Cross Reference
New member
The Son of God became the Son of man?
Why doesn't that ring logical given John 1:1 KJV?
Why doesn't that ring logical given John 1:1 KJV?
The Son of God became the Son of man?
Why doesn't that ring logical given John 1:1 KJV?
Probably because nearly all Trinitarian-translated Bibles reject the most probable translation of John 1:1c.
John is the only Gospel writer who points out the truth about the various meanings of 'theos' ('God' or 'a god'). He shows, and dozens of Trinitarian scholars actually agree, that men who have been chosen by God for His purposes may be called 'gods.' Angels are also included in this category of 'gods in a good sense.
So when John 1:1c is properly translated according to John's usage in all his writings, it is not in a polytheistic sense of false gods (as some Trinitarians insist would be the case). In other words, grammatically and rationally "And the word was a god" is a scripturally and grammatically accurate translation.
The usual modern insistence that word order determines the usual rendering at John 1:1c ('God') is refuted by a proper examination of all John's other uses which are truly parallel to John 1:1c.
My personal take is that God has made several logoi i.e. statements. But of humans being god or gods, they may be a heresy of the moseretic text. I suspect god or a king, but it is silly for any human to be god. It would be limiting for God to put himself in a box.
Your statement is unconvincing.Not if the "box" was glorified. Not if the "box" was Himself.
Your statement is unconvincing.
Probably because nearly all Trinitarian-translated Bibles reject the most probable translation of John 1:1c.
John is the only Gospel writer who points out the truth about the various meanings of 'theos' ('God' or 'a god'). He shows, and dozens of Trinitarian scholars actually agree, that men who have been chosen by God for His purposes may be called 'gods.' Angels are also included in this category of 'gods in a good sense.
So when John 1:1c is properly translated according to John's usage in all his writings, it is not in a polytheistic sense of false gods (as some Trinitarians insist would be the case). In other words, grammatically and rationally "And the word was a god" is a scripturally and grammatically accurate translation.
The usual modern insistence that word order determines the usual rendering at John 1:1c ('God') is refuted by a proper examination of all John's other uses which are truly parallel to John 1:1c.
It is not a problem.Too bad. Your problem, not mine.
Which is the issue of HIS aspect ALONE - of the following...
Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
John 1:1c (continued from posts 3 and 11 above.)
John always uses 'ho theos' ('the god')when he means the Most High 'God.'
There are 27 uses of 'ho theos' in the writings of John (14 in John and 13 in 1 John) and many more if you include Revelation. These are all the uses by John when he means 'God.'
The remaining examples of 'theos' (without the article) either refer to Jesus or are improper examples because of article ambiguity.
Article ambiguity arises when the example is one of the few which may be properly rendered with or without the article (the article use or non-use is grammatically uncertain).
One example of this is when 'theos' is modified by a preposition ('God of...'; 'God with...'; 'God to...': etc.
This is the beginning of a study of why John 1:1c should not be translated "And the Eord was God." The word 'theos here does not have the article ('the'). But, remember, when John (and the other Gospel writers) intends "God" he always writes 'ho theos' ('the god').
So says The New World JW translation.
No, so says my own in-depth study of John 1:1c and John's usage and grammar!! I doubt that you will find much of what I have independently found repeated in the NWT. The fact that we arrived at the same translation by differing methods certainly does not make it wrong.
If you wish to pursue this subject honestly, please do so. You could, for example, look up all the uses of 'theos' in John's writings as I have done and correct my 'errors.'
Or find out if my examples of improper examples (those with 'article ambiguity') are truly to be excepted.
Phoowee. It isn't worth it. But, why do you want to change what it says, which has been factual irrespective of how you fathom it out?
That's a standard response. John 1:1c was very important to me over 30 years ago when I began. I was willing to spend all the time it took with a concordance, interlinear, about 20 different Bible versions, and a typewriter.
It's relatively easy today. And, although I offer to help others find the online texts, interlinears, etc, that would help immensely, they invariably refuse. I believe it is more than just laziness or a belief that this #1 Trinitarian 'proof' is unimportant. I believe that they truly don't want to learn anything that upsets their traditional beliefs.
The traditional John 1:1c translation is clearly not 'factual,' and an honest, complete examination can prove it.
Matthew 1:18. By either title this verse tells us that Jesus had a beginning a genesis, the KJV says birth
John 1:1 KJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Who are what is the word that was with God?
Clearly by the structure of the verse specifically "the word was with God" we see that the word is separate from God.
The word "with" or "pros" in the Greek establishes that. It means "with yet distinctly independent of" This is clearly illustrated in Mark 9:19
"He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me."
in the phrase "how long shall I [Jesus Christ] be with you [the faithless generation]"
Was Jesus "the faithless generation" or "with yet distinctly independent of" the faithless generation?
the word was with yet distinctly independent of God.
Does "being with God, yet distinctly independent of God" equal "is God"
Are you with God,or are you God?
How could the word, ie, message of God, be with God yet be distinctly independent of God seeing that your Bible, the scriptures you hold in your hand was not with God in the beginning?
By God's foreknowledge. He speaks of those things that be not as though they were, you can find that in Romans 4
John 1:1 when given some thought and elaborated on by other scriptures clearly distinguishes between God and the scriptures in writing and the scriptures in the flesh.