John-1-1-Plus.htm
From JOHN1onePLUS
Update to 70-John-1-1-Truths.htm with many references to prove them exist.
(1) In a
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.1865 Diaglot
(2) Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a
divine person"
(3) Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a
god"
(4) Thompson,
1829, "the Logos was a god
(5) Goodspeed, 1939, "the Word was divine
(6) Torrey, 1947, "the Word was god
(7) New English, 1961, "what God was,the Word
was"
(8) Moffatt, 1972, "the Logos was divine
(9) Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a
god" .answeringantimormons.com/John1-1.
(10) Simple English Bible, "and the Message was
Deity"
(11) Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, [A]s a god the Command
was"
(12) Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a
God"
(13) Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary)
"[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"
(14) Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was
a god"
(15) Charles A.L. Totten, 1900, "the Word was
Deistic [=The Word was Godly]
(16) J.N. Jannaris, 1901, [A]nd was a god"
(17) George William Horner, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was
the word"
(18) Ernest Findlay Scott, 1932, "[A]nd the Word
was of divine nature"
(19) ames L. Tomanec, 1958, [T]he Word was a
God"
(20) Philip Harner, 1974, "The Word had the same
nature as God"
(21) Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974,
"The Word was divine"
(22) Siegfried Schulz, 1975, "And a god (or, of
a divine kind) was the Word"
(23) Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with
God and shared his nature
(24) Barclay, 1976, "the nature of the Word was
the same as the nature of God"
(25) Schneider, 1978, "and godlike sort was the
Logos
(26) Schonfield, 1985, "the Word was divine
(27) Revised English, 1989, "what God was, the
Word was
(28) Cotton Parch Version, 1970, and the Idea and God
were One
(29) Scholar's Version, 1993, "The Divine word
and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was
(30) Madsen, 1994, "the Word was <EM>a
divine Being"
(31) Becker, 1979, "ein Gott war das Logos"
[a God/god was the Logos/logos]
(32) Stage, 1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen
Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being].
(33) Bhmer, 1910, "Es war fest mit Gott
verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to God, yes
itself divine Being/being]
(34) Thimme, 1919, "Gott von Art war das
Wort" [God of Kind/kind was the Word/word]
(35) Baumgarten et al, 1920, "Gott (von Art) war
der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]
(36) Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der
Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]
(37) Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war
das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word]
(38) Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology),
1945, "Ordet var av guddomsart" [the Word was of divine kind]
(39) Pfaefflin, 1949, "war von gttlicher Wucht
[was of divine Kind/kind]
(40) Albrecht, 1957, "gttlichen Wesen hatte das
Wort" [godlike Being/being had the Word/word]
(41) Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et
guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being]
(42) Menge, 1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war
das Wort"[God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word)
(43) Haenchen, 1980, "Gott (von Art) war der
Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]
(44) Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "r war
bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all like God]
(45) Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine
(of the category divinity)was the Logos"
(46) Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von
Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the
Word/word].
(47) William Temple, Archbishop of York, 1933, "And the Word was
divine."
(48) John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a
God"
(49) Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, "the word was with
Allah[God] and the word was a god"
(50) Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake
University, 1943, "And the Word was Divine"
(51) Robert Harvey, D.D., 1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)Now-Online are TheBestBiblesplus
52 On are part of 70-John-1-1-Truths.htm with many references to
prove them exist
All Links are
creditable factual
references. If YOU have something to
add to the facts E-Mail librarian@simplebibletruths.net From Seee SBT.net /index
In the beginning there was the Word. The Word
was with The God (gr. Ton Theon) and the Word was
John 1:1.The
Word was God,
The Word was god--
or
The Word was a
god—-
Important Note-All three are
correct. Why? Open 3-Difference-Jn-1-1-Translations.htm For the answer to
what is the right way to render John-1:1
(52)
International Standard Version, In the
beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with
God.
Through him all things were made, and
apart from him nothing was made that
has been made
(ISV) International Standard Version-Davidson Press, 1998
http://tyndalearchive.com/scriptures/isv.htm--http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/versions/isv.htm
(53) Disciples New
Testament, In the
beginning [of creation] there was the Manifestation*; And that Manifestation
was with God;
and God was [the embodiment of] that Manifestation.
Victor Alexander--ISBN: 1438215398 --Publisher: CreateSpace--Date of Publication: 13/05/2008
http://www.v-a.com/bible/--http://www.v-a.com/bible/john_1-7.html#JOHN#1
&
http://www.langtoninfo.com/showitem.asp?isbn=1438215398
(54) The Peoples New Testament,
That he who was afterwards manifest as the Christ existed before creation began;
that he was present with God; that he was divine; that
he was the Word;
B.W. Johnson, 1891--http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/bjohnson/hg1/PNT04-01.HTM
http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-New-Testament-Explanatory-Notes/dp/0892251417
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5014897881--& http://www.oldpaths.org/Library/Comments/Hess/Col/bib.html
(55) The Abbreviated
Bible, The Word
existed with God from the beginning, and all things were created through
him
James Leslie McCary and
Mark McElhaney--Publisher - Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1971
http://openlibrary.org/b/OL4918632M--http://lccn.loc.gov/76173420
& http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/versions/tab.htm
(56) Cassirer New Testament, It was the Word that was
at the very beginning; and the Word was by the side of God,
and the Word was the very
same as God---Heinz W. Cassirer, 1989--http://tyndalearchive.com/scriptures/cnt.htm
& http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/versions/cnt.htm
(57) The Sacred Scriptures, Bethel
Edition, In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Yahweh, and the Word was Elohim.
Assemblies of Yahweh, 1981http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/versions/ssbe.htm
http://www.assembliesofyahweh.com/SSBE.htm&
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Scriptures_Bethel_Edition
(58) New World Translation, In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was a god.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1961 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures.
http://www.watchtower.org/bible/index.htm&
http://www.bible-researcher.com/new-world.html
(59) New
Testament: An Understandable Version, The Word [already]
existed in the beginning [of time].{Note:
this is a reference to the preexistence of Jesus. See verse 14}. And the Word
was with God and the Word was [what] God
[was]--William E. Paul- Published by Author House, 2002-http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=33940
http://tyndalearchive.com/scriptures/ntuv.htm&
http://ncbible.org/AUV/Contents.htm
(60) Rolf Furuli
"and the Word was a divine being"
If
I were to translate the Bible for a group with no previous knowledge of it, I
would use an idiomatic method, but I would follow your advise to translate
important words as uniformely
as possible. Because I see so much unnecessary theological coloring of the text
in the modern versions, I guess I would be extremely careful to render
theologically important passages as literal as possible. And the most important
thing - I would like to have an extensive apparatus of footnotes, both giving
textual variants and alternative renderings. But I would not give Louw & Nida's
suggestions in a footnote to Col 1:15, because they in my view are
completely unfounded, linguistically speaking.
To John 1:1, however, I would use one of the following five renderings
in the main text, and the four others in a footnote: "And the Word was
God", "and the Word was divine", "and the Word was a divine
being", "and the Word was a god", "and god was the
word".
RegardsRolf--Rolf Furuli--Lecturer
in Semitic languages--University of Oslo-http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/1999-April/002537.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolf_Furuli
(61)
the word was a god. (Revised Version-Improved and Corrected)
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/BibleXref.asp?xref=RVIC^John^1
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/BibleIndex.asp?Parm=RVIC
http://www.heraldmag.org/2008/08nd_14.htm
http://www.biblereadersmuseum.com/BibleLink5.html
(62)
Professor Felix Just S.J.
In origin was the Word, and the Word was toward [the] God,* and god/deity/God*
was the Word.
Professor Felix Just, S.J., Loyola Marymount University, 2007--http://catholic-resources.org/John/Outlines-Prologue.htm
actual
translation web site ( see Note on Translation of 1:1-2 below )
http://catholic-resources.org/Courses/LMU/310Syllabus.htm----
web site and courses run by Felix Just
http://www.amazon.com/John-Jesus-History-Appraisals-Literature =8-1
Note on the Translation of 1:1-2:
My translation here is an attempt (maybe not completely
successful?) to point out a curiosity and difficulty in the original Greek of
John 1:1c, where the Evangelist writes, "KAI
ThEOS HN hO LOGOS."
If the evangelist meant, "and the Word was God" (as it
is often translated, capital 'God', in the full Trinitarian sense of later
Christianity), he probably would have written "KAI
hO LOGOS HN hO ThEOS" (or "KAI
hO ThEOS HN hO LOGOS" - essentially saying A=B or B=A). Instead, he
wrote "KAI
ThEOS HN hO
LOGOS," omitting the expected article "hO" in front of "ThEOS."
..
The first difference/difficulty: Ancient
Greek has "definite articles" (in masculine, feminine, and neuter
forms - but all equivalent to "the" in English), but it does NOT have
any "INdefinite articles" (English "a, an"). In
translation, we usually write "the" if the Greek noun is preceded by
a definite article, while we often (but not always) have to ADD the word
"a" or "an" in standard English when the definite article
is missing in Greek (for example, "hO STAUROS" is "the cross," while
"STAUROS" alone is "a cross"). So translating "KAI
ThEOS HN hO
LOGOS" as "and the Word was a god" (as Jehovah's Witnesses do)
adds an indefinite article in English that is not explicit in the orinigal Greek text, and may or may not be appropriate in English
translation.
A second difference/difficulty: When
ancient Greek texts refer to "God" (ThEOS), they usually include the definite article in front,
"hO ThEOS,"
even though translating this too literally sounds strange in English. We
usually just say "God," rather than "the God." Thinking of
"hO ThEOS"
as "the (one and only) God" might help, but still, we do not normally
put the" in front of "God." So most English translations simply
drop the definite article whenever "hO ThEOS"
refers to the Jewish or Christian monotheistic "God." In contrast, in
polytheistic contexts, it is sometimes better to translate "hO ThEOS"
as "the god" (for example, "He went to the temple of the
god" - implying a particular god, maybe Apollo, from among the many gods
in the Greek pantheon).
..
So what did the Evangelist mean in John 1:1c? He certainly did not consider Jesus to be just one
"divine being" or "deity" among many others. If he meant
"divine" in this broader sense, he easily could have used the related
Greek adjective, "ThEIOS,"
rather than the noun "ThEOS."
(See, for example, the adjective "ThEIOS" used twice in 2 Peter 1:3-4, referring to
"divine power" and "divine nature"). Other texts in John
clearly show that the Fourth Evangelist sees Jesus in a unique relationship
with God, calling him "the only-begotten son" (TON hUION TON MONOGENH; 3:16), challenging us to believe "in
the name of the only-begotten son of God" (EIS TO ONOMA TOU MONOGENOUS hIOU TOU ThEOU;
3:18), referring to his glory "as of a father's only son" (hWS MONOGENOUS PARA PATROS; 1:14), and even calling him
"the only-begotten God" (MONOGENHS ThEOS; 1:18 - another difficult phrase, with several ancient
textual variations).
To summarize: The
Fourth Evangelist may not yet have thought of Jesus as the "second person
of the Trinity" (theological language that took several centuries to develop
in early Christianity - itself strongly influence by this Johannine passage); yet John certainly thought of Jesus as "divine"
or "deity" or "god" in a unique sense, not merely "a
god," or one deity among many.
Exactly what he meant in John 1:1c may not be easy to understand, and it is
even harder to translate into English because of the difficulties mentioned
above. So rather than fixate on any particular English translation, even the
best of which might confuse us or lead us astray, we should try to continue
deepening our understanding of what John's entire Gospel says about the
uniquely close relationship of Jesus and the Father.
(63) The New Testament, An improved version the Word was a god -Thomas Belsham> et
al., 1809
The New Testament, An improved
version upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's new translation with a corrected text and notes critical
and explanatory.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Se0UAAAAYAAJ&dq=Belsham+New+Testament+1809&prints&sig=k_result&resnum=3&ct=result
--actual book
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Se0UAAAAYAAJ&dq=Belsham+New+Testament+1809&printg=result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA200,M1
-- actual verse
of John 1:1-http://www.bible-researcher.com/belsham.html--about
Belsham
(64) A Paraphrase on the Gospel of John [A] Divine Person.
Samuel
Clarke, M.A., D.D., Rector of St. James, Westminster
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3246630?lookfor=1&max=4079824-- actual book at National
Library of Australia
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_2077&chapter=157679&layout=html&Itemid=27
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OemH4jKItGQC&dq=Clarke,+Samuel,+D.D.,+1675-1729,+Rector+of+St.+James%E2%80%99,+Westminster&prints=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result--
searchable book pages 5,6,8 useful
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Search/Home?lookfor=samuel+clarke&type=all&limits=&submit=Find
(65) A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians a god
Andrews Norton, D.D.
Cambridge: Brown,
Shattuck, and Company, 1833
http://books.google.com/books?id==A+Statement+of+Reasons+Believing+the+Doctrines+of+Trinitarians#PPA280,M1
-- actual book.
Search for a god on pages 2, 28, 67, 68, 280
http://books.google.com/books?iA+Statement+of+Reasons+For+Not+Believing+the+Doctrines+of+Trinitarians#PPA365,M1
1859 version. Actual text. See pages 40, 68, 113, 121, 158, 205, 231, 314, 365
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3756182?lookfor=A%20StatementBelieving%20the%20Doctrines%20of%20Trinitarians&offset=04
(66) The
Beginnings of
Christianity a God
PAUL WERNLE-PROFESSOR EXTRAORDINARY OF MODERN CHURCH HISTORY
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BASEL
The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16
Translated by THE
REV.
G. A. BIENEMANN, M.A. and
edited, with an Introduction, by THE REV.
W. D. MORRISON, LL.D.
VOL.
I. - THE RISE OF THE
RELIGION--WILLIAMS AND
NORGATE
14 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT
GARDEN, LONDON AND
7 BROAD STREET, OXFORD
NEW YORK: G. P.
PUTNAMS SONS , 1903--http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wernle_paul/beginnings01.iii.v.ii.html
- actual book , chapter 15
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beginnings-Christianity-Translated-Bienemann-introduction& http://lccn.loc.gov/04017922
(67) Twenty First Century New Testament Literal Translation and the [Marshal]
[Word] was a god.
Vivian Capel--
Twenty First Century New Testament Literal Translation:
The
Dual Translation which Enables a
Study of the Literal Meanings of the Original Text to be Combined with a Reading in Modern English.
Published by Insight Press, Bristol, 1998--ISBN
0953187705
http://www.biblereadersmuseum.com/biblebiblio.htm--http://www.goldenagebooks.co.uk/ViewProduct.asp?productID=28
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Twenty-Century-Testament-Literal-Translation/
(68) Concordant Literal New Testament With Keyword Concordance
"God was the Word" --A.E. Knock
Concordant Literal New Testament With Keyword Concordance, 1983--ISBN
0910424144
http://openlibrary.org/b/OL11380939M/Concordant-Literal-New-Testament-With-Keyword-Concordance
http://www.concordant.org/version/NewFiles/04_John.htm&
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordant_Literal_Version
(69) Dictionary of the Bible "the word was a divine being.'--Jesuit John L.
McKenzie, 1965 - Dictionary of the Bible#
"Trinity.
In the words of Jesus and in much of the rest of the NT the God of
Israel (Gk. ho theos)
is the Father* of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that the title ho theos, which now designates the Father as a personal reality,
is not applied in the NT to Jesus Himself; Jesus is the Son of God (of ho theos). This is a matter of usage and not of rule, and the noun
[Gk. ho theos]
is applied to Jesus a few times.
"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be
translated "the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a
divine being."
Thomas invokes Jesus with the titles which belong to the
*Father, "My Lord and my God" (Jn 20:28). "The glory of our great God and Savior" which
is to appear can be the glory of no other than Jesus (Tt 2:13)"
(Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, God, p317)
The trinity of God is
defined by the Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so
defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not
explicitly and formally a biblical belief. The
trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of
"person" and "nature" which are Gk philosophical terms;
actually the terms do not appear in the Bible.
The trinitarian definitions arose as the
result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as
"essence" and "substance" were erroneously applied to God
by some theologians. ... Without an explicit
formula the NT leaves no room to think that Jesus is Himself an object of the
adoption which He communicates to others. He knows the Father and reveals Him. He therefore belongs to
the divine level of being; and there is no question at all about the Spirit
belonging to the divine level of being. What
is less clear about the Spirit is His personal reality; often He is mentioned
in language in which His personal reality is not explicit.
(Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, p899)
http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Bible-John-L-Mckenzie/dp/0684819139--http://atijournal.org/McKenzie.htm
http://authors.simonandschuster.com/John-L-Mckenzie- & http://www.librarything.com/author/mckenziejohnl
(70) An Exposition Of The Historical Writings Of The New Testament "and the word
was [a] God."--Timothy Kenrick
AN EXPOSITON
OF THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT, Vol.II.
Published in 1807, Printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees, and Orme (London), 1807
http://openlibrary.org/b/OL21105798M&
http://www.hurleybooks.com/si/44603.html
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jgU&source=gbs_search_r&cad=0_1#PRA4-PA12,M1
A
Note : 70 Different people or Bible Publishers in 70 different situations recognize that was God with a CAPITAL G is not the universal translation of John
1:1.
And this work has spanned many centuries and many countries!!
In fact, this information
makes it clear that what is orthodox is not
orthodox at all rather we see that many translators realize that God was
telling us something very unique about Jesus in John 1:1 and his relationship
with God. Many translators let theology get in the way of truth - here we see honest efforts to show Gods word correctly
translated.
May we always seek the
pure truth of Gods word.
Who is Jesus. Write
the librarian@simplebibletruths.net
Yahweh alone is truth and love. Amen.
For this purpose the Son of God was
manifested,
that he might destroy the works of the devil. (1John 3:8)
See Parallel Translations http://bible.cc/1_john/3-8.htm
SBT Is a-Reference *Research Expository Biblical Library Lu 8:17*with Readers Participation- Send in Your Biblical accurate Facts to Dear Librarian at librarian@simplebibletruths.net See Open New
HP Home PageSBT receives
Facts and Verifies them. In this GOD or god disclosure--a fact is that JWs didnt exist before 1870 so those Bibles before then-- they had nothing to do
with them being published and this page is not about JWs its about All
Bible Publications we can find. There
are many web-sites that like to mention JWs with any Bible that reads different from and the
Word was God-For Jws open 33.htm SBT Sent a John 1:1 list to the Experts of Jehovah-s-Witnesses-1617/Theology open John-1-1-Theology.htm 9/1/2006Plus see- TrinityBestDescribedAndSimplified.htm The Historic Jesus in the New Testament Robert
Harvey Strachen, Student Christian
Movement Press: London, 1931, p. 187.Refences in http://openlibrary.org/
& Another Historical Biblical NOTE is that the T-O.htm Trinity/Oneness
T-O.htm Movement since 325 B.C.Has done the Best to stop these Bibles from being
printed Also open and see Foot-Notes in FooterJpg.htm plus JOHN1onePLUS--Fact.htm and John-1-1-All-Articles.htm. the Word was GOD is Homoousion Theology What is Homoousion Open Homoousion
And Theology Plus--WhatDoYouBelieve.htm and GOD.
70-John-1-1-Truths-70 Bibles that reads god a god, a God, like God, Godlike, divine or the like rather then the Word was GOD
For detailed introduction about this
page open John-1-1a-Introduction.htm and Foot-Notes Who is Jesus. Write the librarian@simplebibletruths.net
All Links are creditable factual references. If YOU have something to add to the facts
E-Mail librarian@simplebibletruths.net From http://simplebibletruths.net /
In the beginning there was the Word. The Word
was with The God (gr. Ton Theon) and the Word was
John 1:1.The
Word was God,
The Word was god--
or
The Word was a god—
Important Note-All three are
correct. Why? Open GODorgod. Did GODorgod Have the Bible written so we would
know Facts or Myths Open John-1-1-18. 58.htm E-Mail librarian@simplebibletruths.net
About Bible Publishers. R/in Bible
Publishers Accountable To Who
and GODorgod
Part-2-Of-John-1-1-Covers-Other-Biblical-Errors.htm that mostly support the Trinity by