The Anarthrous God of John 1.1

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Yes, I just really want to thank AMR for his post,

Yes, he's a wealth of insight. He's helped me come to grips with positioning myself meticulously within orthodox boundaries for any challenges I would make of doctrinal minutiae.

and thanks as well for including the excerps from Martin Luther's sermon. I appreciate the certainty, the simplicity, and the clarity with which Luther writes. That kind of confidence must only come from great "knowing" of the text.

Martin Luther is da man. I've read him more in the past few months than ever before, and I could spend a lifetime doing so.

And thank you, PneumaPsucheSoma, for your very clear analogy of the table, its functionality not being verbal in nature as it up-holds but latent and intrinsic to its designed it-ness AS a table: I can in no way summarize your description of Greek nouns; for contained in those few short paragraphs is far more substance than I may ever think, given a very long lifetime to do so. Wow! is probably the closest I can get to pulling it all together. Thanks!

I have to credit Spiros Zodhiates, Daniel Wallace, and others for helping me develop a practical understanding of Greek nouns. Oddly enough, it was Watchman Nee who also contributed a useful persective, as well. And I can sit for hours just contemplating the amazing complexity of individual Greek nouns as worship in thanksgiving and praise at the near-endless expression of Himself by/through language for communion.

Jarrod if you are still on board, I would just simply ~ and respectfully ~ ask, Given all that, why would you want to translate it "divine" rather than "God"? Anarthrous though it may be, it is quite definite what John is attempting to convey. Add to that the chiastic structure of the statement ~ Word, God, God, Word (the chiasm is actually even broader than that: this being at the heart of it ~ I don't see how it could possibly be correctly translated / interpreted otherwise. Thanks all the same for the suggestion. You're spot on on one thing: Greek nouns certainly are substativals! Sure, lets have that hamburger anyway. What'da ya say?

Love it.

 

[Wick Stick]

Jarrod if you are still on board, I would just simply ~ and respectfully ~ ask, Given all that, why would you want to translate it "divine" rather than "God"? Anarthrous though it may be, it is quite definite what John is attempting to convey. Add to that the chiastic structure of the statement ~ Word, God, God, Word (the chiasm is actually even broader than that: this being at the heart of it) ~ I don't see how it could possibly be correctly translated / interpreted otherwise. Thanks all the same for the suggestion. You're spot on on one thing: Greek nouns certainly are substativals! Sure, lets have that hamburger anyway. What'da ya say?

It isn't an either/or question for me. Both translations are correct, and while they don't say quite the same thing, they also don't contradict each other.

It may be that the author left this intentionally ambiguous, so that the reader might consider both meanings. Sometimes ambiguity is a feature of translation, rather than a problem.

Jarrod

*Admittedly, intentional ambiguity is more a feature of Hebrew translation than Greek, but it interlopes into the NT because those guys thought in Hebrew, even if they wrote in Greek.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

It isn't an either/or question for me. Both translations are correct, and while they don't say quite the same thing, they also don't contradict each other.

It may be that the author left this intentionally ambiguous, so that the reader might consider both meanings. Sometimes ambiguity is a feature of translation, rather than a problem.

Jarrod

*Admittedly, intentional ambiguity is more a feature of Hebrew translation than Greek, but it interlopes into the NT because those guys thought in Hebrew, even if they wrote in Greek.

There's no ambiguity whatsoever, though. Greek is ridiculously concise. It's the foundational patterns of English-sculpted hearts and minds that is the problem.

 

[TFTn5280]

It may be that the author left this intentionally ambiguous, so that the reader might consider both meanings. Sometimes ambiguity is a feature of translation, rather than a problem.

Jarrod

What he did was leave it as intentionally unambiguously precise as is possible given the constructs of the language; and then, as if the grammar itself were not secure enough to emphatically convey that concision, John places those words and that grammar in the confines of a chiastic structure, knowing well that knowledgeable readers would directly equate the parallels and conclude with him indeed, that "GOD was the Word as well!" What he may not have known is in the doing of this that more than twenty centuries later, readers would still marvel that in those less than twenty words resides "the most succinct theological statement ever written." That, my friend, is not ambiguity. Of course you know all of this if you have been following the thread. Have a good evening, Jarrod. I'll catch you next time around.

 

[Apple7]

You just spoke a great deal more truth about yourself than you did PneumaPsucheSoma. Duly noted. Now that you've buzzed the tower, please just fly away. Thanks, T

PPSBS has no command of the Greek language.

You just adding to his already inflated ego, in which he attempts to use a plethora of $10 words to sound authoritative.

John 1.1 is one of the most worked segments of scripture out there.

Anything that PPSBS, or any other person on this thread could assert would already be a re-hashment of work already performed by professional Greek scholars.

 

[daqq]

PPSBS has no command of the Greek language.

You just adding to his already inflated ego, in which he attempts to use a plethora of $10 words to sound authoritative.

John 1.1 is one of the most worked segments of scripture out there.

Anything that PPSBS, or any other person on this thread could assert would already be a re-hashment of work already performed by professional Greek scholars.

Well then surely one more shoe on the pile isn't going to matter much, eh? Does anyone here view θεος and its various singular forms as intensive plurals like Elohim? If not, WHY not, when everyone here appears to know that Theos is borrowed from Greek to render the intensive plural Elohim? If one does not do this then how can the same expect to get an accurate understanding of the Septuagint rendering from Hebrew into Greek? If Elohim is an intensive plural in Hebrew, (and a "compound unity" as some also claim), then should we not view the various forms of Theos in the same way even though the forms may not be plural, (theoi, and so on)? If we do not do this then we have essentially an utter failure to communicate the Hebrew into the Greek by those who rendered the Septuagint. Yet we see that right from the beginning Theos is surely employed in the exact same manner as if it was the word Elohim:

Genesis 1:26 LXX Septuagint (Old Greek)
26 και ειπεν ο θεος ποιησωμεν ανθρωπον κατ εικονα ημετεραν και καθ ομοιωσιν και αρχετωσαν των ιχθυων της θαλασσης και των πετεινων του ουρανου και των κτηνων και πασης της γης και παντων των ερπετων των ερποντων επι της γης

This to me seems almost as if the translators are exclaiming: "Look, take heed! We are using Theos as an intensive plural in the place of Elohim!" Therefore what does this mean when we come to the Apostolic writings? No doubt they follow the lead of the Septuagint; for if not then we have an utter failure to communicate what was originally written in the Hebrew. It matters not how the Greek is used in its own language by its own people in its own times because the Greek language herein has been "borrowed" from and adjustments to it made accordingly so as to properly render the Hebrew text into another language and keep as much of the Hebrew idiom intact as possible. If therefore Elohim is an intensive plural, then Theos and its forms must also be understood as intensive plurals, even though Theos may not be so in the customary Greek language of that time. If not then we have an utter failure to communicate and a complete disconnect.

Also I do not claim to be an expert in Hebrew but I do know that in Hebrew personal pronouns, (proper names), do not tolerate the definite article. This means, (imho of course), that Elohim without the article might be used as a name, (as in the opening Genesis creation account), but ha-Elohim is not a personal pronoun or proper name. And, as may be seen from other passages, elohim can even sometimes refer to malakim-messengers-angelon-angels. In addition to this never have I seen anyone ever address the fact that Kurios, (the replacement word/title in the Septuagint for the Tetragrammaton), is found nowhere in John 1:1-2. As for ton Theon we do find it rendered some places from "ha-Elohim" in the Hebrew text. What then if ton Theon is also understood as an intensive plural as the replacement for ha-Elohim? What would that look like in John 1:1-2?

Exodus 3:2-6 (From the MT)
2 And [the] Malak of YHWH appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
3 And Moshe said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
4 And when YHWH saw that he turned aside to see, Elohim called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moshe, Moshe, and he said, Here am I.
5 And he said, Draw not nigh: put off your shoes from off your feet, for the place whereon you stand is holy ground.
6 Moreover he said, I [am] Elohey [of] your father, Elohey Abraham, Elohey Yitschak, and Elohey Yaakob: and Moshe hid his face because he feared to look toward ha-Elohim.

Exodus 3:11 LXX
11 και ειπεν μωυσης προς τον θεον [MT = ha-Elohim] τις ειμι οτι πορευσομαι προς φαραω βασιλεα αιγυπτου και οτι εξαξω τους υιους ισραηλ εκ γης αιγυπτου

Exodus 3:13 LXX
13 και ειπεν μωυσης προς τον θεον [MT = ha-Elohim] ιδου εγω ελευσομαι προς τους υιους ισραηλ και ερω προς αυτους ο θεος των πατερων υμων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας ερωτησουσιν με τι ονομα αυτω τι ερω προς αυτους

John 1:1-2
1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
2 ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with ha-Elohim, and the Logos was Elohim: the same was in the beginning with ha-Elohim.

WHO are "the Elohim" would be a good question, (the Torah was given by the disposition of Elohim-αγγελων).

 

[TFTn5280]

Well then surely one more shoe on the pile isn't going to matter much, eh? Does anyone here view θεος and its various singular forms as intensive plurals like Elohim? If not, WHY not, when everyone here appears to know that Theos is borrowed from Greek to render the intensive plural Elohim? If one does not do this then how can the same expect to get an accurate understanding of the Septuagint rendering from Hebrew into Greek? If Elohim is an intensive plural in Hebrew, (and a "compound unity" as some also claim), then should we not view the various forms of Theos in the same way even though the forms may not be plural, (theoi, and so on)? If we do not do this then we have essentially an utter failure to communicate the Hebrew into the Greek by those who rendered the Septuagint. Yet we see that right from the beginning Theos is surely employed in the exact same manner as if it was the word Elohim:

Genesis 1:26 LXX Septuagint (Old Greek)
26 και ειπεν ο θεος ποιησωμεν ανθρωπον κατ εικονα ημετεραν και καθ ομοιωσιν και αρχετωσαν των ιχθυων της θαλασσης και των πετεινων του ουρανου και των κτηνων και πασης της γης και παντων των ερπετων των ερποντων επι της γης

This to me seems almost as if the translators are exclaiming: "Look, take heed! We are using Theos as an intensive plural in the place of Elohim!" Therefore what does this mean when we come to the Apostolic writings? No doubt they follow the lead of the Septuagint; for if not then we have an utter failure to communicate what was originally written in the Hebrew. It matters not how the Greek is used in its own language by its own people in its own times because the Greek language herein has been "borrowed" from and adjustments to it made accordingly so as to properly render the Hebrew text into another language and keep as much of the Hebrew idiom intact as possible. If therefore Elohim is an intensive plural, then Theos and its forms must also be understood as intensive plurals, even though Theos may not be so in the customary Greek language of that time. If not then we have an utter failure to communicate and a complete disconnect.

Also I do not claim to be an expert in Hebrew but I do know that in Hebrew personal pronouns, (proper names), do not tolerate the definite article. This means, (imho of course), that Elohim without the article might be used as a name, (as in the opening Genesis creation account), but ha-Elohim is not a personal pronoun or proper name. And, as may be seen from other passages, elohim can even sometimes refer to malakim-messengers-angelon-angels. In addition to this never have I seen anyone ever address the fact that Kurios, (the replacement word/title in the Septuagint for the Tetragrammaton), is found nowhere in John 1:1-2. As for ton Theon we do find it rendered some places from "ha-Elohim" in the Hebrew text. What then if ton Theon is also understood as an intensive plural as the replacement for ha-Elohim? What would that look like in John 1:1-2?

Exodus 3:2-6 (From the MT)
2 And [the] Malak of YHWH appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
3 And Moshe said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
4 And when YHWH saw that he turned aside to see, Elohim called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moshe, Moshe, and he said, Here am I.
5 And he said, Draw not nigh: put off your shoes from off your feet, for the place whereon you stand is holy ground.
6 Moreover he said, I [am] Elohey [of] your father, Elohey Abraham, Elohey Yitschak, and Elohey Yaakob: and Moshe hid his face because he feared to look toward ha-Elohim.

Exodus 3:11 LXX
11 και ειπεν μωυσης προς τον θεον [MT = ha-Elohim] τις ειμι οτι πορευσομαι προς φαραω βασιλεα αιγυπτου και οτι εξαξω τους υιους ισραηλ εκ γης αιγυπτου

Exodus 3:13 LXX
13 και ειπεν μωυσης προς τον θεον [MT = ha-Elohim] ιδου εγω ελευσομαι προς τους υιους ισραηλ και ερω προς αυτους ο θεος των πατερων υμων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας ερωτησουσιν με τι ονομα αυτω τι ερω προς αυτους

John 1:1-2
1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
2 ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with ha-Elohim, and the Logos was Elohim: the same was in the beginning with ha-Elohim.

WHO are "the Elohim" would be a good question, (the Torah was given by the disposition of Elohim-αγγελων).

My initial thought is that while Elohim stood in the OT as somewhat an unidentified plural or plurality, in the NT that plurality is revealed as Father and Son and the sending of their Holy Spirit. The articular "Theos" in NT Greek is commonly, but not exclusively, used in reference to God the Father, the singular first "person" of the Trinity, thus in no way limiting the plural aspect of the Hebrew Elohim; nor should it, it would seem to me, when it is used to identify the Son in the same manner (Joh 20.28 e.g.). As to why the translators of the LXX rendered Elohim "Theos" instead of a plural in number, I am not sure. It strikes me that it is YHWH, the LORD, in Hebrew who is echad, one: YHWH (sg) our Elohim (pl), YHWH (sg) is echad. "The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

This is a new line of thought for me. Maybe AMR, PPS, or Lon have some thoughts relative to your comments.

 

[TFTn5280]

John 1.1 is one of the most worked segments of scripture out there.

Anything that PPS<SNIP>, or any other person on this thread could assert would already be a re-hashment of work already performed by professional Greek scholars.

Perhaps, but much of it has been new to me and incredibly inspirational. My guess is that it has been new as well to some of the over 500 visitors to this thread, and similarly inspiring. In that regard, Lon, AMR, and PPS have done a great and godly, scholarly service to TOL. Their input is much appreciated. Yours on the other hand, not in the least. I can't prevent you from sowing discord, but I can let you know how very unimpressed I am with it. Is there not a better way to spend your day, brother? T

 

[daqq]

As to why the translators of the LXX rendered Elohim "Theos" instead of a plural in number, I am not sure. It strikes me that it is YHWH, the LORD, in Hebrew who is echad, one: YHWH (sg) our Elohim (pl), YHWH (sg) is echad. "The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

This is a new line of thought for me. Maybe AMR, PPS, or Lon have some thoughts relative to your comments.

Hi TFT,
The only legitimate conclusion is that they rendered Elohim as Theos in the LXX version of Genesis 1:26 because they were clearly using Theos as a replacement word, borrowed from Greek, for the intensive plural Elohim. That means they are using Theos as an intensive plural and the characteristics of the word therefore have to change in order for the understanding to come through in the translation. It is blatantly obvious, crying out for attention, and yet ignored by every commentator I can think of. What led me in this direction is an even more critical situation that reaches down to the very core of what any one of us here believes. Does our heavenly Father "know" evil? There really is only one place this can directly be derived from what is written. And this kind of "knowing" is the same intimate knowledge spoken of in Genesis 4:1 where it is written that Adam "knew" his wife Eve and she conceived. Does our heavenly Father "know" evil in this intimate way? This is intended for good so my own personal advice would be to not even answer if you are inclined to answer in the affirmative after reading what follows below. It would be better to contemplate, study, pray over such things, and come back to this at a later time as you feel led, (rather than to risk the possibility of blaspheming just so as to defend a doctrine or paradigm). So again I say, rhetorically, (and not expecting an answer especially if it might be in the affirmative), does our heavenly Father "know" evil? According to the Masoretic text they say He does but according to the Septuagint the Tetragrammaton was not originally in the pertinent text:

Genesis 3:22-23 LXX
22 και ειπεν ο θεος ιδου αδαμ γεγονεν ως εις εξ ημων του γινωσκειν καλον και πονηρον και νυν μηποτε εκτεινη την χειρα και λαβη του ξυλου της ζωης και φαγη και ζησεται εις τον αιωνα
23 και εξαπεστειλεν αυτον κυριος ο θεος εκ του παραδεισου της τρυφης εργαζεσθαι την γην εξ ης ελημφθη

Genesis 3:22-23 Septuagint (Brenton Translation)
22 And God said, Behold, Adam is become as one of us, to know good and evil, and now lest at any time he stretch forth his hand, and take of the tree of life and eat, and so he shall live forever -
23 So the Lord God sent him forth out of the garden of Delight to cultivate the ground out of which he was taken.

Genesis 3:22-23 Restored Name KJV (Hebrew Text)
3:22 And YHWH Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore YHWH Elohim sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

If from the Septuagint we restore ο θεος, (ho Theos), to Elohim, (which surely is what is meant), then the Septuagint is telling us that the Tetragrammaton was not in the Hebrew text of Genesis 3:22 which they used to render the Hebrew into Greek because Kurios is not in the Septuagint text. In addition, if this be true, it is possible and even more likely that the second portion of the verse becomes an interrogative, as if [the] Elohim were asking, "And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever?" In other words [the] Elohim are shown as not fully knowing all that the Father knows but, unlike the Father, they apparently have known good and evil, and therefore there is a questioning among them. We therefore have a reading that is anywhere from one thousand to thirteen hundred years earlier than the current form of the Masoretic Hebrew text which did not contain the Name of the Father in Genesis 3:22 as the Masoretic now does. And what if indeed the second portion of verse twenty-two is an interrogative which the Father answers to the Elohim by sending the man forth from the garden of Eden? Perhaps this is why the statement which follows in the next verse commences with a word equivalent to "therefore" as this makes perfect sense:

Genesis 3:22-23
3:22 And [the] Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever?
3:23 Therefore YHWH Elohim sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

This gives us great insight into what those who rendered the Septuagint were thinking, (some three hundred years before the advent of Messiah and therefore without bias). It also gives us insight into what may have occurred with the Masoretic Hebrew text, which was compiled some 1000 to 1300 years later, for there are quite a few places where the Tetragrammaton appears to have been inserted into the text which are not found in the Septuagint. Were the Masoretes a little too overzealous in an effort to maintain the strict monotheism which separated them from the Christian doctrines of that time, (700-1000AD)? If they were they went too far in Genesis 3:22 because I know from what is written elsewhere that my heavenly Father does not know evil. When I saw this I saw Genesis 1:26.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Hi TFT,
The only legitimate conclusion is that they rendered Elohim as Theos in the LXX version of Genesis 1:26 because they were clearly using Theos as a replacement word, borrowed from Greek, for the intensive plural Elohim. That means they are using Theos as an intensive plural and the characteristics of the word therefore have to change in order for the understanding to come through in the translation. It is blatantly obvious, crying out for attention, and yet ignored by every commentator I can think of. What led me in this direction is an even more critical situation that reaches down to the very core of what any one of us here believes. Does our heavenly Father "know" evil? There really is only one place this can directly be derived from what is written. And this kind of "knowing" is the same intimate knowledge spoken of in Genesis 4:1 where it is written that Adam "knew" his wife Eve and she conceived. Does our heavenly Father "know" evil in this intimate way? This is intended for good so my own personal advice would be to not even answer if you are inclined to answer in the affirmative after reading what follows below. It would be better to contemplate, study, pray over such things, and come back to this at a later time as you feel led, (rather than to risk the possibility of blaspheming just so as to defend a doctrine or paradigm). So again I say, rhetorically, (and not expecting an answer especially if it might be in the affirmative), does our heavenly Father "know" evil? According to the Masoretic text they say He does but according to the Septuagint the Tetragrammaton was not originally in the pertinent text:

Genesis 3:22-23 LXX
22 και ειπεν ο θεος ιδου αδαμ γεγονεν ως εις εξ ημων του γινωσκειν καλον και πονηρον και νυν μηποτε εκτεινη την χειρα και λαβη του ξυλου της ζωης και φαγη και ζησεται εις τον αιωνα
23 και εξαπεστειλεν αυτον κυριος ο θεος εκ του παραδεισου της τρυφης εργαζεσθαι την γην εξ ης ελημφθη

Genesis 3:22-23 Septuagint (Brenton Translation)
22 And God said, Behold, Adam is become as one of us, to know good and evil, and now lest at any time he stretch forth his hand, and take of the tree of life and eat, and so he shall live forever -
23 So the Lord God sent him forth out of the garden of Delight to cultivate the ground out of which he was taken.

Genesis 3:22-23 Restored Name KJV (Hebrew Text)
3:22 And YHWH Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore YHWH Elohim sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

If from the Septuagint we restore ο θεος, (ho Theos), to Elohim, (which surely is what is meant), then the Septuagint is telling us that the Tetragrammaton was not in the Hebrew text of Genesis 3:22 which they used to render the Hebrew into Greek because Kurios is not in the Septuagint text. In addition, if this be true, it is possible and even more likely that the second portion of the verse becomes an interrogative, as if [the] Elohim were asking, "And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever?" In other words [the] Elohim are shown as not fully knowing all that the Father knows but, unlike the Father, they apparently have known good and evil, and therefore there is a questioning among them. We therefore have a reading that is anywhere from one thousand to thirteen hundred years earlier than the current form of the Masoretic Hebrew text which did not contain the Name of the Father in Genesis 3:22 as the Masoretic now does. And what if indeed the second portion of verse twenty-two is an interrogative which the Father answers to the Elohim by sending the man forth from the garden of Eden? Perhaps this is why the statement which follows in the next verse commences with a word equivalent to "therefore" as this makes perfect sense:

Genesis 3:22-23
3:22 And [the] Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever?
3:23 Therefore YHWH Elohim sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

This gives us great insight into what those who rendered the Septuagint were thinking, (some three hundred years before the advent of Messiah and therefore without bias). It also gives us insight into what may have occurred with the Masoretic Hebrew text, which was compiled some 1000 to 1300 years later, for there are quite a few places where the Tetragrammaton appears to have been inserted into the text which are not found in the Septuagint. Were the Masoretes a little too overzealous in an effort to maintain the strict monotheism which separated them from the Christian doctrines of that time, (700-1000AD)? If they were they went too far in Genesis 3:22 because I know from what is written elsewhere that my heavenly Father does not know evil. When I saw this I saw Genesis 1:26.

Two general things that come to mind immediately are the fact that Greek nouns are all innately anarthrous, with the article being added for a kind of emphasis that isn't readily understood by English thinkers/speakers (and the same for anarthrous nouns themselves).

Greek anarthrous nouns are specifically referring to qualitative characteristics and functional activity of those "things" as nouns. So it's quite appropriate that Greek qualitative plurality is utilized in the attempt to translate the Hebrew intensive plural.

A qualitative plurality is subtly, but substantially, distinct from a quantitative plurality. Ancient Hebrew minds were virtually NON-abstract; while more modern minds became more and more abstract, as evidenced in language and culture.

Biblical Judaism and Christian Monotheism are both centered around qualitative plurality because God as Spirit and His Logos are, indeed, exactly that in the only terms that could describe and/or define Him. (His own Logos Self-defines Him by/as/through the Son, by whom He hath spoken unto us in these last days.)

All the more amazing that we have any cohesive integrity to scripture preserved through such a span of time from various epistemological mindsets and cultures, and languages in translation.

Rather than comparative minutiae, a more over-arching approach from this perspective would be helpful. I learned much from Jeff Benner's work regarding pictographic "Paleo"-Hebrew, even if it isn't definitive (yet IS insightful).

Tov ("good") and ra'a ("evil"), in their most encompassing sense, are best understood as "function/ality" and "dys-/mal-/non-function/ality"; and what you're presenting is tied directly to Theodicy when addressing Ponerology (and, of course, Hamartiology and all else that cascades from these).

Since God is Creator and "Functionalizer", He knows no dysfunction in any intimate manner. He's eternally familiar with every contingent potentiality and plausible possibility FOR/OF dys-/mal-/non- relative to function, because He is omniscient (and because of His incommunicable attributes, including His Necessity {Non-Contingency}). But awareness OF and provision FOR something is not the same as "knowing" it in any intimate manner, because He is not dysfunctional and IS Functionality.

Dys-/mal-/non-function/ality is privation and/or negation as subtraction by addition. For instance, a completely functional intricately constructed mechanism can have something added that negates functionality; like a wrench being tossed into the middle of moving parts like gears and levers, etc.

That addition of a wrench brings negation or privation to the functionality of that mechanism. A larger wrench and/or multiple wrenches added would illustrate that such privation or negation of functionality has a qualitative span or range of dysfunction by degree that is not quantity.

This is ra'a (Hebrew), often translated as "evil" in the OT, but also translated as calamity and a number of other words; and is paralleled as poneros (Greek).

Understanding this is the foundation for Ponerology and Hamartiology, as well as presenting a Theodicy for why an all-powerful all-benevolent God exists with a creation in relationship to Him wherein there is the existence of evil. It's also inexorably tied to Theology Proper and Anthropology Proper and Soteriology (and virtually every other sub-ology within General Theology).

Qualitative/ness (including for plurality) and functionality/dysfunctionality are two core themes that are vital to knowing and "having" the absolute, singular, central, objective, and KNOWABLE truth of the one true and living God (who is Spirit) by His eternal Logos (who is the Son).

 

[KingdomRose]

:doh: Already answered by AMR and in the links I gave :sigh:

I'm sorry, but that is not answered. BeDuhn brings out that in other places in the scriptures that have sentences just like the one we're discussing, the English indefinite article is used, therefore the rule shouldn't be different for John 1:1.

 

[KingdomRose]

I may not be a Greek expert, but I took a Greek class or two (and stayed in a Holiday Inn Express once!) In my class, they taught us that Koine Greek doesn't have nouns, it has substantives.


But, maybe you knew that...

Anyhow, since substantives can be read as nouns OR adjectives, I wouldn't mind a translation of:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was divine.

That probably slaughters someone's sacred cow. Oh well... anybody want a hamburger?

Jarrod

Good point! That is the rendering found in Moffatt's translation.

I think he presented the essence of the meaning of John 1:1. Also, it should be understood that "divine" doesn't mean equal to God.

My Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines "divine" as: "of, relating to, or proceeding directly
from God or a god; heavenly; godlike."

So Jesus being "divine" does not mean that he is God. Even the angels are divine.

 

[patrick jane]

Good point! That is the rendering found in Moffatt's translation.

I think he presented the essence of the meaning of John 1:1. Also, it should be understood that "divine" doesn't mean equal to God.

My Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines "divine" as: "of, relating to, or proceeding directly
from God or a god; heavenly; godlike."

So Jesus being "divine" does not mean that he is God. Even the angels are divine.

Jesus Is God and there will be NO JWs in heaven

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Good point! That is the rendering found in Moffatt's translation.

I think he presented the essence of the meaning of John 1:1. Also, it should be understood that "divine" doesn't mean equal to God.

My Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines "divine" as: "of, relating to, or proceeding directly
from God or a god; heavenly; godlike."

So Jesus being "divine" does not mean that he is God. Even the angels are divine.

Your cult did not exist until the century of the cults in the 1800s. And one or a few modern minority scholars and their nebulous English-based considerations are NOT the authentic historical orthodox Christian faith of the last two millennia.

This isn't a subject that's open for authentic debate. It's a closed issue, and has been for 1600+ years. You do not get to innovate based on Modernistic false autonomy and egomania masquerading as faith or truth.

You are anathema. Period. And it doesn't matter what an obscure and cherry-picked pseudo-scholar says in some modern book.

As long as there is the work of those like Daniel Wallace and others, you (and all your JW cultic peers) are without excuse.

 

[KingdomRose]

Jesus Is God and there will be NO JWs in heaven

How can you say that when the scriptures say that those in heaven "have the name of God on their foreheads"? (Revelation 14:1) They are pictured as being in heaven with the Lamb. And what is the name of God, the Father? See Psalm 83:18 in the KJV. So how is it that Jehovah's people won't be in heaven?

 

[KingdomRose]

If you read the portions from Luther's sermon in my post you will see him affirming this.

AMR

Martin Luther said some other things also...that you would probably agree with, if you take what he said seriously:

(1) In an exposition of Jeremiah 23:1-8 Luther says: "this name Jehovah belongs exclusively to the true God." ---From Ein Epistel aus dem Propheten Jeremia, von Christus reich und Christilichen freyheit, gepredigt Mar. Luther, Wittenberg, 1527.

(2) Concerning the soul being immortal: "I permit the Pope to make articles of faith for himself and his faithful---such as 'the soul is immortal,' with all those monstrous opinions found in the Roman filth-pile of resolutions."---From Assertio Omnium Articulorum M. Lutheri, per Bullam Leonis X (Luther's Works, Vol. 2, folio 107, Wittenberg, 1562)

(3) Death defined: "Therefore the Scripture calls death a sleep. For as one falls asleep, he, when he awakes in the morning, knows nothing about how the falling asleep happened, nor about the sleep itself, nor the awakening, so shall also we on the last day arise with haste and not know either how we came into death or through death."---Kyrkopost, no.29, par.9, sid.259.

(4) Resurrection: "Hereof it must follow that they who lie in the graveyard and sleep under the ground do not sleep as profound as we do on our beds. For it may happen that your sleep is so profound that you must be called ten times before you hear once. But the dead will hear at the first calling of Christ, and awake, as we see here of this young man [Luke 7:14,15] and of Lazarus [John 11:11,44]."---Evang. Luk.7., par.8.

(5) Concerning the state between death and resurrection: "Let this be unto you an excellent alchemy and a masterpiece that does not turn copper or lead into gold for you, but changes death into a sleep and your grave into a sweet room of rest, and all the time elapsing between Abel's death and the last day into a short little while. The Scripture gives this consolation everywhere."---Kyrkopost, 1: a band., no.109, par.39-47, sid.434-436.


I like his views on those subjects. How about you?

 

[Lon]

I'm sorry, but that is not answered. BeDuhn brings out that in other places in the scriptures that have sentences just like the one we're discussing, the English indefinite article is used, therefore the rule shouldn't be different for John 1:1.

You should really read the links. They adequately address the problems, specifically, with JW's. Nutshell: They are inconsistent and hypocritical for their theological bent. I don't believe you could be JW if you really understood this. The truth disallows it.

 

[TFTn5280]

Good point! That is the rendering found in Moffatt's translation.

I think he presented the essence of the meaning of John 1:1. Also, it should be understood that "divine" doesn't mean equal to God.

My Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines "divine" as: "of, relating to, or proceeding directly
from God or a god; heavenly; godlike."

So Jesus being "divine" does not mean that he is God. Even the angels are divine.

Jarrod, you make your case that John may have been intentionally ambiguous in his wording in 1.1: Do you believe he intended that ambiguity to lead to the above conclusion? It seems but a short step to me. For this reason I argued vigorously against it ~ not against you, my friend, but against the idea of ambiguity when there is none. I invite you and KingdomRose and others who may be so inclined to revisit the posts in this thread; there are not that many of them. See for yourselves. John's wording is precise, concise, definite, and succinct: The Word was not only with the God. God was the Word as well!

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Jarrod, you make your case that John may have been intentionally ambiguous in his wording in 1.1: Do you believe he intended that ambiguity to lead to the above conclusion? It seems but a short step to me. For this reason I argued vigorously against it ~ not against you, my friend, but against the idea of ambiguity when there is none. I invite you and KingdomRose and others who may be so inclined to revisit the posts in this thread; there are not that many of them. See for yourselves. John's wording is precise, concise, definite, and succinct: The Word was not only with the God. God was the Word as well!

Spiros Zodhiates, the Cypress-born native Greek scholar, offers this literal paraphrase of John 1:1...

"Before there was any beginning, the Word had been, and the Word has been toward the God, and God had been the Word."

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

The problem is not just with making the Greek anarthrous substantive/noun into an English indefinite article-ish kind of construct; but with not realizing how extensively the Greek article affects substantives/nouns when added, and how significant it is that anarthrous constructs are NOT articular constructs.

An anathrous noun/substantive cannot be "THE" enough to be articular. And that's why JWs and others' desperate conflagrations and obfuscations are so sadly ridiculous in their abject denial of the appropriate ontological divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ as the eternal and uncreated Logos of God.