Download Free Apps & Games @ PHONEKY.com
Download Free Apps & Games @ PHONEKY.com
Subject: STUDIES in John 1:1
Replies: 55 Views: 2116
elijah_2 14.04.11 - 06:39am
This passage of scripture is the most powerful passage in the Bible: on the being and nature of God. And its also the most attacked passage in the Bible. Why? because it: denies and excludes all the false theologies about the being/nature of God. Secondly, it confirms the true nature and the being of God, by interpreting what Moses had written in Genesis, leaving us in no doubt has to why Moses used the plural noun (Elohim), when he could have use the singular form of the noun (El and Ellah), and also why God refers to his being with plural pro nouns (us and our). This study will be a fascinating one; we are going to dissect this passage, take it apart and an*lyze each of its particulars. Now, lets start by quoting the verse.
Remember this, you always interpret the Old Testament in the Light of the New Testament, not the other way around. The New Testament explains the Old. *
elijah_2 14.04.11 - 06:52am
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(This is how these translations of the Bible among countless others renders this passage: KJV, NKJV, ASV, ESV, ISV, NIV, YLT, Amplified, Bible in Basic English, Darby Bible Translation, Websters Bible Translation, Weymouth New Testament, World English Bible, Gods Words, Douay, ect) *
elijah_2 14.04.11 - 06:57am
There are a few other translations that renders the Greek kai theos en ho logos in these ways,
(And the word was a god) OR (and godlike sort was the Logos) OR (and a god was the Word) OR (and the word was divine). *
elijah_2 14.04.11 - 07:00am
Before we dissect this verse, lets look at this passage in the original language: the Greek, in which it was written. *
elijah_2 14.04.11 - 07:01am
en arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos. *
elijah_2 14.04.11 - 07:02am
PHRASE 1: In beginning was the Word (en arche en ho logos) *
elijah_2 14.04.11 - 07:05am
In beginning God created heavens and the earth. [Genesis 1:1]
in this first clause John starts out by saying, en arche (that is, in beginning) there is no definite article in front of the word arche in which the literal translation is (in beginning), this is similar to what Moses said in Genesis 1:1 beres**t bara elohim et hashamayim veet haaretz. There is no article infront of the word beres**t either; this passage like (John 1:1) should be rendered (in beginning) which shows that John was alluding to creation in his opening statements. *
elijah_2 14.04.11 - 02:59pm
Moses In beginning Elohim [God] was (Genesis 1:1)
John In beginning ho Logos [the Word] was (John 1:1).
Here we can see John starting out is first book, just like how Moses started out his forst book. *
elijah_2 14.04.11 - 03:03pm
PHRASE 2: and the Word was with the God (kai ho logos en pros ton theon) *
elijah_2 14.04.11 - 03:14pm
In this clause, after John declared that the Word was 'in beginning' (en arche). He goes on to say in his second clause, and the Word [the Son] was with the God [the father]. In this statement he affirms that there were TWO present in beginning (en arche); NOT one single person. John adds in (vs.2) The same [that is, the Word] was in beginning WITH God [the Father]. Here in verse 3, we see John re-affirms that the Son existed in beginning WITH the Father. *
elijah_2 14.04.11 - 03:18pm
PHRASE 3: and God was the Word (kai theos en ho logos) *
elijah_2 14.04.11 - 03:24pm
In beginning God [Elohim] created the heavens and the earth. [Genesis 1:1]
In this clause, after John start out by referring his listeners and readers to creation as mentioned in Genesis 1:1. Then in his second clause he adds that the Word [the Son] was WITH another person; God [that is, the father], now in his third clause he says the nature of ho logos [the Word] is theos [God]. This explains why Moses used the plural word Elohim to refer to (the being) that created the universe, Because, there were at least TWO (the Logos and then One with whom the Logos was with) BOTH called God that did the creating of the heavens and the earth. And it would also explains why God [Elohim] uses the plural pro nouns us and our (Genesis 1:26) to refer to his being. *
elijah_2 14.04.11 - 03:48pm
In beginning God [Elohim] created: the heavens and the earth. [Genesis 1:1]
In addition, following the pattern than John is using, tracing the writings of Moses. In (vs.3) John picks up on the creating aspect of the Genesis 1:1 passage, All things were made by him [the Word]; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. This verse clears up anyone doubting that Elohim used by Moses was referring to more than only one person, and proves that there are at least two persons comprising that one being 'God' who is said to create the heavens and the earth. *
elijah_2 14.04.11 - 03:53pm
LETS FURTHER EVALUATE THIS PASSAGE *
elijah_2 14.04.11 - 03:59pm
There are THREE main views in Christendom about the being and nature of God: (1) Unitarianism, (2) Sabellianism, and (3) Trinitarianism. *
elijah_2 14.04.11 - 11:11pm
UNITARIANISM
Unitarians adhere to strict monotheism, and maintain that Jesus was a great man and a prophet of God, perhaps even a supernatural being, but not God himself. They believe Jesus did not claim to be God, and that his teachings did not suggest the existence of a triune God. Unitarians believe in the moral authority, but not necessarily the divinity, of Jesus.
(Wikipedia) *
elijah_2 14.04.11 - 11:24pm
THERE TWO DIFFERENT FORMS OF UNITARIANISM
Personal pre-human existence
In one form, the Son of God is considered to have pre-existed as the Logos, a being created by God, who dwelt with God in heaven prior to his birth as the man, Jesus. The belief that he was an angel or other lesser spirit creature of a wholly different nature from God.
(Wikipedia)
No personal pre-human existence
The distinguishing feature of this belief is the denial of the personal pre-existence of Christ. There are various views ranging from the belief that Jesus, the son of Joseph, was a great man who became filled with the Holy Spirit, to the belief that he literally was the Son of God through the virgin birth.
(Wikipedia) *
elijah_2 14.04.11 - 11:34pm
SABELLIANISM
(also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself.
(Wikipedia) *
elijah_2 14.04.11 - 11:39pm
TRINITARIANISM
According to this doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way. Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well. Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient.
(Wikipedia) *
elijah_2 14.04.11 - 11:49pm
The Question now is: Does (John 1:1) teach:
(1) Unitarianism (2) Sabellianism, (3) Trinitarianism? We are going to dissect (John 1:1) looking at it in detail, looking at some key words used in the passage, and then we will be able to draw a reliable conclusion as to which one of these theology the passage teaches. Let's start out again with the first clause and define a few key words. *
elijah_2 15.04.11 - 02:15pm
PHRASE 1: In beginning was the Word (en arche en ho logos) *
elijah_2 15.04.11 - 02:28pm
The word 'Was' used in this clause is the Greek word 'en' which is the imperfect form of the verb of existence (eimi); meaning, 'timeless existence.' Our English Language doesn't do a very good job in expressing these things, as the Greek language does. Thus, what's being communicated here is that, (the Word) has Eternally existed; there was never a point in time that (the Word) came into existence. *
elijah_2 15.04.11 - 02:55pm
PHRASE 2: and the Word was with the God (kai ho logos en pros ton theon) *
elijah_2 15.04.11 - 03:00pm
The word 'With' in the Greek is 'pros' which shows DISTINCTION and not only that, this word means; 'face to face with, communion with' Thus, what is being communicated here is that, there was a relationship between ho Logos [the Word] and theon [God]. *
elijah_2 15.04.11 - 03:13pm
In John 17:5 Jesus alludes to this, 'face to face with, communion with.'
5. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with [para] thee before the world was.
The Greek word para means; PERSONAL distinction. *
elijah_2 15.04.11 - 04:13pm
Again, in John 8:37-38 Jesus speaking with the Jewish Scholars and the Pharisees compared his relationship that he had with the Father, to that which they have and had with their Fathers (that is, face to face with & Communion with).
37. I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
38. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. *
elijah_2 15.04.11 - 04:26pm
Summarizing Phrase 1 & Phrase 2, with the additional information we got from John 17:5 and John 8:37-38.
Jesus existed in beginning along side the Father, he [Jesus] had face to face communion with the Father and they BOTH had the same Glory or they BOTH shared the same Glory. *
elijah_2 15.04.11 - 08:57pm
PHRASE 3: and God was the Word (kai theos en ho logos) *
elijah_2 15.04.11 - 09:03pm
We have already seen that the proper translation of this passage is not; God was the Word, rather the Word was God. *
elijah_2 15.04.11 - 09:15pm
This is where some people stumble; a few translators who ignore the plain teaching that Jesus exist eternally in face to face communion with the Father and share the same nature and Glory that the Father has. And thus, that makes him very God by nature. *
elijah_2 15.04.11 - 09:20pm
These translators have made up rules in which they themselves are not abiding by. For example: some will argue that the second occurrence of the word 'Theos' in the passage [John 1:1] doesnt have the definite article 'ho' while the first had the definite article 'ho'. Thus, the second occurrence of the word 'theos' without the definite article should not be translated (God) rather (god or a god). *
elijah_2 15.04.11 - 10:00pm
INCONSISTENCY
The Apostle John throughout his writings uses the word 'Theos' approximately 250 times. 22 out of those 250 plus times; it doesnt have the definite article 'ho.' What is even more interesting, that 4 out of the 22 references, are found in the very chapter in discussion (John 1). And I have NEVER EVER seen a translation on this earth that translates the word as (god or a god), always (God). Even the very translators who made up the rule NEVER translated the word that way.
*
elijah_2 15.04.11 - 11:04pm
John 1:6
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
(Egeneto anthrpos apestalmenos para theou onoma aut ianns)
*
elijah_2 15.04.11 - 11:06pm
John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.
(Osoi de elabon auton edken autois exousian tekna theou genesthai tois pisteuousin eis to onoma autou)
*
elijah_2 15.04.11 - 11:08pm
John 1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
(Oi ouk ex aimatn oude ek thelmatos sarkos oude ek thelmatos andros all ek theou egennthsan) *
elijah_2 16.04.11 - 01:38am
Notice: In none of the above passages do we see the Greek word 'Ho' or 'ton' which is the definite article 'the.' Yet in no translation on this planet that I have ever seen, do we see the word translated (god or a god). Why the inconsistency? Let us look another passage that further proves a huge level of inconsistency and thus, bias. *
elijah_2 16.04.11 - 01:47am
In John 1:18 the word 'Theos' appears two times and none of them has the definite article 'ho' or 'ton'
(Theon oudeis eraken ppote monogens theos o n eis ton kolpon tou patros ekeinos exgsato) *
elijah_2 16.04.11 - 01:54am
Having looked at the original Greek, look at how a version like the New World Translation translates this passage;
No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him.
*
elijah_2 16.04.11 - 02:01am
Now, having seen that in (verse 6, 12, 13) the word, 'theos' doesn't have the definite article 'ho' or 'ton' (that is, the). Yet they translate the word as 'God' with a capital 'G' but, when it is used of Jesus Christ in (verse 1) without the definite article 'ho' or 'ton' they translate that word as 'god' with a common 'g' *
elijah_2 16.04.11 - 02:18am
And in John 1:18 where the word 'theos' appears twice and none of the words has the definite article 'ho' or 'ton' they translate the first 'theos' with a Capital 'G' because it is referring to the Father, but they translate the second 'theos' with a common 'g' just because its a reference to the Son Jesus Christ. This is pure bias translation. Nothing more. *
elijah_2 16.04.11 - 03:08am
Other References in the writtings of John where the definite artice 'Ho' nor 'ton' is NOT used, and yet it is translated (God):
John 3:2, 21; 6:45; 8:54; 9:16, 33:3; 16:30; 19:7; 20;17; 1 John 3:2; 4:12; 2 John 3, 9; Rev 21:7 *
elijah_2 16.04.11 - 02:34pm
Now, some of you might be wondering, in some case is the English word 'God' in the Greek is 'Theos' ending with an 's' and on another occassion it is 'Theou' ending with an 'u' and in another place it is 'Theon' ending with an 'n'? *
elijah_2 16.04.11 - 02:41pm
In the Greek Language, on like the English Language a noun as different forms.
'theos' (is nominative singular), 'theou' (is dative singular), and 'theon '(genitive singular). *
elijah_2 16.04.11 - 03:00pm
What does: Nominative singular, dative singular, and accusutive singular means?
Firstly, (Theos, theou, and theon) means the same thing. The three words equally mean: God. The root word for 'God' in the Greek is 'theo.' NOMINATIVE SINGULAR - The 's' at the end of the word 'theos' in the greek it's called a (sigma). It shows that the word 'theo' within the sentence is the subject of that sentence. *
elijah_2 16.04.11 - 08:23pm
ACCUSATIVE SINGULAR - The sigma 'n' at the end of the word theon shows that theo within the sentence is the direct object. *
elijah_2 16.04.11 - 08:29pm
DATIVE SINGULAR - the sigma 'u' is just simply another form of the the word 'theon.' *
elijah_2 16.04.11 - 08:38pm
RECAP:
en arche (in beginning); the Word existed independent of and in face to face communion with the Father. They BOTH shared the same Glory, and the nature of the Word is theos [God] just like that of the Father (John 1:1). *
elijah_2 17.04.11 - 02:48am
Having looked at the different forms of the noun 'theos.' Let us now take it a bit further. The Father is NOT the ONLY one, that the definite artices (ho and ton) is used in reference with. It's also used in reference to the Son Jesus Christ (five times in the New Testament), and one of those five references is found in the same book in discussion. [John 20:28].
And Thomas answered and said unto him [Jesus], My Lord and my God.
(Apekrith thmas kai eipen aut ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou) *
elijah_2 17.04.11 - 02:55am
(ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou), which literally means, the Lord of me and the God of me. *
elijah_2 17.04.11 - 03:01am
Therefore: this idea that when 'ho' or 'ton' is used in front of the word 'theo,' is only used in reference to the Father and never to the Son Jesus is just not scriptural. *
elijah_2 17.04.11 - 03:23am
The reality is this, if John had place the definite article 'ho' or 'ton' infront of the second occurrence of the word 'theos,' (in John 1:1). Then he would be teaching Sabellianism, and in so doing, he would also be contradicting himself in the same verse, because he used the word 'pros' [with], which means; the Word was INDEPENDENT of, face to face communion WITH the first 'theos' that the Word was along side. Notice:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [the] God, and the Word was [the] God. *
This topic is locked.
BIBLE-STUDIES Forum
