Theos hn o logos: God, godly or divine?

[JohnOneOne]

Iacobus, I find it amusing how you try to bring a polytheism out of the Greek and even the hebrew scriptures. The verses you quote are out of context. For example (1 Cor. 8:5, 6) Paul is talking to the Corinthians about the Gentiles evil idol worship and polytheism. Read verse 6 and the truth is clarified. I dont know where you get more than one God out of verse 6. Paul clearly says there is but one God. Psalm 8.5 says nothing of Gods. It only speaks of how God has given men power over the earth.

There are three possible translations you could get from John 1.1 The word "was divine" "was a god" or "was god".

To the Jewish mind based on hebrew scriprues i.e. Deut. 6.4 and Isaiah 45.5 they had no conception of more than one God. So if it was meant to mean "a god" it would totally contraidct the biblical teaching of one God.

Deuteronomy 13.2 says if any prophet comes in support of poltheism i.e. JWs and mormons stay away from them. It also says if the prophet makes a false prophecy i.e. watchtower, Joseph smith and his contemporaries to have nothing to do with them.
I could go on and on. The evidence is stacked against you both historically and Biblically.
James 2.19
Isaiah 45.5
Deut. 6.4
I would love to see you rectify these verses. Just three of countless verses testifying to one God.

True "Biblical Monotheism" is the belief that there is only one true, Almighty God, YHWH (English as Yahweh or Jehovah), the only one deserving of exclusive worship. On the other hand, besides the false, non-effective "gods" of the nations, there are others of whom God had specifically designated as 'elohim ("gods"),' those who represent Him; e.g., Exodus 4:16; 7:1; 21:6; 22:8, 9, 28; 1 Samuel 2:25; Psalm 8:5; 82:1a, 1b, 6; 97:7; 138:1. Although deserving of respect and honor, these were, of course, not to receive worship - that is the marked difference between the two.

A good example of where Jesus, himself, had given acknowledgment of this legitimate use of the title "god" for others can be found in his discussion with the Jewish religious leaders, recorded for us at John 10:34, 35. Interestingly, most any Bible commentary, those which cover John 10:34, 35 and/or Psalm 82:6, makes this clear. For example:

*[John 10:] 34….“‘I have said you are gods.’â€￾ Scripture calls “godsâ€￾ those on whom God has bestowed an honorable position. But the person God separated to be eminent above everyone else [Jesus] is far more worthy of this noble title. From this it follows that there are malignant and false expositors who agree with the first but take offense at the second. The passage which Christ quotes [at John 10:34], “I said, ‘You are “Godsâ€￾; you are all sons of the “Most Highâ€￾’â€￾ (Psalm 82:6), is where God expostulates with the kings and the judges of the earth who tyrannically abuse their authority and power for their own sinful desires and for oppressing the poor and for every kind of evil. He reproaches them for not thinking about the One from whom they received so much honor and for dishonoring God’s name. Christ applies this to the present case. They have received the name of "godsâ€￾ because they are God’s ministers who should govern the world. Scripture calls the angels “godsâ€￾ for the same reason, in that through them Gods glory shines out on the world….In summary, we must realize that magistrates are called “godsâ€￾ because God has given authority to them.*

Quoted from: Calvin, John (b.1509-d.1564). "John." (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, c1994), p. 267. BS2615 .C326 1994 / 94-2284.

"...the very application of “godâ€￾ to figures or entities other than the Most High God raises the question of the unity of God, as well as the relationship of God to the other heavenly beings or powers. So, for example, in Jewish sources of the first century, titles such as “God of godsâ€￾ posit the supremacy of YHWH [Yahweh or, Jehovah] to other gods. Ancient Israelite and Jewish monotheism clearly did not preclude belief in other heavenly beings, such as angels and spirits, but there is no contradiction between a plethora of supernatural beings and the unity of God so long as these beings are understood to be dependent upon and answerable to God. It is not their mere existence, but rather the suggestion of their autonomy, that threatens monotheism."

Taken from: Thompson, Marianne Meye (b.?-d.?), Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. "The God of the Gospel of John." (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W. B. Eerdmans, c2001), chapter 1, “The Meaning of ‘God,’â€￾ p. 53. BT102 .T525 2001 / 2001-040379.

[ Perhaps the following link may also be useful, that is, in shedding some further light on this matter - the legitimate use of 'elohim/theos' for others: http://jehovah.to/exe/hebrew/elohim.htm ]

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

[Kopio]

This is like the Jason Vorhees of threads....we just can't seem to kill this one!

[JohnOneOne]

...Deuteronomy 13.2 says ... if the prophet makes a false prophecy i.e. watchtower,...to have nothing to do with them.
I could go on and on. The evidence is stacked against you both historically and Biblically.
James 2.19
Isaiah 45.5
Deut. 6.4
I would love to see you rectify these verses. Just three of countless verses testifying to one God.

With regard to the suggestion that the "watchtower" (Jehovah's Witnesses) are false prophets, might I suggest consideration of the contents at the following website:

"The Churches, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Question of Unfulfilled Prophetic Expectations"

http://www.jehovah.to/exe/general/prophetic.htm

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

[vir litterarum]

I am not making an assertion on either position on this topic, but I was just wondering whether the reason the article was not used with "theos" was merely to make clear what the subject of the sentence is. If the verse had "o theos," then wouldn't it be possible for someone to assert that the entire Godhead was embodied in the Word, i.e. "God was the Word"?

[JohnOneOne]

I am not making an assertion on either position on this topic, but I was just wondering whether the reason the article was not used with "theos" was merely to make clear what the subject of the sentence is. If the verse had "o theos," then wouldn't it be possible for someone to assert that the entire Godhead was embodied in the Word, i.e. "God was the Word"?

First, it is important to keep in mind that if "ho theos" is, indeed, the term used to designate "the entire Godhead," the mere fact that "the Word" was just said to be 'with ho theos' would, in and of itself, mean that "the Word" was with "the entire Godhead," and, therefore, cannot also be "ho theos" or "God."

Furthermore, if it is true that "ho theos" cannot be used of "the Word," that is, because this would "assert that the entire Godhead was embodied in the Word," then the same arguement should be used of "the Father," and yet, He is quite regularly so designated.

For this, please ccompare: John 8:26, 27 with John 8:40; John 8:41 with John 8:54; John 16:27, 28 with John 16:30 and John 17:8; John 17:1, 11, 25 with John 17:3 and John 6:27.

See also: Matthew 6:8; Acts 13:32, 33, 37; Romans 1:7; 15:6; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 15:24; 2 Corinthians 1:2f; 11:31; Galatians 1:3, 4; Ephesians 1:2; 1:17; 5:20; 6:23; Philippians 1:2; 2:11; Colossians 1:2f; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 3:11, 13; 2 Thessalonians 1:2; 2:16; 2 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philemon 3; 1 Peter 1:2f; Hebrews 12:7, 9; James 1:27; 2 John 3 and Revelation 1:1, 6.

I believe the evidence will show that, within each of the above scriptures, "the Father" is regularly identified as "ho theos."

Therefore, this no-use of the Greek definite article, coupled with the fact that "theos" there preceeds the verb and subject noun, would indicate something different.

As a clue to how this could/should, otherwise, be translated, examine some examples of a similar Greek construction (syntax) as that found at John 1:1c, and see how your own prefered translation(s) of the Bible have opted to render them:

Mark 6:49
Mark 11:32
John 4:19
John 6:70
John 8:44a
John 8:44b
John 9:17
John 10:1
John 10:13
John 10:33
John 12:6

Interestingly, at each of those verses, identity of the one discussed was not at issue; no, but rather, the class of the individual was. When translating these verses of the very same syntax as that found in John 1:1c, most every translator do render these correctly, and they do this by adding either an "a" or "an."

But, when it comes to John 1:1c, rather than let God's Word speak for itself, they seem to forget their own guidelines for translating and allow their preconceived theological bias to guide them in their translation of this verse - thus, more often than not, they commonly offer to their readers, "and the Word was God" - when, in fact, the Greek doesn't literally say this (and that's not to mention the previous points made regarding the internal contradiction that rendering presents within the immediate context of that verse).

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

[Bert]

This is like the Jason Vorhees of threads....we just can't seem to kill this one.

There is no hope of killing it now. The new writer has the name of the verse itself.
In advance my apology for adding to it. It is frustrating to see someone slinging around scripture verses as pretext for a prooftext.

As a clue to how this could/should, otherwise, be translated, examine some examples of a similar Greek construction (syntax) as that found at John 1:1c, and see how your own prefered translation(s) of the Bible have opted to render them:

The only similarity is that the verb is a form of εἰμί. Not one of them is: Two nouns, one with and one without the article, and a form of εἰμί"
Mark 6:49 SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE
Mark 11:32 SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE
John 4:19 NOT TWO NOUNS BUT NOUN AND PRONOUN SO THERE IS NO QUESTION WHAT THE SUBJECT IS.
John 6:70 VERB LAST WORD
John 8:44a EXISTENTIAL USE OF THE VERB
John 8:44b SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE
John 9:17 SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE
John 10:1 NOT TWO NOUNS BUT NOUN AND PRONOUN SO THERE IS NO QUESTION WHAT THE SUBJECT IS.
John 10:13 SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE
John 10:33 NOT TWO NOUNS BUT NOUN AND PRONOUN SO THERE IS NO QUESTION WHAT THE SUBJECT IS.
John 12:6 SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE

But, when it comes to John 1:1c, rather than let God's Word speak for itself, they seem to forget their own guidelines for translating and allow their preconceived theological bias to guide them in their translation of this verse - thus, more often than not, they commonly offer to their readers, "and the Word was God" - when, in fact, the Greek doesn't literally say this (and that's not to mention the previous points made regarding the internal contradiction that rendering presents within the immediate context of that verse).

Now I ask you; Who has the theological bias?

[JohnOneOne]

This is like the Jason Vorhees of threads....we just can't seem to kill this one.

There is no hope of killing it now. The new writer has the name of the verse itself.
In advance my apology for adding to it. It is frustrating to see someone slinging around scripture verses as pretext for a prooftext.

As a clue to how this could/should, otherwise, be translated, examine some examples of a similar Greek construction (syntax) as that found at John 1:1c, and see how your own prefered translation(s) of the Bible have opted to render them:

The only similarity is that the verb is a form of εἰμί. Not one of them is: Two nouns, one with and one without the article, and a form of εἰμί"

Mark 6:49 SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE
Mark 11:32 SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE
John 4:19 NOT TWO NOUNS BUT NOUN AND PRONOUN SO THERE IS NO QUESTION WHAT THE SUBJECT IS.
John 6:70 VERB LAST WORD
John 8:44a EXISTENTIAL USE OF THE VERB
John 8:44b SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE
John 9:17 SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE
John 10:1 NOT TWO NOUNS BUT NOUN AND PRONOUN SO THERE IS NO QUESTION WHAT THE SUBJECT IS.
John 10:13 SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE
John 10:33 NOT TWO NOUNS BUT NOUN AND PRONOUN SO THERE IS NO QUESTION WHAT THE SUBJECT IS.
John 12:6 SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE

But, when it comes to John 1:1c, rather than let God's Word speak for itself, they seem to forget their own guidelines for translating and allow their preconceived theological bias to guide them in their translation of this verse - thus, more often than not, they commonly offer to their readers, "and the Word was God" - when, in fact, the Greek doesn't literally say this (and that's not to mention the previous points made regarding the internal contradiction that rendering presents within the immediate context of that verse).

Now I ask you; Who has the theological bias?

Thank you for pointing out the error of my posting, it was certainly incomplete, therefore, I stand corrected.

Whereas, earlier I had stated that each of these were "a similar Greek construction (syntax)," after their listing, I then incorrectly said that they were "the very same syntax as that found in John 1:1c."

What I should have said/included is that, at John 1:1c we have *a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb and subject noun (implied or stated).*

Therefore, the syntax is similar in that, at each of those examples, according to the New King James Version, we read:

Mark 6:49 SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE
"...And when they saw Him walking on the sea, they supposed it was *a ghost*, and cried out..."
Yes, an "anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb and subject noun (implied or stated)."

Mark 11:32 SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE
"But if we say, ‘From men’—they feared the people, for all counted John to have been *a prophet* indeed."
Yes, an "anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb and subject noun (implied or stated)."

John 4:19 NOT TWO NOUNS BUT NOUN AND PRONOUN SO THERE IS NO QUESTION WHAT THE SUBJECT IS.
"The woman said to Him, 'Sir, I perceive that You are *a prophet.*'"
Yes, an "anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb and subject noun (implied or stated)."

John 6:70 VERB LAST WORD
"Jesus answered them, 'Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is *a devil*?'"
Yes, an "anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb and subject noun (implied or stated)."

John 8:44a EXISTENTIAL USE OF THE VERB
"You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was *a murderer* from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him." (italics theirs)
Yes, an "anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb and subject noun (implied or stated)."

John 8:44b SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE
"When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is *a liar* and the father of it."
Yes, an "anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb and subject noun (implied or stated)."

John 9:17 SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE
"They said to the blind man again, 'What do you say about Him because He opened your eyes?' He said, 'He is *a prophet.*'"
Yes, an "anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb and subject noun (implied or stated)."

John 10:1 NOT TWO NOUNS BUT NOUN AND PRONOUN SO THERE IS NO
QUESTION WHAT THE SUBJECT IS.
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is *a thief* and *a robber.*"
Yes, an "anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb and subject noun (implied or stated)."

John 10:13 SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE
"The hireling flees because he is *a hireling* and does not care about the sheep."
Yes, an "anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb and subject noun (implied or stated)."

John 12:6 SUBJECT IMPLIED IN VERB. VERB IS LAST WORD IN CLAUSE
"This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was *a thief*, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it."
Yes, an "anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb and subject noun (implied or stated)."

As proved by the above, each case does, indeed, fits the syntax - just as you aptly pointed out.

Thanks again, I'll be more thorough (careful) next time.

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

[Bert]

What I should have said/included is that, at John 1:1c we have *a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb and subject noun (implied or stated).*

Not at all.
The difficulty with John 1:1c is that the article is used to differentiate subject from predicate. In all your quotes that difficulty is not there. There is never any question because the subject is implied in the verb or stated as pronoun.

[JohnOneOne]

What I should have said/included is that, at John 1:1c we have *a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb and subject noun (implied or stated).*

Not at all.

The difficulty with John 1:1c is that the article is used to differentiate subject from predicate. In all your quotes that difficulty is not there. There is never any question because the subject is implied in the verb or stated as pronoun.

Difficulty or not, the syntax is the same, thus warranting use of "a" before "theos" in the third clause - that is, when translating literally from Greek to English - as "and the Word was a god."

Although I can appreciate that some have the view that the only purpose served by the absence of the definite article is to allow for the indication of the subject noun, on the other hand, others take the view that there is more significance to its absence than just to serve in identifying the subject. Otherwise, as you may know, some would even suggest that we should read John's use of "theos" within the third clause as though he had. But, there are a number of very good reasons in objection to such a notion.

First, to take such a view is quite unnecessary, for the natural, unencumbered reading of the text already presents the solution. As acknowledged by a number of Trinitarian scholars, John 1:1c - taken in its simple, yet literal reading - would be translated, "and the Word was a god" (or, following the Greek word order, "and a god was the Word").

Secondly, the context of John 1:1 (particularly with regard to the second clause) establishes that, since "the Word" had already been said to be "with God," as we move to clause c, this tells us that "the Word" is someone other than the "God" He was just said to be "with." Otherwise, we have John introducing a contradiction - to which, a “was Godâ€￾ rendering would present, especially in consideration of that immediate context, something of which has also been attested to as a significant problem by a number of Trinitarians.

Interestingly, a Trinitarian of the past had acknowledged something else about John's us of "theos" for "the Word" (i.e., Jesus); and, by his comments, opens the way for another Scripturally based contextual point, one which would very simply settle this question as to why John would have used such a term for Jesus in the first place:

"It [the Greek word Logos, more commonly translated “Wordâ€￾], signifies, among the Jews and other ancient people, when applied to God, every thing by which God reveals Himself to men, and makes known to them His will. In this passage [John 1:1] the principal proof [for “the Wordâ€￾ being identified as God] does not lie in the word λόγος [Logos or Word], nor even in the word θεός [theos, here translated by Knapp as God], which in a larger sense is often applied to kings and earthly rulers,…"

Taken from: Knapp, Georg[e] Christian (b.1753-d.1853), D.d., Professor of Theology in the University of Halle. Lectures on Christian Theology. Translated by Woods, Leonard (b.?-d.?), Jun.D.D., President of Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine. Second American Edition, Reprinted from the last London Edition. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Thomas Wardle, 1845), pp. 136, 137. BT75 .K64 1845 / 35-22780.

Therefore, we have a third reason why John would have identified Jesus as "a god" here, for, as stated by Knapp (including others), the Bible provides clear evidence that such had even been the case, that is, with this same title being used for others - that is of course, to the exclusion of the non-effective “godsâ€￾ of the nations. Upon examination of most any Bible Dictionary, Encyclopedia or Commentary, regarding Jesus' mention of this at John 10:34, 35 (as He quoted from Psalm 82:6), each show that what Knapp has brought to our attention is certainly true - others, indeed, had been rightly called "gods" (often by God Himself); but, in this case, as far as Jesus being identified as "a god," He would have been proven to more worthy of that title, and this would have been undeniably established by way of the following record of John's "Gospel."

And so, (1) by way of the simple, natural reading of the text, (2) by the immediate context, (3) and by way of the precedents established within the Scriptures themselves, John 1:1c can certainly be viewed as being correctly rendered as, "and the Word was a god."

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

[klewlis]

It seems to me that any time there is ambiguity in the text, every translator's rendition will reflect his/her own theological bias. The phenomenon is not limited to any one viewpoint. ;)

[JohnOneOne]

It seems to me that any time there is ambiguity in the text, every translator's rendition will reflect his/her own theological bias. The phenomenon is not limited to any one viewpoint.

Yes, sad to say, this is true,...and this is so, perhaps, simply because of just being human too. On the other hand, even where there is no ambiguity, this can still happen - again, all due to a theological bias.

When it comes to John 1:1, it would appear that, more often than not, it is only due to theological bias (pre-conceived notions) that certain ones seem to have a problem rendering this, especially the third clause - for it is because of that bias that they have a hard time seeing what it would, otherwise, simply, literally say. Then, as a result, they can be found to typically render the third clause in harmony with that bias and, in turn, in a way which introduces a blatantly obvious contradiction - hence, the seeds of 'mystery' are planted (or, further watered - as the case may be).

Otherwise, there is this:

"Grammatically, John 1:1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression....A minimal literal ("formal equivalence") translation would [read]...'And the Word was a god.' The preponderance of evidence, from Greek grammar, from literary context, and from cultural environment, supports this translation,..."

Taken from: BeDuhn, Jason David (b.?-d.?). Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament. (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2003), p. 132. BS2325 .B43 2003 / 2003-050712.

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

[Talmid]

JohnOneOne -

"...the word was a god," according to the NWT.

Wouldn't this rendering support polytheism? John 1:1 in the NWT has two different gods. I think this sounds like paganism.

[JohnOneOne]

JohnOneOne -

"...the word was a god," according to the NWT.

Wouldn't this rendering support polytheism? John 1:1 in the NWT has two different gods. I think this sounds like paganism.

Thank you for your inquiry; for, if John 1:1c is to be properly renderd as, "and the Word was a god," this too should need to be addressed.

True "Biblical Monotheism" is the belief that there is only one true, Almighty God, YHWH (English as Yahweh or Jehovah), the only one deserving of exclusive worship. On the other hand, besides the false, non-effective "gods" of the nations, there are, indeed, others of whom God had specifically designated as 'elohim ("gods"),' those who are called such simply because they represent Him; e.g., Exodus 4:16; 7:1; 21:6; 22:8, 9, 28; 1 Samuel 2:25; Psalm 8:5; 82:1a, 1b, 6; 97:7; 138:1. Although deserving of respect and honor, these were, of course, not to receive worship - not only is that the exclusive right of Jehovah, but that is the marked difference between the two (Almighty God and these others).

Again, a good example of where Jesus, himself, had given acknowledgment of this legitimate use of the title "god" for others can be found in his discussion with the Jewish religious leaders, recorded for us at John 10:34, 35. Interestingly, most any Bible commentary, those which cover John 10:34, 35 and/or Psalm 82:6, makes this clear. For example:

*[John 10:] 34….“‘I have said you are gods.’â€￾ Scripture calls “godsâ€￾ those on whom God has bestowed an honorable position. But the person God separated to be eminent above everyone else [Jesus] is far more worthy of this noble title. From this it follows that there are malignant and false expositors who agree with the first but take offense at the second. The passage which Christ quotes [at John 10:34], “I said, ‘You are “Godsâ€￾; you are all sons of the “Most Highâ€￾’â€￾ (Psalm 82:6), is where God expostulates with the kings and the judges of the earth who tyrannically abuse their authority and power for their own sinful desires and for oppressing the poor and for every kind of evil. He reproaches them for not thinking about the One from whom they received so much honor and for dishonoring God’s name. Christ applies this to the present case. They have received the name of "godsâ€￾ because they are God’s ministers who should govern the world. Scripture calls the angels “godsâ€￾ for the same reason, in that through them Gods glory shines out on the world….In summary, we must realize that magistrates are called “godsâ€￾ because God has given authority to them.*

Quoted from: Calvin, John (b.1509-d.1564). John. (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, c1994), p. 267. BS2615 .C326 1994 / 94-2284.

*...the very application of “godâ€￾ to figures or entities other than the Most High God raises the question of the unity of God, as well as the relationship of God to the other heavenly beings or powers. So, for example, in Jewish sources of the first century, titles such as “God of godsâ€￾ posit the supremacy of YHWH [Yahweh or, Jehovah] to other gods. Ancient Israelite and Jewish monotheism clearly did not preclude belief in other heavenly beings, such as angels and spirits, but there is no contradiction between a plethora of supernatural beings and the unity of God so long as these beings are understood to be dependent upon and answerable to God. It is not their mere existence, but rather the suggestion of their autonomy, that threatens monotheism.*

Taken from: Thompson, Marianne Meye (b.?-d.?), Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. The God of the Gospel of John. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W. B. Eerdmans, c2001), chapter 1, “The Meaning of ‘God,’â€￾ p. 53. BT102 .T525 2001 / 2001-040379.

[ Furthermore, the following link may also be useful, that is, in shedding some further light on this matter - the legitimate use of 'elohim/theos' for others: http://jehovah.to/exe/hebrew/elohim.htm ]

Therefore, the rendering, "and the Word was a god" would, in no way, promote/support any concept of polytheism.

"The Hebrew for ‘gods’ (‘elÅ￾hîm) could refer to various exalted beings besides Yahweh [or, Jehovah], without implying any challenge to monotheism,..."

Taken from: Blomberg, Craig (b.?-d.?). The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues and Commentary. (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2001), p. 163. BS2615.6 .H55 B56 2002 / 2001051563.

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

[Talmid]

JohnOneOne -

A lot of heresy can hide behind a lot of scholarship. Let me demonstrate the breakdown of your logic:

the only one deserving of exclusive worship.

Well, "But when he again brings his First-born into the inhabited earth, he says: 'And let all God's angels worship him'" (Heb 1:6 as quoted from the 1969 Kingdom Interlinerar Translation of the Greek Scriptures).

Therefore, the rendering, "and the Word was a god" would, in no way, promote/support any concept of polytheism.

So what you're saying is that multiple gods do not equal polytheism. Gods and monotheism do not harmonize well, maybe in the Watchtower worldview, but for the rest of us common folk, they do not.

[Talmid]

YHWH (English as Yahweh or Jehovah),

And another thing...

Can we please get away from using the name "Jehovah"??--we all know it's an erroneous rendering of the Tetragrammaton YHWH.

[JohnOneOne]

JohnOneOne -

A lot of heresy can hide behind a lot of scholarship. Let me demonstrate the breakdown of your logic:

the only one deserving of exclusive worship.

Well, "But when he again brings his First-born into the inhabited earth, he says: 'And let all God's angels worship him'" (Heb 1:6 as quoted from the 1969 Kingdom Interlinerar Translation of the Greek Scriptures).

Therefore, the rendering, "and the Word was a god" would, in no way, promote/support any concept of polytheism.

So what you're saying is that multiple gods dooes not equal polytheism. Gods and monotheism do not harmonize well, maybe in the Watchtower worldview, but for the rest of us common folk, it does not.

Interestingly, you quote from the 1969 edition of the New World Translation and not from the later, more correct, revised 1984 edition - which, for the benefit of other readers here, has, "do obeisance to."

Yes, in that earlier edition, the translators incorrectly rendered "pro‧sky‧ne‧sa′to‧san" there as worship, for it was not yet appreciated that this term can (and often does mean) something other than "worship."

Since this is an "Anceint Greek" discussion group, I'm quite sure there are any number of individuals who already know this - perhaps you are one that doesn't.

As for renditions of the same term, you (and others here) might find it interesting to note that when the Greek Septuagint (LXX) was produced, at 2 Kings 2:15 the Jewish translators opted to use the very same term there, that is, with respect to the act which was performed by "the sons of the prophets that were at Jer′i‧cho" before Elisha. I would suspect that these monothistic Jews, these translators, would certainly have understood whether such a reference of action by others towards another individual would have constituted "worship" or not.

Furthermore, with regard to Hebrews 1:6, it may also interest some to know that the New World Translation has not been the first nor only translation which has given acknowledgement to the varied uses (and, in turn, meanings) associated with "pro‧se‧ky′ne‧san." Young's Literal Translation reads: "and when again He may bring in the first-born to the world, He saith, 'And let them bow before him -- all messengers of God." The New English Bible has, "pay him homage."

On the chance that you (and others here) might wish to investigate this further, the following website is highly recomended:

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/new ... orship.htm

Now, as to your statement, "A lot of heresy can hide behind a lot of scholarship," I would be the first one to agree - especially if they have a history of theological bias, one which would preclude them from considering something different. And example of the opposite is thus demonstrated as, perhaps, in explaining the reason for the NWT earlier use of "worship" at Hebrews 1:6, to then only later learn of its broader meaning, and change it to wording that, within this context, is more correct.

And yet, with regard the sources I had earlier cited, interestingly, they are not giving their opinion, no, but only relating the undeniable record of the Holy Scriptures themselves.

Might I make a suggestion: Why not go to your own, personal library and check for yourself these two things -

1). The varried uses/meanings of "proskyneo"

2). What you can find on Jesus' use of Psalm 82:6, quoted for us by John at 10:34, 35.

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

[JohnOneOne]

YHWH (English as Yahweh or Jehovah),

And another thing...

Can we please get away from using the name "Jehovah"??--we all know it's an erroneous rendering of the Tetragrammaton YHWH.

Yes, the name "Jehovah" is not an accurate rending of YHWH, perhaps only somewhat less than Yahweh....for no one, even today, really knows how God's personal, proper Name was pronounced. The important thing to remember is that God does, indeed, have a single, personal proper Name, one given to himself for all to know and use. (See: Exodus 3:15) Sad to say, due to lack of interest/respect, many (if not most) are not aware of this.

Now, as to how that Name should be specifically pronounced within our own language is, apparently, not as important as knowing that God does, indeed, have a personal Name, one which He had designated for himself, to be used 'forever,' 'from one generation to the next.' The importance of this is, fortunantly, often testified by the ways in which most all foreign language Bible translation societies have seen the need to find and normalize a form of that name for other language groups - those of whom they translate and provide Bible's to.

See some of these listed at the following website:

http://www.watchtower.org/library/na/index.htm

For more on this, you may wish to also consider:

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/new ... ehovah.htm

On that note, I'm curious, how does your favorite Bible translation show respect for and, therefore, chosen to render God's Divine and Holy Name?

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

[Talmid]

On that note, I'm curious, how does your favorite Bible translation show respect for and, therefore, chosen to render God's Divine and Holy Name?

It uses several different names based upon the context. These include "Jesus," "Father," "Holy Spirit," etc.

[JohnOneOne]

On that note, I'm curious, how does your favorite Bible translation show respect for and, therefore, chosen to render God's Divine and Holy Name?

It uses several different names based upon the context. These include "Jesus," "Father," "Holy Spirit," etc.

I can apprecitate why you would answer in this way, reflecting your theological position/perspective.

...and yet, surely you must have known what I was asking, especially since you had already acknowleged "Jehovah...[as] an erroneous rendering of the Tetragrammaton YHWH."

Therefore, with respect to YHWH as God's Divine and Holy Name, I will ask again (more pointedly this time):

Within your favorite translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the "Old Testament," how have they chosen render and thus to show respect to YHWH, God's self designated, eternal Name?

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

[Talmid]

Within your favorite translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the "Old Testament," how have they chosen render and thus to show respect to YHWH, God's self designated, eternal Name?

JohnOneOne -

This is a loaded question for which there is no satisfactory answer as you are well aware. Your intention is to denigrate the integrity of my Bible, even though the matter has no bearing on our previous discussion of the inaccuracy of "Jehovah." In logic and formal debate, this is called a red herring--namely, it seeks to thwart attention away from the discussion at hand much like a smelly red herring was used in the late 1800's to thwart the attention of dogs tracking a scent on a trail.

Unfortunately for you, I will not fall into your trap.

For your information though, my favorite text of the Old Testament is Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 4th ed., which leaves the Tetragrammaton in its original Hebrew characters.

[JohnOneOne]

Within your favorite translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the "Old Testament," how have they chosen render and thus to show respect to YHWH, God's self designated, eternal Name?

JohnOneOne -

This is a loaded question for which there is no satisfactory answer as you are well aware. Your intention is to denigrate the integrity of my Bible, even though the matter has no bearing on our previos discussion of the inaccuracy of "Jehovah." In logic and formal debate, this is called a red-herring--namely, it seeks to thwart attention away from the discussion at hand much like a smelly red herring was used in the late 1800's to thwart the attention of dogs tracking a scent on a trail.

Unfortunately for you, I will not fall into your trap.

For your information though, my favorite text of the Old Testament is Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 4th ed., which leaves the Tetragrammaton in its original Hebrew characters.

"Satisfactory" is not what I was looking for, this was a sincere attempt to acquire some legitimate information.

As for your "favorite text of the Old Testament," I am envious of you, as I wish I could read the Hebrew for myself. And yet, if you, on the other hand, do not use a "translation" of that text, then I guess this would better explain why you cannot answer my question; for, as you well know, the Hebrew for YHWH would already appear within the "Biblia Hebraica" some 7,000 times - as you said, "in its original Hebrew characters."

Interesting your mention of the "Biblia Hebraica," for it was the 7th, 8th & 9th editions of this work [BHK] that the Hebrew Scriptures ("Old Testament") portion of the New World Translation was prepared, including the 1977 edition in its use for the NWT 1984 Revision.

Just to finish, as regarding your statement that I have intentions "to denigrate the integrity of [your] Bible," you know as well as I do, if they have not given that Name its due honour, they have already done any of this 'denigrating' all by themselves, with no help from me.

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

[Talmid]

Just to finish, as regarding your statement that I have intentions "to denigrate the integrity of [your] Bible," you know as well as I do, if they have not given that Name its due honour, they have already done any of this 'denigrating' all by themselves, with no help from me.

I knew you could not resist to proceed with your red herring!

The matter still stands, however, that the NWT inserts the name "Jehovah" all over the Old and New Testament, for which the Greek has never known such a name.

[JohnOneOne]

Just to finish, as regarding your statement that I have intentions "to denigrate the integrity of [your] Bible," you know as well as I do, if they have not given that Name its due honour, they have already done any of this 'denigrating' all by themselves, with no help from me.

I knew you could not resist to proceed with your red herring!

The matter still stands, however, that the NWT inserts the name "Jehovah" all over the Old and New Testament, for which the Greek has never known such a name.

What you say is true, no "Greek" text of the "New Testament" known thus far contains that name [except for a form of it at Revelation 19:1, 3, 4 & 6], even where quotations from the "Old Testament" are made, from those places where, within the Hebrew or Greek Septuagint (during that period), YHWH certainly did appear. On the other hand, such a practice of rendering some form of that name into translations of the "New Testament" is certainly not without precedent.

For this, you may find the contents of the following websites of interest:

http://www.jehovah.to/exe/greek/yhwh.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/200406060427 ... m/yhwh.htm

Therefore, the mere fact that such precedent has been established as a very regular and common practice among most every foreign language Bible Translation society (even up till today) - that is, by doing the very same thing - should not preclude any done for the English language as well.

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

[Talmid]

Alan -

Thanks for sparring over the matter. I'm gonna have to call it quits for today so I can finish my rigorous final exam in Latin.

In closing, based upon your answers and links to WT sights, its obvious you are well aware of the problems associated with WT theology. They are always trying to cover up truth by lenghty articles of scholarship at a depth no average laymen could ever possibly understand. Do keep this in mind that God, Yahweh, will not let your willful sin go unpunished with hellfire and brimstone (cf. Mt 10:28).

These are just my final words given in love with hopes you will repent.

[JohnOneOne]

Alan -

Thanks for sparring over the matter. I'm gonna have to call it quits for today so I can finish my rigorous final exam in Latin.

In closing, based upon your answers and links to WT sights, its obvious you are well aware of the problems associated with WT theology. They are always trying to cover up truth by lenghty articles of scholarship at a depth no average laymen could ever possibly understand. Do keep this in mind that God, Yahweh, will not let your willful sin go unpunished with hellfire and brimstone (cf. Mt 10:28).

These are just my final words given in love with hopes you will repent.

Thank you for your loving concern for my eternal welfare, that comes thru with your last words.

As an addition to my last post, another link which demonstrates the historical practice of using a form of the Divine Name of God, YHWH, within translations of the "New Testament," the following link should prove of interest (if not to you, perhaps to others looking on) -

http://web.archive.org/web/200406032232 ... m/jhvh.htm

As for you concern for my not being punished in "hellfire and brimstone," the following link may shed some light on that "hot" topic:

http://web.archive.org/web/200406031438 ... m/hell.htm

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to cover many of these very important topics - if not to your benefit, perhaps to the satisfaction of others looking on.

I wish you well with your studies and exam on Latin.

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com
[By the way, the vast majority of the links I provided were not "W[atch]T[ower]" sites, only those of other Christian witnesses of Jehovah, those who, like me, have an interest in dispelling false notions/information about who and what Jehovah's Witnesses are really all about.]

[Kopio]

There is no hope of it now. The new writer has the name of the verse itself.
In advance my apology for adding to it. It is frustrating to see someone slinging around scripture verses as pretext for a prooftext.

Ahhhh, but there is hope of it...which is exactly what I am going to do. This thread has long been a thorn in my side, fi quite some time ago it became far less about Greek and far more about one's own theological presuppositions. I suppose what really irks me is people who come to this site for nothing other than weighing in their "insight" on the Greek text of John 1:1, but then have no other "insight" to share on virtually any other Greek text.

Therefore, THIS THREAD IS NOW CLOSED! Any attempt to revive it under a new thread will similiarly be quashed. The point of the Koine board is not to extensively argue theology, rather it is to, in a scholarly manner discuss the nuances of the Greek language. I will not put up with any more propaganda here.