SBTsaysYOU Decide--Who really gets it RIGHT--DCvsGODAndChristendom Is Debating christianity.com vs The original Biblical truths in this Biblical Library--Compare and YOU Decide And Write librarian@simplebibletruths.net\

SBT Is all about Defending the Original Biblical truths-DB

 

Civil and engaging debate on Christianity and religious issues for free

With No Books to Purchase--Matt10-8.htm ---FPs.htm

(1) Open http://debatingchristianity.com/ 

Then (2) Open GODorgod  and see who really gets it RIGHT—YOU Decide –Like Open

(3) FREE-Will and also see FooterJpg.htm

 

Plus Survey. YOU Decide who has the best and most accurate Open Commentaries-MANY-1272011

(4) Commentaries-MANY-1272011

Write librarian@simplebibletruths.net-And

(5) Write If  have found a better Biblical Library--librarian@simplebibletruths.net-  

Debating christianity.com—And Christendom –Voice your opinion. Write the librarian@simplebibletruths.net-

 

 

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=38 --Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma—

DOCTRINEBuster1.htm and Life.htm and C DustToDust1.htm-  DenyingJesusLife.htm is DenyingJesus.htm

 

 

 

Debating Christianity and Religion READS
Civil and engaging debate on Christianity and religious issues
 


70 Non Trinitarian translations of John 1:1
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  

 

Reply to topic

   Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma

 

Author

Message

Shermana Offline

Prodigy

Joined: 04 Jul 2010

Total posts: 2608

Location: City of the "Angels"

Gender: Male

Usergroups: 

Accepts Microevolution

 

Christian Heretic

 

Has read the entire Bible

 

Head-to-head participant

 

Hempster

 

Messianic Jew

 

Pro-Polygamy



12619.58 tokens

PostBBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in postPost 1: Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:38 am    Post subject: 70 Non Trinitarian translations of John 1:1

Reply with quote

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14780372/Non-trinitarian-Translations-of-John-11

An excellent collection though a few show a few signs of liberties. There's a lot more "A god" translations than I realized.

Is it logical to conclude that there is much more than the JWs as an authority that this reading of John 1:1 can be legitimately read as "a god"?

Are there enough translations that present the case of "a god" or "Divine" as the translation of an article-less "Theos" to conclude that it's not just some fringe baseless position? Is it more of a Theological issue why the "A god" translation is so unappreciated by the "Conservative scholars"?

 

Back to top

View user's profile 

 

 

jedicri Offline

Apprentice

Joined: 02 Jun 2011

Total posts: 104

Gender: Undisclosed

Usergroups: None

788.69 tokens

PostBBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in postPost 2: Wed Jul 20, 2011 9:05 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote

 

Are you talking about proper translation because proper interpretation plays a big role...

One must also be infallible to properly do so...

BTW, it could also be argued that the link you posted also has "poor and/or theologically biased Bible translations of John 1:1".

 

Back to top

View user's profile 

 

 

Shermana Offline

Prodigy

Joined: 04 Jul 2010

Total posts: 2608

Location: City of the "Angels"

Gender: Male

Usergroups: 

Accepts Microevolution

 

Christian Heretic

 

Has read the entire Bible

 

Head-to-head participant

 

Hempster

 

Messianic Jew

 

Pro-Polygamy



12619.58 tokens

PostBBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in postPost 3: Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:24 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote

 

jedicri wrote:

Are you talking about proper translation because proper interpretation plays a big role...

One must also be infallible to properly do so...

BTW, it could also be argued that the link you posted also has "poor and/or theologically biased Bible translations of John 1:1".



Why don't you get into why these translations are poor and "Theologically biased" while the "Mainstream ones" aren't, in detail.

So if "Proper interpretation" plays a role, what is the correct "proper interpretation", and why?

 

Back to top

View user's profile 

 

 

jedicri Offline

Apprentice

Joined: 02 Jun 2011

Total posts: 104

Gender: Undisclosed

Usergroups: None

788.69 tokens

PostBBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in postPost 4: Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:37 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote

 

The way I see it, whoever determined the canonicity of the Bible would be, and is, the proper interpreter of Scripture.

There are claims that Scripture is infallible since it is the Word of God. If that were so, it follows that Scripture needs an infallible interpreter and whoever determined the canon of Scripture would be that one.

The early Church, as history shows, not the Bible itself, resolved the issue of the canon. It was the authority of the Catholic bishops which settled disputes about which books belonged in the Bible and which did not. They had standards by which they made these judgments. The only way you can be sure that the standards and judgments were correct is if you believe the Holy Spirit was working in the Church to make sure the correct canon arose.

It's interesting to note that as the canon develops in the first couple of centuries, developing alongside it and even before it, are beliefs such as baptismal regeneration, apostolic succession, the Mass as sacrifice, etc. In fact, by the time you get to Nicea that's pretty much standard Christian practice. So, if you think the Holy Spirit was working in the Church then, and that Church had all that Catholic teachings, then why accept the Bible and not Catholic theology and dogma since nobody at the time thought the latter was inconsistent with the former?

Moreover, does it make sense to reject such teachings, such as the Trinity, if we believe that the Holy Spirit inerrantly guided these men and the Church since the day of Pentacost and is backed by Jesus's solemn practice that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Her?

Now, how authoritative and binding was the Church's witness --- its tradition --- upon the individual Christian? Must it be accepted by all Christians on the pain of heresy? If the Church's decision on the canon isn't authoritative, then what happens to the authority of the books which comprise the Bible? If one rejects the teaching authority of the Church, its teachings, and its stance that they alone are proper interpreters of Scripture, why do these still continue to use the Bible? By continuing to use the Bible, they are indirectly admitting the Church's authority.

If they so reject Catholic doctrine and teachings, let these individuals then determine the canonicity of the Bible, and, having done so, let them translate and interpret according to their own whims.

 

Back to top

 

 

Shermana Offline

Prodigy

Joined: 04 Jul 2010

Total posts: 2608

Location: City of the "Angels"

Gender: Male

Usergroups: 

Accepts Microevolution

 

Christian Heretic

 

Has read the entire Bible

 

Head-to-head participant

 

Hempster

 

Messianic Jew

 

Pro-Polygamy



12619.58 tokens

PostBBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in postPost 5: Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:48 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote

 

Okay, that was a nice discourse on why you think the Catholic Church has all the answers, but it doesn't exactly hit any of the specifics about John 1:1c.

 

Back to top

View user's profile 

 

 

arian Offline

Sage

Joined: 13 Feb 2011

Total posts: 744

Location: AZ

Gender: Male

Usergroups: 

Christian

 

Christian Heretic

 

Does not believe in Santa

 

Has read the entire Bible

 

Messianic Jew



4366.84 tokens

PostBBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in postPost 6: Sun Jul 24, 2011 4:23 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote

 

Shermana wrote:

Okay, that was a nice discourse on why you think the Catholic Church has all the answers, but it doesn't exactly hit any of the specifics about John 1:1c.



Thank you for that Shermana.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NKJV

In the beginning was the Word, so that is not God, for God has no beginning or an end.

The 'Word' was 'with' God, and not 'God was with God' so here again the Word is NOT God, for this Word was 'with' Him.

"The Word was God" and we know God was always God, so the Word is someone else who used to be God. Besides, it would not make sense to say: 'God was God' if the Word really is God.

Let's see the image of God, Adam:

God created Adam in HIS image. So Adam represents GOD.

Eve was begotten, or 'taken out of' Adam, and 'Eve' is now 'with' Adam.

Is Eve Adam?

No, Eve WAS Adam. Case closed.

Why? to make sure we don't confuse the Word with GOD, here is verse 2:

John 1:2
2 He was in the beginning with God.
NKJV

Who was with God in the beginning?
The Word, and not God.

John 1:3
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
NKJV

Who creates things?

God.

Through whom?

The 'Word' and without Him nothing was made that was made.

John 1:4-5
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
NKJV

In this created universe God put an example of Himself and His Son who He calls His Word;

Our sun represents God, for we cannot look in the sun nor approach it.

"The WORD became flesh and dwelt among us", as Jesus Christ.

The moon represents the Son of God, who was Jesus Christ in the 'flesh'. It is this Word of God Jesus who is that light that shines in the darkness, too bad that even now "the darkness did not comprehend it."

Why? It is so plain to see!

 

Back to top

View user's profile 

 

 

JohnOneOne Offline

Newbie

Avatar

 

Joined: 18 Mar 2011

Total posts: 2

Location: Lancaster, Pennsylvania

Age: 60

Gender: Male

Usergroups: None

20.00 tokens

PostBBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in postPost 7: Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:45 pm    Post subject: Re: 70 Non Trinitarian translations of John 1:1

Reply with quote

 

Shermana wrote:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14780372/Non-trinitarian-Translations-of-John-11

An excellent collection though a few show a few signs of liberties. There's a lot more "A god" translations than I realized.

Is it logical to conclude that there is much more than the JWs as an authority that this reading of John 1:1 can be legitimately read as "a god"?

Are there enough translations that present the case of "a god" or "Divine" as the translation of an article-less "Theos" to conclude that it's not just some fringe baseless position? Is it more of a Theological issue why the "A god" translation is so unappreciated by the "Conservative scholars"?



Regarding the translating of John 1:1, it may interest you to know that there is soon to be published an 19+ year study (as of 07/2011), an historical analysis, an exhaustive annotated bibliography, with its main focus on the wording and meaning of that verse entitled, "What About John 1:1?"

To learn more of its design and expected release date, you are invited to visit:

http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

When finally published, you will discover over 430 scholarly reference works which have opted to say something other than, "and the Word was God," and that, among these, are included over 120 which had chosen to use "a god" within the third clause of their renderings.

As you might expect, we are very excited at the opportunity to share our findings with others.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

 

Back to top

View user's profile 

 

 

JehovahsWitness Offline

Sage

Joined: 29 Sep 2010

Total posts: 740

Gender: Undisclosed

Usergroups: 

Christian



6278.62 tokens

PostBBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in postPost 8: Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:32 am    Post subject: Re: 70 Non Trinitarian translations of John 1:1

Reply with quote

 

Shermana wrote:


Are there enough translations that present the case of "a god" or "Divine" as the translation of an article-less "Theos" to conclude that it's not just some fringe baseless position?




"enough" is a subjective quantifier but there are a a number of respected scholars that make a case for this understanding of John 1:1











BIBLE SCHOLARS:

"the Word [logos] was a god". -Origen's Commentary on John, Book I, ch. 42 - Bk II, ch.3.

"The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself." -- Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian & scholar (the American Standard Version)

"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'" -- And Jesuit John L. McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible





**Interlineary Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott, "In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."

**Edward Harwood, H KAINH DIAQHKH. London, 1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols. 1768,"and was himself a divine person"

**Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"

**Crellius,as quoted in The New Testament in an Improved Version "the Word was God's"

**La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel,1928: “and the Word was a divine being.”

**John Samuel Thompson, The Montessoran; or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore; published by the translator, 1829, "the Logos was a god"

**Goodspeed's An American Translation, 1939, "the Word was divine"

**Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, "the word was a god."

Prof. Felix Just, S.J. - Loyola Marymount University, "and god[-ly/-like] was the Word."

**Moffatt's The Bible, 1972, "the Logos was divine"

**International English Bible-Extreme New Testament, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word]

**Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek, 1694, "and the Word was a god"

**Hermann Heinfetter, A Literal Translation of the New Testament,1863, [A]s a god the Command was"

Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, "The Word was a God"

Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885,
"[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"

Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god”

Leicester Ambrose, The Final Theology, Volume 1, New York, New York; M.B. Sawyer and Company, 1879, "And the logos was a god"

Charles A.L. Totten, The Gospel of History, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]

**J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901, [A]nd was a god"
International Bible Translators N.T. 1981

Samuel Clarke, M.A., D.D., rector of St. James, Westminster, A Paraphrase on the Gospel of John, London
"[A] Divine Person."

Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. [Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37). "a God"

Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156). "a God"

Andrews Norton, D.D. [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). "a god"

Paul Wernle,(in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16). "a God"

"and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." 21st Century Literal

**George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"

Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University Press, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"

James L. Tomanec, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"

Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"

Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

Johannes Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos"

**Scholar's Version-The Five Gospels, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was"

**J. Madsen, New Testament A Rendering , 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"

**Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1979, "a God/god was the Logos/logos"

**Curt Stage, The New Testament, 1907, "The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being."

Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "the Word was of divine kind"

**Fredrich Pfaefflin, The New Testament, 1949, "was of divine Kind/kind"

Albrecht, 1957, "godlike Being/being had the Word/word"

Smit, 1960, "the word of the world was a divine being"

Menge, 1961, "God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word"

Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"

William Temple, Archbishop of York, Readings in St. John's Gospel, London, Macmillan & Co.,1933,
"And the Word was divine."

John Crellius, Latin form of German, The 2 Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One God the Father, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"

Greek Orthodox /Arabic Calendar, incorporating portions of the 4 Gospels, Greek Orthodox Patriarchy or Beirut, May, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"

Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was Divine"

Robert Harvey, D.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, in The Historic Jesus in the New Testament, London, Student Movement Christian Press1931
"and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"

Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'

All translations
http://web.archive.org/web/20031204212525/hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wisdom.htm

 

Back to top

View user's profile

 

Student Offline

Apprentice

Joined: 16 Aug 2009

Total posts: 114

Location: Manchester

Age: 60

Gender: Male

Usergroups: None

1481.60 tokens

PostBBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in postPost 9: Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:28 pm    Post subject: Re: 70 Non Trinitarian translations of John 1:1

Reply with quote

 

JehovahsWitness wrote:

Shermana wrote:


Are there enough translations that present the case of "a god" or "Divine" as the translation of an article-less "Theos" to conclude that it's not just some fringe baseless position?



"enough" is a subjective quantifier but there are a a number of respected scholars that make a case for this understanding of John 1:1

You say "this understanding", when Shermana refers to two different translations.

Firstly "a god", which treats the anarthrous theos as indefinite, and secondly "divine" which treats the anarthrous theos as qualitative.

So which is it to be, "a god", or "divine"? It can't be both.

 

Back to top

View user's profile 

 

 

Sum1sGruj Offline


Banned
Student

 

Joined: 09 Aug 2011

Total posts: 96

Location: Virginia, USA

Age: 23

Gender: Male

Usergroups: 

Abrahamic Harmony

 

Christian

 

Moral Absolutists



272.59 tokens

PostBBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in postPost 10: Mon Aug 15, 2011 7:08 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote

 

The Trinity is a symbolic notion of deliverance. Any Christian who believes it is more is simply mislead.
That is why the context speaks of one God, and three different things. Deliverance.
If I made a phone call, sent mail, and shouted across town with a horn, does that make me three different beings?
No.
Deliverance. I think that some simply forget the obvious.

 

Back to top

View user's profile 

 

 

Display posts from previous:   

 

 

Reply to topic

   Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma

All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Page 1 of 6

 

Facebook
Tweet

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://simplebibletruths.net/GODorgod.htm READS

 

 

“THEOS” GODorgod  G or g-GOD-or-god“THEOS” When is it Proper to Print a Capital G or a small g-- John 1:1 .

Any difficulty in understanding John 1:1 is intentionally ( IntentionalFallacy.htm) Caused by the translators and Bible Publishers Why? The Answer Is. No Foot-Note (Read FooterJpg.htm) About—There Is Only One Word for GOD in the Greek Language  THEOS”.  John 1:1 . The Word was God, The Word was god or The Word was a god—All three are correct Why?

 At the time the New Testament was written, Greek manuscripts were written in all capital letters The upper and lower case letters were not blended as we do today. Thus, the distinction that we today make between” God” and “god” could not be made, and the Context became the judge in determining to whom “THEOS” referred at the time the New Testament was written, Greek manuscripts were written in all capital letters

Open  Picture of Manuscript Page--Papyrus 66-- Hebrew Bible --Septuagint--&--AllManuscriptsWereWrittenInAllCaps.htm

It is All About The Bible Publisher’s Biblical Theology “It is about Jesus’ Life and His Two beginnings (or not) or whether you believe in the

NiceneCouncilOriginalWrittingsWhatDidTheySay.htm & Nicene--Creed-

Most All Bible Publishers Do Not Even Print a Courtesy Foot –Notes (Open FooterJpg ) At the bottom of that page About The Biblical-Theology  of GOD in John 1:1

(Learn) The Original Manuscripts BIG G or small g---Here on this page.

JesusHasTwoBeginningsBothScriptural.htm

Translations and manuscripts

Septuagint · Samaritan Pentateuch · Dead Sea scrolls · Targums · Peshitta · Vetus Latina · Vulgate · Masoretic text · Gothic Bible · Luther Bible · English Bibles

Any difficulty in understanding this verse is caused by the translators. Had they faithfully rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did in verses 34 and 35, then it would read, “…you, a man, claim to be a god.” In the next two verses, John 10:34 and 35, the exact same word (theos, without the article) is translated as “god,” not “God.” The point was made under John 1:1 that usually when “God” is meant, the noun theos has the definite article.  OPEN Jn 10:33 NASB and also Read John-20-28.htm The Doubting Thomas--Most likely thought of Jesus as a godly Lord. Details in John-20-28.htm

Jn 1:1 The last phrase in the verse, which most versions translate as “and the Word was God,” should not be translated that way.

The Greek language uses the word “God” (Greek = theos) to refer to the Father as well as to other authorities. These include the Devil

the god Gr., ho the·os´; Lat., de´us; J17,18(Heb.), ’elo·heh´; J22(Heb.), ’el. Open Devil (2 Cor.Open  4:4 NASB ) the god, image of God.

 lesser gods (1 Cor. Open 8:5) and men with great authority (John 10:34 and 35; Acts 12:22

It All About The Bible Publisher’s Theology  Biblical Theology “and the Word was God,” G-Cap is Pro Nicene-Creeds.

Compare BIG –G or small g Example1Jn1-1.htm--

Bodmer-II-P66.htm--friktech.com--lineone.net/~nt.in.greek /  

Under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1#Translation

                                     Under Wikipedia.org/wiki/ John_1:1#Translation

                                     Wikipedia Renders These Facts

Two issues need to be remembered as regards the original text. First old Greek manuscripts of the Bible are in capital letters

only. Second, the word theos in the original text cannot grammatically have the definite article.[5] John 10:35

has similar usage of Greek word theos (god), with and without ho (the) when describing human rulers as "gods

".Wiki/John_1:1#Translation

SBT Note --The real issue here for all Serious Bible Students is the lack of all Bible Publishers to Foot-Note (Footer Jpg.explains all)  the above

All the above Starting with- Any difficulty in understanding this verse is intentionally caused by the translators and Bible Publishers

Open Footer Jpg. (Footer Jpg.explains all)  

Look at the letters in the Code wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex http://www.ntcanon.org/  & arlham.edu/~seidti/iam/index.

T/O’s Stand for The Trinity and Oneness Movement. H T - Stands for -Homoousion