why Jesus himself said John 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not observe my words. The word that you are hearing is NOT MINE, but belongs to the Father WHO SENT ME...John12: 49 For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment means* everlasting life. So whatever I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.
John 1:1 is one of the biggest, misunderstood verses in the entire New Testament. Let's examine this more closely, shall we? Most Trinitarian Bibles render it as, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." That rendering is completely asinine and contradicts the Torah, Prophets, Writings, and pretty much the entire New Testament. The Word (Jesus) was not God, nor did the Messiah ever claim to be!
Consider some verses such as John 20:17 which reads, "Do not hold onto me, for I haven't ascended to the Father yet. Go to my brethren instead and tell them, "I'm returning to my Father and to your Father. To my God and to your God."' Now let's stop a minute and think, if Jesus really was God as most claim to be, then why would he say he was returning to his God and to ours? It is illogical to believe the Lord here is the true God.
Let's continue, "Jesus answered, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good except God."' (Luke 18:19; Mark 10:18) OK, this one is just too easy. If Jesus was God as Trinitarians proudly declare, then why didn't he take credit for his deeds? It's quite bizarre for "God" to direct praise to a different god, huh? I thought he was the Almighty, so why did he say only God is good? Why didn't so-called "God" accept it?
In another place it's written, "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it." (Acts 2:32) So, wait? God raised God from the dead? That's ridiculous! Torah teaches us that there's only one God, "Hear, O Israel. Jehovah our God, Jehovah is one." (Deuteronomy 6:4) Not only that, but Jesus prayed to God on multiple occasions: Hebrews 5:7, Luke 3:21, Matthew 14:23, Mark 6:46, Luke 6:12, Mark 1:35, Luke 5:16, Luke 9:18, Matthew 26:36, ect. Why would God pray to himself? Sounds pretty eccentric, to me.
Now that we've provided solid evidence that Jesus is not God, let's now examine more closely what's really being said by John in the fist chapter. John 1:1 in the Greek reads, "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος." It reads, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word." W-What!? But how!? See, there's no definite article before the word "Theos" (god) and when that happens in the Greek it's actually referring to a lesser, second god.
There's literally a Sahidic Coptic manuscript that literally reads, "ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥШ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥШ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ". It translates, "In the beginning existed the word and the word existed with the god and a god was the word." As you can see, even ancient manuscripts agreed with the rules of Greek grammar unlike modern Bible translators today. According to the Bible, there's only one, true God: "That men may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalm 83:18) Amen!
Show less
REPLY
You prefer a later Coptic manuscript to the Greek? How many of these Coptics are there with this reading? Different place, language and time I suppose as well. What is the date on that manuscript?
+Wynn Morris
Read my comment carefully, you haven't learned anything.
Ok. I read it again. All I would like to know is the date on the Coptic manuscript you refer to or at least it's name please.
I'm not sure of the actual date of the manuscript, for I haven't researched its history. The point I was trying to make was how most Trinitarians mistranslated and misunderstood John 1:1 to the point of insanity. It's quite clear from Scripture that Jesus is not God and that he's simply his Son. (Matthew 16:16)
Ok Thanks for your honesty. Its just that you are supporting your view with a Coptic text that reads differently from the ancient Greek manuscripts. The Greek are no doubt much earlier and involve much fewer translation issues. Just curious why you would place so much stock in a Coptic reading?
Awesome explanation.
Was clear as mud to me. John also wrote,
'No man has SEEN God AT ANY TIME.' - 1 John 4:12.20.
Thus, John wouldn't be that crazy to even hint that Jesus was God.
thats correct, so whenever it was the case the translator had to have the insight where to translate the noun with an indefinite article and where to leave it without an article. This pretends a good possession of the language, BUT more important the good understanding of the context.
THE CORRECT WAY TO UNDERSTAND JOHN 1:1. JOHN 1:1 SHOULD SAY "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, and THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND THE WORD WAS DIVINE (GODLY). NOT BEING GOD. YOU CANT "BE WITH" AND BE SOMETHING. ITS EITHER OR.
Bronze ... Angels and Jesus are created beings ... Jehovah God is not! Jesus was even made lower than the angels as the scripture point out (Hebrews 2:7 ). How can God Almighty be made lower than the things he created? Your reasoning is invalid and simply makes no sense.
It's nature, In the beginning was the woman and the woman was with the man and the woman was human.
True or false?
In the beginning was the word (Jesus) and the word (Jesus) was with God (the father) and the word (jesus) was God (divine).
Like begets like. Jesus can have the divine nature of his Father without being his father. The father is the OTG and he has a son, Jesus Christ!
In the beginning was the [Bible] and the [Bible] was with God and the [Bible] was [the Word of] God:
This same [Bible] was in the beginning with God.
Spirits do not multiply in the sense that something is physically created but rather that 'something' inherits a likeness of the Spirit.
Asam Asam, God's 'divine nature' is that he is exactly 1: and this is [the sum of] ETERNAL LIFE, to understand and to know the 1 true God, and Jesus Christ whom God has sent (John 17v3)
@@josephglover4546
In the verse you just quoted is the answer, eternal life that they may know the one true God.
Who is that ONE true God? None other than the Father.
As it goes on AND Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
In order to be numerically one it must be one; the words and, with, & also all state there is more than one being referred to. God is one, Jesus is one, 1 + 1 does not equal 1. Jesus is divine as the son of God, but he isn't the OTG.
John 8:17
It is also written in your law that the testimony of TWO men is true. I am one who bears witness of myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness of Me.
TWO WITNESSES
Two beings, not 3, not a trinity, not 1, not Oneness, but two divine beings and one that is the source of the other. God the Father is the source of all including his son.
'ONLY' means 1, 'TRUE' means none other than the 1, & God the Father is that 1: the rest of the verse could refer to the whole angelic host and it would not change the first part of the sentence.
Just because it says that God wants you to know his Son does not mean that the Son is God with God or that somehow they are '1' in unison.
Christ is the heir of the things of God; nothing is intrinsically his...or he wouldn't be an 'heir':
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom [he hath appointed] heir of all things, by whom also [he made the worlds];" -Hebrews 1v2
God, the Father, made the worlds by giving the commandment to his son to execute.
Think also of the verse "[And God said] let us make man in our image":
God said, and someone was listening, 'let us make man in our image': God is not the image of his Son, his Son is the image of him; the Son/image of God...OF...GOD.
John chapter one causes more controversy than any other one in the bible! Its good to remember that when Jude ( Jesus brother!) said "The faith was delivered once for all time to the holy ones" ( Jude 3) this was around 55AD! At least 40 years BEFORE John wrote his gospel! So the use of the title 'The Word' cannot be essential for faith since its NOT found in any of the other three gospels or the epistles! Also I am NOIT a JW but their understanding of the 'Word' is shared by a number of bible scholars! Christianity spread by the 'word of God' they had AT THAT TIME, and the Holy spirit!
Rev 10:1 And I saw another MIGHTY ANGEL come down from heaven, CLOTHED WITH A CLOUD: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire:
Rev 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, HAVING GREAT POWER; and the earth was lightened with HIS GLORY.
Rev. 10:1 QUESTION: Who is the MIGHTY ANGEL coming down from heaven CLOTHED WITH A CLOUD ?
Rev. 18:1 QUESTION; Who is the angel coming down from heaven HAVING GREAT POWER AND GLORY ?
ANSWER: Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven WITH POWER AND GREAT GLORY.
IF THE SPIRIT OF SATAN IS ON YOU, SIMPLE TRUTH CAN NOT BE GRASPED AND UNDERSTOOD.
My Question is: Why does the nominative predicate drop the article "the" when talking about God? Why are we assuming that it is there?
He said it himself, when there is no "The" behind theos, then it becomes "a god". But why under the Nominative Predicate rule does "a god" turn into "the god" in meaning? Why not leave it simply as "a god" as in: "The word was a god". Why does the Nominative Predicate add "the" to god?
• 1808: "and the Word was a god" - Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
• 1822: "and the Word was a god" - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)
• 1829: "and the Word was a god" - The Monotessaron; 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)
• 1864: "and a god was the Word" - The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading)
• 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 [a] God was the word" - The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, by George William Horner.[17]
• 1958: "and the Word was a god" - The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
• 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" - Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany
• 1975: "and the Word was a god" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);
• 1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin
•
(Source - Wikipedia - John 1:1)
'and the Word WAS God' doesn't even make sense. It would imply that Jesus had been God at some point in time. But now he ISN'T God.
Your last statement on Jesus being a God in some point in time and not anymore is just stupid. if God is God, then he is not affected by time. So whether it says was, or is it really doesn't matter. He remains God regardless. I've seen this used to many times and it needs to be stopped because it doesn't work. If I say "I was a footballer in 1993" that says nothing about whether I'm still a footballer today. All you know that in the past I was a "footballer". What we have is human beings, using human language to describe and infinite ever existing God. That's it!
*My Question To Trinitarians Who Prefer The King James Version*
Please explain why the KJV Bible (and other off-shoot bibles) add the indefinite article [a] in several texts but remove it at John 1:1?
[Some Examples]:
a) Acts 28:6 - People viewed Paul as *[a] god*
(In Ancient Koine Greek, there is no “a” before “God, right?”)
b) Mark 6:49 - [a] spirit
c) John 6:70 - Judas called [a] devil
~~~~~~~
d)* Exodus 7:1 - Moses called [a] god to Pharaoh...
*[NOTE]: There were "no" vowels in Ancient Hebrew, only consona
nts.* They wrote the way we text msg & abbreviate today:
Examples:
• msg (message)
• ystrdy (yesterday)
• btw (between), etc.
People truly do NOT understand our Creator and Redeemer.
Christians, or anyone belonging to a worldly religion of any kind will NEVER understand.
Why?
And I heard another voice from the heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues.
Ḥazon (Revelation) 18:4 TS2009
Our Creator is Spirit and everywhere as well as eternal. What we need to understand is that He therefore lives in us. We cannot be alive without the Spirit in us. When the Spirit in us withdraw we return to dust.
And יהוה Elohim formed the man out of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils breath of lives. And the man became a living being.
Berĕshith (Genesis) 2:7 TS2009
Now, the only way we can know or communicate to the Spirit in us, is by talking to His Voice we hear. This is the reason why Yahshua IS Yahweh, because Yahweh's Voice (The Word) is Yahshua. Yahweh can manifest in many ways to us, but a manifestation is only part of Yahweh. On the other hand a manifestation can never be an entity on it's/his or her own. Therefore Yahweh our Creator manifested as a man on earth (a branch / an arm) as an example and testimony to us what His intentions were, when He created us.
THERE IS ONLY ONE! = YAHWEH
I AM
And His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns, having a Name that had been written, which no one had perceived except Himself - and having been dressed in a robe dipped in blood - and His Name is called: The Word of יהוה.
Ḥazon (Revelation) 19:12-13 TS2009
Therefore יהושע said to them again, “I am going away, and you shall seek Me, and you shall die in your sin. Where I go you are unable to come.” And He said to them, “You are from below, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world.
Therefore I said to you that you shall die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins.
Then they said to Him, “Who are You?” And יהושע said to them, “Altogether that which I even say to you!
Yoḥanan (John) 8:21, 23-25 TS2009
“Thus said יהוה, Sovereign of Yisra’ĕl, and his Redeemer, יהוה of hosts, ‘I am the First and I am the Last, besides Me there is no Elohim. Thus said יהוה, your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb, “I am יהוה, doing all, stretching out the heavens all alone, spreading out the earth, with none beside Me,
Yeshayah (Isaiah) 44:6, 24 TS2009
JESUS = THE ANTICHRIST
THE LAWLESS ONE
THE CROSS = THE MARK OF SATAN
POPE FRANCIS = THE FALSE PROPHET (SATAN MANIFESTED AS A MAN)
THE 2 LAMP STANDS
OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW
The old testify to the new and vice versa.
The new covenant only remove the offerings and man-made traditions, not the 10 Commandments and Yahweh's appointed times. He in fact wrote it on our hearts. The whole Bible in one word = OBEDIENCE.
Obedience to Yahweh = LOVE
“For I am יהוה, I shall not change, and you, O sons of Ya‛aqoḇ, shall not come to an end.
Mal’aḵi (Malachi) 3:6 TS2009
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of turning.
Ya‛aqoḇ (James) 1:17 TS2009
SEARCH FOR YAHWEH IN YOU WITH ALL YOUR HEART AND SOUL, DIE TO THE SELF AND MONEY, FIND MEEKNESS AND COMPASSION, BE OBEDIENT TO YAHWEH AND FOLLOW THE TESTIMONY OF YAHSHUA AND YOU WILL FIND THE TRUTH, LIFE AND ETERNAL LOVE!
The Trinitarian blunder is the result of a fatal assumption at Hebrews 1:7 where they assumed God is the speaker at Psalm 104:4 which is being quoted in verse 7. Having assumed God is the speaker at Hebrews 1:7, they presume God is the speaker at verses 8 to 9 and again at verses 10-12. Hence, they require God to be the speaker in verse 7 for Him to be the speaker in verse 10. However, we have seen God is not the speaker of Psalm 102 being quoted at Hebrews 1:10-12. And God is not the speaker in verse 7 either. Again, the Psalmist is the speaker and he is speaking to God and about God.
Bless the LORD, O my soul!
AWESOME grammar explanation. JESUS IS GOD!!
No, this is actually a very poor explanation of the grammar used at Jn. 1:1c. And Dr. Vickers even contradicts most Trinitarian scholars and their theology on the issue today.
For instance, among other problems Vickers claims that the anarthrous θεος at 1:1c should be read as though θεος has the Greek article written before it, even though it is not actually there.
And that the omission of the article before θεος is only used to indentify the predicate in the phrase from the subject.
But this would mean the predicate θεος at Jn. 1:1c is grammatically definite, which virtually no Trinitarian scholar or grammarian today would agree with.
As (again, according to their own theology) it would make the clause at Jn. 1:1c a fully "convertible proposition" and therefore either make Jesus the Father. And thus the heresy modalism or Sabellianism.
Or it would make Jesus "all of God" or the entire God-head. And thus exclude the other Persons of the Trinity.
If Jesus is The Great "I'm", the Father who is in heaven, why Peter and John said while they were preaching: Acts 3:13 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant and Son Jesus 15 But you killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead. and Paul in Galatians 1:1 God The Father resurrected Jesus and why Jesus himself said John 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not observe my words. The word that you are hearing is NOT MINE, but belongs to the Father WHO SENT ME...John12: 49 For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment means* everlasting life. So whatever I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.
Who appointed Jesus as high priest? Hebrews 3: consider the apostle and high priest whom we acknowledge-Jesus. 2 He was faithful to the One who appointed him, Hebrews 5:5
the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: “You are my son; today I have become your father.”
-- John 5:24 Jesus said: Most truly I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes the One who sent me has everlasting life, and he does not come into judgment but has passed over from death to life.
-
Jesus has a God and father above him
There's a lot of problems with John 1:1. Grammar etc. It should be translated as the word was divine.
The way mainstream Christianity understands the logos of John 1 is not how the 1st Century CE Christians understood it. So the teaching of the logos came about from a Greek Philosopher known as Heraclitus in 600 BCE who designated the logos as divine reason or plan. Later Philo mentioned how logos of G-d is the bond of everything including creation. So what is the logos? The logos is one's thoughts, idea, plan etc. So in John's prologue (John 1) the author is stating how G-d's logos (thoughts, ideas, plan) was made manifest in the life and testimony of Jesus. Now in John 1 the logos is not a person. Also the chapter is subjected to translator bias. As mentioned earlier John 1:1 should be rendered as the word was divine. Also one should note that in Greek there is only 1 case of letters. So translators biasly capitalize the W for Word to make it appear it's refering to a person.
Also they translate the word as he or him. But there are no other places in Scripture where “word,” (logos) is translated as “he” or “him.” It is never a person. The translators always exchange the masculine pronoun for “it.” For example:
Matthew 13:20 (NASB)”The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word [logos] and immediately receives it with joy.”
Notice how the Tyndale and Geneva Bible doesn't captialize the W in word or call it a he or him
John 1:1-5 (Tyndale Bible 1526) In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men 5and the lyght shyneth in the darcknes but the darcknes comprehended it not.
John 1:1-5 (Geneva Bible 1560) In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was [e]with God, and that [f]Word was God. 2 This same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. 4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 And that light shineth in the wilderness,
Another consideration to take is in English, we differentiate between G-d and other so called gods by capitalizing the “G” when it refers to The G-d of Israel YHVH. But since New Testament Greek manuscripts were written using all one case of letters, another way was needed to differentiate between G-d and gods. So in order to signal to the reader that theos is referring to G-d (YHVH), the New Testament writers add the definite article “the” which is “ho” in Greek. So ho theos or “the G-d” is used to refer to YHVH. This contrasts with the first mentioning of this noun expressed by ton theon, the accusative case of ho theos (“the G-d”), the noun theos preceded by the definite article ho
It is evident from the Greek text, where, as we have just seen, the definite article ho appears before the first mention of G-d in the sentence, but is omitted before the second
For this reason, some translators render John 1:1 as “the word was deity” or “was divine.”
Conclusion: The logos is not a person in John 1 but simply was understood by 1st Century CE Christians that the logos was G-d's thoughts, ideas, plan made manifest in the life and testimony of Jesus
The problem isn't in the last clause, but in the first. Jesus isn't mentioned there, but inferred by capitalizing word.
1 cor 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father
"there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ" Is God not Lord?
@@barnabaspark 1 cor 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father,
This in an exquisite example if why they are against higher education
"In the beginning" What beginning? The Creation or the beginning of Christ's ministry? John is talking about the start of Christ's ministry, and the verse doesn't need any interpretation.
Even if you take your supposition, The Baptism of Jesus has The Father speaking from Heaven “This is My Son”! & The Holy Spirit coming down and filling and remaining with Jesus!
Read Hebrews chapter 1 God never called an angel His Son!
If Jesus is The Great "I'm", the Father who is in heaven, why Peter and John said while they were preaching: Acts 3:13 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant and Son Jesus 15 But you killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead. and Paul in Galatians 1:1 God The Father resurrected Jesus and why Jesus himself said John 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not observe my words. The word that you are hearing is NOT MINE, but belongs to the Father WHO SENT ME...John12: 49 For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment means* everlasting life. So whatever I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.
Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB Bibles have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)
Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses (5-7) say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.
Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·osʹ] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·osʹ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·himʹ] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·osʹ] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”-The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.
So this is probably over your head……isn’t it?
How did watchtower in acts 20:28 inserted the nonexistent word “Son”? Is the word of God with or without “Son” on this verse?
holy crap did it ever help!!!
Good video thanks.
Question:
1) In this case, is the only way to translate it is .." God" and not "a god." JW is wrong?
2) Why didn't John write greek version of "the God" in the 3rd sentence like in 2nd sentence?
3) How would John write if the 3rd sentence is "a god."
1. Yes, the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong.
2. He didn't use the definite article in the third phrase like he did in the second phrase because of the position of the other article with logos.
3. If John were to write "a god" in the third phrase, he would have had to remove the ὁ in front of λόγος so we can grammatically say that his intention was to communicate "a god" separate and distinct from by nature that is God. Considering the position of θεὸς and λόγος in the third phrase, it is impossible not to read it as The Word (Jesus) being as to its nature deity.
I think Vickers would answer the 2nd question that it had to be omitted to show which noun in the clause is the subject, but to be understood by it's original readers as if it did. This is nonsense of course as the previous two clauses show that the logos is the subject and no confusion would have arisen if both nouns had the article. Hence John omitted it because the logos is not ho theos, the god, God, but theos, god, who was "with" **another** theos, who is ho theos, the god, God(1.1b). Vickers is misleading the uninformed and showing his own lack of knowledge.
@@brucebarnardI guess every other scholar is absent that knowledge.
@@jeremiahh.3383 Every other scholar? No, most scholars who are not biased toward a man-made teaching of the Trinity would know the truth of what I stated respecting the subject of John. 1.1.
@@brucebarnard The majority of scholars, even non Christian scholars adhere to the neutrality expected of those teaching in academia and teach the same regarding this issue of language. This is an issue of language and not of one's beliefs. Your, nore their beliefs dictate the rule of languages no more than it dictates the rule of mathematics.
The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority
The Sahidic Coptic text reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine.
The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”
The Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God.
Coptic John 1:1, Assumptions vs. Facts
coptictruch.blogspot.com/
Not ONE of the scholars appealed to by the apologists said that Coptic John 1:1 should be translated to say "The Word was God." Not one. Not one said that "a god" was an incorrect translation of Coptic ou.noute. In fact, the interlinear reading for Sahidic Coptic John 1:1c in scholar Bentley Layton's Coptic in 20 Lessons (2007)specifically reads "a-god is the-Word."
The Coptic text of John 1:1c was made prior to the adoption of the Trinity doctrine by Egyptian and other churches, and it is poor scholarship to attempt to perform eisegesis by "reading back" a translation such as "the Word was God" into any exegesis of the Coptic text. Such a rendering is foreign to Coptic John 1:1c, which clearly and literally says, "the Word was a god."
Trinitarian NT Greek experts Dana and Mantey specifically give us an example of "a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1"! Yes, these prominent trinitarian scholars have translated "market was the place" in the literal ancient Greek as "and the place was a market." They even described this example as a parallel to John 1:1! - p. 148, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Macmillan Publ.
The trinity was developed by philosophy and deceit.
The word trinity first used in 150 AD did not say God was 3 persons in one God. The Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. did not include the holy spirit. The holy spirit was added in the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. This means the trinity doctrine took centuries to develop. Jesus and his apostles warned about the apostasy that would occur in later times.
The ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes was common.
PLATO, it is thought, lived from 428 to 347 before Christ. While he did not teach the Trinity in its present form, his philosophies paved the way for it. Later, philosophical movements that included triadic beliefs sprang up, and these were influenced by Plato’s ideas of God and nature.
The French Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (New Universal Dictionary) says of Plato’s influence: “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge shows the influence of this Greek philosophy: “The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied.”
The Church of the First Three Centuries says: “The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers.”
By the end of the third century C.E., “Christianity” and the new Platonic philosophies became inseparably united. As Adolf Harnack states in Outlines of the History of Dogma, church doctrine became “firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians.”
The church claimed that its new doctrines were based on the Bible. But Harnack says: “In reality it legitimized in its midst the Hellenic speculation, the superstitious views and customs of pagan mystery-worship.”
In the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity: “We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.”
Thus, in the fourth century C.E., the apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles came into full bloom.
Greek Philosophy's Influence on the Trinity Doctrine
www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/greek-philosophys-influence-on-the-trinity-doctrine
Jesus never claimed to be the Almighty God and never taught a trinity.
Jesus reply to the woman at the well was: “Believe me, woman, The hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you people worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation originates with the Jews. Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him. God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth.”-John 4:21-24.
Jesus said we worship what we know and that person was the Father. Not himself and not the holy spirit. The trinity was not taught by Jesus.
Trinitarians worship what they do not know. They don't try to understand it with human intellect. pagan mystery-worship.
Again verse 24 says: “...the Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him...” This would include Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses but rules out trinitarians since trinitarians base their God on pagan mystery-worship.
It goes on to say: “God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth.”
So God is the Father (from the preceding sentence), not some trinity.
This is what Jesus taught.
Paul believed only the Father was God.
1 Corinthians 8:6 (ASV) yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.
In Paul's day God had not revealed himself to be a trinity. The Father was God and Jesus being Lord had authority over Paul, the authority given to Jesus by God. And no holy spirit mentioned. Now if God were a trinity Paul would have said so.
Paul said God the Father created all things. He created all things THROUGH Jesus. Now this does not make Jesus the Almighty since God spoke THROUGH angels and men and it did not make them the Almighty. Notice too the holy spirit was not given any credit for creating all things. That is because the holy spirit is not a person. It is sometimes personified.
Trinitarians say that in John 1:1 God means just the First Person of the Trinity, namely, “God the Father,” and so the Word was with God the Father in the beginning. On the basis of this definition of God, how could it be said that the Word, who they say is “God the Son,” is “God the Father”? And where does their “God the Holy Ghost” enter into the picture? If God is a Trinity, was not the Word with “God the Holy Ghost” as well as with “God the Father” in the beginning?
Suppose, now, they say that, in John 1:1, 2, God means the other two Persons of the Trinity, so that in the beginning the Word was with God the Father and God the Holy Ghost. In this case we come to this difficulty, namely, that, by being God, the Word was God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, the other two Persons of the Trinity. Thus the Word, or “God the Son,” the Second Person of the Trinity, is said to be also the First Person and the Third Person of the Trinity. It does not solve the difficulty to say that the Word was the same as God the Father and was equal to God the Father but still was not God the Father. If this were so, it must follow that the Word was the same as God the Holy Ghost and was equal to God the Holy Ghost but still was not God the Holy Ghost.
Pagan mystery worship.
Joseph Tucker wrote;
>
Yep ...
And the celebrated case of Dr. Mantey here is frequently cited by critics and opposers of JWs as a glaring example of the WT's alleged penchant for "quoting scholars out of context" ....
When the reality is Mantey put his proverbial "foot in his mouth" and unintentionally gave support to the NWT's rendering of Jn. 1:1c. And then he actually displayed a glaring example of the paradoxical "Jekyll & Hyde" nature of "Trinitarian scholars."
Where on one hand, Mantey is "Dr. Jekyll" and does honest work in his grammar by properly comparing the same grammatical syntax used at Jn. 1:1c "ΘΕΟΣ ΗΝ 'Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ" lit. "god was the Word." With a passage taken from the ancient secular Greek work "Xenophon's Anabasis" at 1:4:6 ...
"EMPORION D' HN TO XWRION" ...
Lit. "Market but was the place."
Where Mantey translated from the Anabasis ...
"The place was a market"
And claimed "the place is not the only market."
But then became "Mr Hyde where fails to follow through properly due to his religious bias for the Trinity by rendering Jn. 1:1c.
"The Word was Deity"
And stating that "neither is the Word all of God."
Huh? ...
"The place is not the only market" is parallel to "neither is the Word all of God?"
Ah, no Dr. Mantey, that is NOT a true parallel comparison as you allege. But what you should have said had your obvious Trinitarianism not gotten in the way was ....
"The place was a market"
As the place was not the only market, as there are other markets of course
And "the Word was a god"
As there are other "gods" in scripture. Where all the angels as sons of God, are also called "gods." (Gen. 6:4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 8:5; 97:7; 138:1).
Regrettably Mantey then continued being "Mr Hyde" by attempting all manner of spin-control to try an extricate himself and disavow the obvious proof he gave in his own grammar by lambasting the WTS after they cited from it in their '69 KIT.
And also wrote in a famous, but totally ridiculous and error-laden letter to the Society further ridiculing them and demanding they remove the citation of his grammar.
Though I do grant Mantey the somewhat of a pardon in this area, since he was under tremendous pressure by rabid WT antagonists and opponents in Christendom such as the infamous Walter Martin. Who repeatedly pushed and hounded him to attack the Society this way. ...
John didn't write Coptic.
@@vedinthorn
Notice how other translations render this part of the verse:
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.
1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible-An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
At John 8:44. There Jesus says of the Devil: “That one was a manslayer” and “he is a liar.” Just as at John 1:1, the predicate nouns (“manslayer” and “liar”) precede the verbs (“was” and “is”) in the Greek. There is no indefinite article in front of either noun because there was no indefinite article in Koine Greek. But most translations insert the word “a” because Greek grammar and the context require it. The testimony of the entire Bible is that Jesus is not Almighty God.
@@josephtucker9612 John didn't write in Coptic and Greek grammar was poorly understood 100 years ago. Your objections are not valid.
James Moffatt Bible, Proverbs 8: 22-31 :"The Eternal formed me first of his creation, first of all his works in days of old; I was fashioned in the earliest ages, from the very first when earth began; I was born when there was no abysses, when there were no fountains full of water; ere he sunk the bases of the mountains, ere the hills existed I was born, when the earth and fields were not created, nor the very first clods of the world. When he set the heavens up I was there, when he drew the Vault o'er the abyss, when he made the clouds firm overhead, when he fixed the fountains of the deep, when he set the boundaries of the the sea, when he laid the foundation of the earth, I was with him then, his foster child, I was his delight day after day, playing in his presence constantly, playing here and there over his world, finding my delight in human-kind."
Mr DrJeffVickers; who do you suppose this is talking about here? You need to stop kidding around. People are educated today.
god as a godlike makes sense for who wants to make a point that Jesuscristo is not the almighty God , but yet hence, as the brother who was explaining it needs to be thoughtful , in Theos, expression as God the article "the" will be great if it was there, but it doesn't show an article, but yet the Greek text still proves the Word was God because the clue is in the "Word" as capital letter the Logos as important to relationship with God and (Word ) was God( John wrote Theos to refer Jesus as a God if not John will say the Word was a Word . But he ended with as a God as the same as his Farher, not mentioning John using Genesis 1:1 in the beginning, that verse as it states elohim( plural)that God was never alone in the creation,
*[No Trinity]* 📍 *[QUESTION 🙋🏽♂️]*
*John 1:1 [Indefinite Article [a] god]*
*Please explain* why the *King James Version* Bible (and other off-shoot bibles) *'consistently'* add *the indefinite article *[a]* in several texts except at *John 1:1?* 🤔
*Some Examples:*
a) *Acts 28:6* - People viewed Paul as *[a] god*
(In *Ancient Koine Greek,* there is no “a” before “god,” right?...
*Yet, when translated / transliterated into English, the "a" is inserted to correctly to complete the text.)*
b) *John 4:24* - God is *[a] Spirit*
~~~~~~~
*[Hebrew Text (Old Testament)]*
c) *Exodus 7:1* - *Almighty God appoints Moses* as *[a] god* to Pharaoh...
*[NOTE]: There were "no" vowels in Ancient Hebrew, only consonents. They wrote the way we text msg & abbreviate today:*
*Examples:*
• *msg (message)*
• *ystrdy (yesterday)*
• *btw (between), etc*
*[Plz Note] The King James Version* (1611) is just that *A Version* of other *English Bibles* B4 it...
Namely, *Tyndale's Bible (1560) & Bishop's Bible (1568).*
*It is NOT the First published English Bible*
the video ought to provide the way it would have been written if "theos" is used as a common noun "a god".
Without doing so, he may have proven the validity of "theos" as a qualitative noun but this does not invalidated JW's reading as a common noun.
Subject and Object nouns are not in dispute here. both camps are in agreement.
except there's no grammatical reason to change the meaning of theos in the middle of the sentence, so it must mean the same thing as in the first two instances.
@@vedinthorn yup. anyone who argues for two differing usages does so for theological reasons.
So the last sentence essentially means that Jesus as the "word" and The God's first creation has a unified nature or is a direct representation of The God itself?
The expression kai theos een ho logos uses the predicative nominative without an article to say the equivalence is between the logos and a god. This goes with the logos being ho theos - He is both and there is no repetition. This formulation is unique in spiritual history & no previous grammar applies to theosis.
Did you listen to the Doctor explained it ? why dont you do a video like his one and explain your view-?
@@c19commander44 There are 2 RUclips videos Why Theosis is genius by Jim Overbeck & Theosis equals genius. The Greek of the Johannine Prologue should be seen with reference to Luke 24:45 > it doesn't matter how succinctly I explain the differences & distinctions between God & His gods, if He doesn't OPEN the mind of the percipient only the dead letter issues forth. No amount of explanation brings on the experience of becoming a god, only its spiritual reality.
@@JimOverbeckgenius - Since you believe that men are gods also and men can be worship.are you a god? can anyone worship you? you would be ok with that,right?
@@c19commander44 Deified men become gods in Christ Almighty by His Loving Grace, but He Alone is worthy of worship by us. I'm just a fucking dirty sinner enmeshed by the vile insanity of mortals & filthy imbeciles, of whom you no doubt are one.
Is this the same as Sharps Rule? Seems like it may be. In 1798 CE amateur scholar, Granville Sharp came up with this rule which has been rebunked, proved to be false.
@ACE WG No. This would be classified as Colwell's Rule. Words that are definite, as defined by the context, and precede the verb usually lack the article. In this case "God" is a definite noun preceding the verb so it will lack the article.
While it is true that in equative sentences the predicate noun might be omitted to identify the subject it is not a hard and fast rule. Context helps us identify the subject as well and in this instance λογος (Word) has been the subject twice in the preceding two clauses. Also, it is theologically problematic for trinitarians for θεος (god in the third clause, commonly called clause c (John 1:1c) to be definite event though anarthrous (that is it doesn't have a qualifying definite article) because that makes the sentence a convertible proposition. A convertible proposition is a sentence where the subject noun and the predicate noun can change places with no change in meaning. For example in the sentence Joe Biden is the president, the name Joe Biden is the subject and the president is the predicate noun (a predicate nouns predicates or makes a statement about the subject). So the predicate of the sentence is "is the president" which is a statement about the subject which is Joe Biden. As I mentioned this sentence is a convertible proposition, that is to say that the subject noun and predicate noun can swap places and the meaning is not changed. So if we make the phrase "the president" the subject and Joe Biden the predicate noun we have the sentence The president is Joe Biden. This is equal in meaning to Joe Biden is the president. So a definite reading of θεος (God) at John 1:1c is theologically problematic for trinitarians because this makes the Word the same being that he was with in clause b (The Word was with God) so that they share the same identity. Not only is this a paradox (how can the Word be with himself) but it suggests there is only one person (person as in personality and in the trinitarian sense and not a human person) in view which is against the trinitarian view that there are three persons in one God. The view that θεος (God) is definite in the third clause results in what is called Sabellianism or modalism. Which is that God is only one person but manifests himself in three different roles, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is anathema to orthodox trinitarianism.
So to sum up, it's not necessary for the predicate noun to be without the definite article so as to identify the subject because the context points to the Word as being the subject and if the predicate noun was definite then the sentence is a convertible proposition and there is no change in meaning if the subject noun and predicate noun switch places. Also, if θεος in clause c is definite though it doesn't have the definite article it is a convertible proposition and supports modalism not trinitarianism. For this reason Dr Daniel B. Wallace argues for θεος as qualitative, that is functioning more like an adjective and should be read as divine. So his preferred reading is And the Word was Divine. This resolves the issue of the reading, And the Word was God as supporting modalism.
15:54
@@theonik6082 ?
@@theonik6082 Smyth's translation in section 973 is informative on the omission of the article. Section 1129 speaks directly to the affect of the omission of the article. That is it is omitted when used of a class. But as you'll see it may also be omitted to distinguish the predicate noun from the subject noun. This isn't a hard and fast grammatical rule. So at John 1:1c we have the two above options to choose from. Either John is signaling that the Word belongs to the class called gods or he's worried that that the subject and predicate will be confused. But if the meaning is The Word was God then this is a convertible proposition and can be stated the other way around without loss of mean so that God was the Word is the same as The Word was God. This makes the identity of the Word the same as that of God which is Modalism not Trinitarianism.
Smyth 973. A predicate substantive agrees with its subject in case: Μιλτιάδης ἦν στρατηγός Miltiades was a general.
1129. Words denoting persons, when they are used of a class, may omit the article. So ἄνθρωπος, στρατηγός, θεός divinity, god (ὁ θεός the particular god). Thus, πάντων μέτρον ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν man is the measure of all things P. Th. 178 b.
1150. A predicate noun has no article, and is thus distinguished from the subject: καλεῖται ἡ ἀκρόπολις ἔτι ὑπʼ Ἀθηναίων πόλις the acropolis is still called ‘city’ by the Athenians T. 2. 15.
GRAMMAR
FOR COLLEGES
by
HERBERT WEIR SMYTH
Ph.D., University of Göttingen
eliot professor of greek literature in harvard university
If your not going to confuse us “with deep technicalities of Greek” of what value is this video? It is after all the nuances and subtleties of the Greek language that is important, especially in this context.
Valuable in understanding why Godhead is a Trinity and in Christ dwells the FULNESS of the Godhead.