₦airaland Forum

Scholar8200:
If we would be faithful to the context, all three meanings are correctly applicable.



A FURTHER PROOF OF HIS DIVINITY!!!
opinion of yours.

#laughing#

Scholar8200:
For those who want proof to the contrary of the lies here, see:

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/8-58.htm

The original scripture written in Greek isn't in that site .... There is no way to be sure there translations is correct..



Besides, the site just copy translations from different Bibles

4- Conclusion:

Trinity is once again dealt a big blow that exposed its falsehood and blasphemies. Trinity is no more than a man-made idol-worship of Jesus Christ. It is a blasphemy and utterly rejected by GOD Almighty in both the Bible and the Glorious Quran. The following verses clearly demonstrate this:

"They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve. (The Noble Quran, 5:73)"

"Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him. (The Noble Quran, 112:1-4)"

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 6:4)"

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. (From the NIV Bible, Mark 12:29)"

""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone." (From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)"

"God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (From the NIV Bible, Numbers 23:19)"

Indeed, Jesus Christ, the man, is only a Messenger from Allah Almighty, and he also was never crucified. Please visit:

Jesus was a Word from the Word.

The Overwhelming Scientific Miracles in the Holy Quran.

What is Islam?

The blessed Jesus in Islam.

Answering Trinity.

Allah is GOD Almighty's Holy Name in the Bible's original Manuscripts that were discovered - centuries before Islam.

Also, when we read Jesus' words, what find:

GOD Almighty is Greater than Jesus.

No one is "Good", including Jesus. Only GOD Almighty is Good.

Jesus said he doesn't know when the Hour will come. Only GOD Almighty Knows.

Jesus said that OUR God is One GOD.

Jesus also said "My GOD and your GOD".

Jesus bowed his face down to the ground to GOD Almighty.

Jesus was tempted by satan for 40 days and 40 nights, while GOD Almighty "can not be tempted!".

Jesus is only the heir of GOD Almighty on planet earth; not on the entire Universe.

And on and on and on from quotes of Jesus that prove that he is only a Creation and a Servant of GOD Almighty.
May Allah Almighty enable you to see the Light and the Truth of Islam. And may Allah Almighty send His Peace, Mercy and Blessings upon our beloved and blessed Prophet, Teacher and Role Model, Muhammad. Ameen.

Question: Is the author of the Gospel of John claiming that Jesus is part of a tri-unity god when he has Jesus say, "before Abraham came into being, I am" (John 8:58)?

Answer: John 8:56-58 states: "'Abraham your father rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad.' The Jews therefore said to him: 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' Jesus said to them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came into being, I am.'"

Trinitarians argue that the Greek words ego eimi ("I am", allegedly spoken by Jesus (John 8:58), indicate that Jesus is God (see also John 8:24, 28). They arrive at their contention by connecting the phrase "I am" with the words spoken by God in Exodus 3:14 and often translated: "I AM THAT I AM . . . . Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: I AM has sent me to you." However, the literal and proper translation of this verse is: I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE. . . . Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: I WILL BE has sent me to you."

Since the author of the Gospel of John utilized the Greek Septuagint translation of the Bible in his writings, it cannot be assumed that John's Jesus is referring to the words in Exodus 3:14. Although Jesus actually spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek, John recorded Jesus' alleged words in Greek. Ego eimi ("I am", used by John's Jesus, is not the same as ho on ("The Being, The One Who Is", which is used in the Septuagint's rendering of Exodus 3:14: "And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and He said, Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: THE BEING has sent me to you." Even though ho on appears in the Gospel of John, it is never used as a title or name or exclusively as a reference to Jesus. In the Book of Revelation, also credited to John by Christian commentators, ho on appears five times (Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17; 16:5). Significantly, in each instance, it is used as a title or designation applied to God, not Jesus. Thus: "John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is [ho on] and who was and who is to come; and from the seven spirits who are before His throne" (Revelation 1:4). That this verse refers to God and not Jesus is seen from the following verse, which continues the greeting by now including Jesus as one of those sending greetings. Hence, John says, in verses 4 and 5, that greetings are sent by God, the seven spirits, and Jesus.

In verse 8, John writes: "'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is [ho on] and who was and who is to come, the Almighty'" (Revelation 1:. This verse also speaks of God, not Jesus. In Revelation 4:8, ho on is applied to "the Lord God, the Almighty," not Jesus, who, as the "Lamb" referred to in Revelation 5:6-7, comes to God, who is sitting on His throne. That they are two separate entities is seen from Revelation 5:13: "To the one sitting on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever." In addition, ho on is applied to the "Lord God, the Almighty," not Jesus, in Revelation 11:17 and Revelation 16:5. That ho on in Revelation 16:5 refers to God and not Jesus can be seen from verse 7, which, referring to the subject of verses 5 and 6, states: "And I heard the altar saying: 'Yes, Lord God, the Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments.'" These are further indications that ho on and ego eimi are not used as synonymous terms by John. In John 8:56-58, John is expounding his belief that Jesus had a prehuman existence as an angelic being in heaven. John's Jesus is proclaiming here that this prehuman existence began before Abraham was born: "Before Abraham came into being, I am." The fact of the matter is that the text does not at all indicate how long Jesus supposedly lived before Abraham. In no honest way can John's statement be taken to identify Jesus as God.

(a)- Jesus didn't even say it in Greek!

Let us also not forget a very very important point here, and that is Jesus did not even speak these words in Greek. He spoke them in Aramaic, and we do not have the original texts of Jesus' words. According to the Bible's own theologians, the Bible's books and gospels [2] [3] were:

Written by mysterious men.
Written by an unknown number of men.
Written in unknown places.
Written in unknown dates.

Contain "fictions", and the original manuscripts "had been lost", and contain "fairy tails and fables".
What we have today from Greek is a mere translation to what Jesus Christ had supposedly said. Translations are not originals. Thus, we don't even know what Jesus said in Aramaic to begin with. So the bottom line here is this:

1- The trinitarians have yet to prove that Jesus did say "I am" in Aramaic.

2- Jesus did refer to himself as the "I AM" of Yahweh Almighty in Exodus 3:14.

Not only that, but as I explained above, it is odd that when Jesus decided to unveil his real deity, and claimed to be the "I AM", he ran from the group of people who wanted to beat him up! This all happened right after Jesus supposedly gave his Ultimate Statement about his real deity! Of course, Jesus never gave such statement (the I AM in Exodus 3:14). This is only the trinitarians' desperate wishes and blasphemies. But what matters here is you! Do you see how twisted and blasphemous the trinitarians' logic is?

So what did we learn here?

1- εἰμὶ, while it means "am", but it could also mean "have been, was", or be used in reference to something that happened in the past (before the present).

2- As I already demonstrated in the previous main-section, the context of Jesus' response clearly and indisputably referred to Jesus have already seen Abraham before the latter was even born.

3- So even if you still insist on translating it as "I am", you still couldn't deny that in both John 3:28 and John 8:58, above, the "I am" was 100% referring to the past, which in English it would be "I have".

4- In all of this, there is not a shred of evidence that suggests that Jesus was declaring to be the "I am What I am" of Yahweh Almighty in Exodus 3.

Even Yahweh's Statement in Exodus 3 is not only unique to Him. How many billions and trillions of times did humans throughout history and their lives say I am what I am, or I am who I am? How times did people say things such as: "Accept me for who I am" and other endless similar statements?
5- It is clear that those who insist on magnifying Jesus to this level (the level of Exodus 3), have no evidence whatsoever to support their claim, and they are nothing but desperate blasphemers. They constantly take gigantic leaps in blasphemy to prove their false religion of "conjecture", christianity, which Allah Almighty Had summed up this entire false religion into this Word.

Indeed, the false religion of christianity is no more than a conjecture of men!

See the following for more proofs regarding eimi (εἰμί).



Furthermore, in other verses in the New Testament, the Greek of the latter word was translated as "have":

1- John 3:28 αὐτοὶ ὑμεῖς μοι μαρτυρεῖτε ὅτι εἶπον ἐγὼ / ὅτι· οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ὁ Χριστός, ἀλλ' ὅτι ἀπεσταλμένος εἰμὶ ἔμπροσθεν ἐκείνου.

"You yourselves testify that I said, 'I am not the Christ,' but, 'I have been sent before him.'"

Furthermore, the following ample English translations further confirm this:

John 3:28 (New American Standard Bible)
28 "You yourselves are my witnesses that I said, 'I am not the Christ,' but, 'I have been sent ahead of Him.'

John 3:28 (Amplified Bible)
28 You yourselves are my witnesses [you personally bear me out] that I stated, I am not the Christ (the Anointed One, the Messiah), but I have [only] been sent before Him [in advance of Him, to be His appointed forerunner, His messenger, His announcer].

John 3:28 (English Standard Version)
28You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, 'I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.'

John 3:28 (New King James Version)
28 You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ,’ but, ‘I have been sent before Him.’

John 3:28 (Young's Literal Translation)
28 ye yourselves do testify to me that I said, I am not the Christ, but, that I am having been sent before him;

John 3:28 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
28 You yourselves can testify that I said, 'I am not the Messiah, but I've been sent ahead of Him.'

John 3:28 (New International Reader's Version)
28 You yourselves are witnesses that I said, 'I am not the Christ. I was sent ahead of him.'

John 3:28 (Worldwide English (New Testament))
28 You yourselves heard what I said. I am not the Christ but I have been sent ahead of the Christ.





NOTE: "I HAVE BEEN"

2- The Greek texts of John 8:58:

Let us look at John 8:58 in Greek:

58 εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.

ἐγὼ (egó) was translated as I.

εἰμί (eimi) was translated as am.

According to Strong's Greek Dictionary, eimi (εἰμί or εἰμὶ) means:

"am, have been, it is I, was.

The first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic) -- am, have been, X it is I, was. See also ei, eien, einai, heis kath heis, en, esomai, esmen, este, esti, kerdos, isthi, o."

"NASB Word Usage
accompanied* (1), accompany* (2), am (138), amount (1), amounts (1), appear* (1), asserted* (1), become* (5), been (45), been* (1), being (26), belong (3), belonged* (1), belonging (1), belonging* (1), belongs (4), bring* (1), came (1), come (5), consist (1), crave* (1), depends* (1), do (1), done* (1), exist (3), existed (4), existed* (1), falls (1), found (1), had (, happen (4), have (2), have come (1), lived (1), mean (1), mean* (2), means (7), meant (2), originate (1), owns (1), remain (3), remained (1), rest (1), sided (1), stayed (2), themselves (1), there (6), turn (1)."

Also, according to Strong's Greek Dictionary, egó (ἐγώ) means:

"I, me.

A primary pronoun of the first person I (only expressed when emphatic) -- I, me. For the other cases and the plural see eme, emoi, emou, hemas, hemeis, hemin, hemon, etc."

Also, according to Kypros.org's dictionary, eimai (είμαι), which is a sister word of eimi (εἰμί), means "have". The following examples prove this:

- "have a good head for" reads in Greek as:

είμαι καλός σε, θυμάμαι καλά (eimai kalos se, thymamai kala)

- "have one's hands full"

είμαι απασχολημένος (eimai apascholimenos)

Also, the same dictionary, Kypros.org's dictionary, declares that eimai (είμαι) also means "am":

- am = είμαι, έιμαι
eimai, eimai


Also, according to the otenet.gr online dictionary, eimai (είμαι) also means "I am":

- είμαι υπόχρεως = I am indebted


So eimi (εἰμί) and eimai (είμαι) can mean have, am, and few other meanings depending on the sentence and the context.

a)- Jesus was the foretold Messiah and the greatest and final Jewish Prophet:

Jesus Christ was the foretold Messiah (anointed, chosen, selected). He was the final and greatest Prophet to the Jews. That is why he is the Messiah. A Messiah is a selected King. This means all of the Jews' kings were Messiahs. The Messiah is also the king who will establish the final peace on earth. He is also the Messiah because he will inherit the earth after he defeats the anti-Christ. These points are covered with Biblical references and analysis at:

Jesus is only the heir of GOD Almighty on planet earth; not on the entire Universe.

Does the word "Messiah" really mean GOD? or does it even have anything to do with GOD's Deity?
So most certainly, Jesus being the heir of GOD Almighty doesn't make him GOD Almighty Himself, nor the son of GOD Almighty. Jesus will only inherit the earth. It is a symbolic speech that means that he will rule over earth. The earth will still be under the full authority of GOD Almighty. "Son of GOD" in the original Hebrew means servant of GOD. This is proven in the following articles:

"Son of God" literally means "Servant of God" in Hebrew. Bible agrees with Islam, not with pagan trinity and today's wrong and twisted translations of "Son of God".

The Bible directly claims that ANY "Son of GOD" is a "God"! (Refutation to Jesus' being God meaning that he is GOD Almighty).

"Son of GOD" conflict between the Bible and the Noble Quran.

The definition of "Son of God" in Islam.

Son of GOD: Some Muslims' Misconception.

"Son of Man" does not mean "GOD" or "Son of GOD".

Can we trust the Son of Man?

Does calling Jesus "Son of God" prove that he is GOD?

The context of Jesus' statement is clearly about whether or not he saw Abraham.

When GOD Almighty revealed Himself to Moses in Exodus 3, and told him "I am what I am", He, the Almighty, revealed with it His Majesty and Glory. Jesus, when said "I have", he ran from the rocks that were hurled at him from the angry crowd.

GOD Almighty in Exodus 3 Spoke to Moses in Hebrew, while Jesus in John 8:58, spoke it in Aramaic, and the original Aramaic is lost. All what he have today is a Greek translation for the original.

The "I AM" in John 8:58 is a desperate mistranslation, because even if we take it to be right, it still doesn't say "I am what I am".

If Jesus truly wanted to say "I AM" in reference to Exodus 3, then he should've said before Adam or humanity I AM WHAT I AM; not Abraham.
6- It is also highly probable that Jesus was interrupted by the Jews picking up rocks and hurling them at him, hence, he was only recorded to have said "I HAVE" because he wasn't able to finish his sentence.

This point, while it may sound very lame and weak, but in reality is quite possible and sound!

59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, BUT JESUS HIMSELF HID HIMSELD, SLIPPING AWAY FROM THE TEMPLE GROUNDS.










There are few important notes to mention here:

1- In verse 29, Jesus says that he only does what pleases GOD Almighty.

2- In verses 33, 39, 53 and 57, the Jews declare that they are the descendants of Abraham.

3- In verse 37, Jesus confirms that they are Abraham's descendants.

4- In verse 57, the Jews say that Jesus never saw Abraham.

5- (Ample proofs from the Greek language, below, are provided for this one) In verse 58, Jesus DID NOT SAY "I AM". He rather said, "I HAVE (seen Abraham before he was even born)". The following analysis give further proofs for this:

Jesus here was abruptly interrupted by the Jews who got fed up from him. See the next verse below. They thought that he was insulting their intelligence and their cherished faith by talking blasphemous garbage (such as Abraham rejoiced for him (John 8:56) and other things). It is clear that Jesus was most likely interrupted and wasn't heard finishing up his sentence. Also, the context of Jesus' words were about seeing Abraham before he was even born. This is nothing new in the Bible. In the Old Testament, we read:
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 1:5)"

Since Jesus was created from the Word of GOD Almighty, and since also our human-spirits are also created from the Holy Spirit, and since Jesus was a Word from the Word of Allah Almighty, then it is quite possible for him to have known, or seen the records of the future human-creations that were going to be created on earth, such as Abraham and others. After all, Allah Almighty uses Angels, Spirits and other created Beings of His to create creations under His Command. Things in the spiritual realm are different. Existence in the spiritual world, including our spirits, is Eternal. Our earthly bodies are not Eternal. So, Jesus having a prior knowledge about Abraham's spirit is nothing unusual in the spiritual world.

Abraham here was used by Jesus because the Jews used him as their highest and greatest Prophet against Jesus. So it wasn't Jesus who brought up Abraham. It was the Jews. Otherwise, Jesus would not have mentioned Abraham or any earthly creation. See verse 33 above.

Also, Jesus is the foretold Messiah, the anointed/selected final and greatest Prophet for the Jews, who will come and establish peace on earth and rule the earth in the end. The Old Testament makes it clear that the Messiah will inherit and rule the earth [1] [2].


However, we must always never forget that the text of the Bible is neither genuine nor original. The Bible's books and gospels, according to its own translators and theologians were

Written by mysterious men.
Written by an unknown number of men.
Written in unknown places.
Written in unknown dates.

Furthermore, if Jesus declared to be the Yahweh Almighty (I am What I am) in Exodus 3, then he would not have hid himself and slipped away! Use your heads, O Christians, and think about this:

1- Examine what Yahweh Almighty did when He Declared Himself to be "I am What I am". What did He do? He Revealed His Majesty, Glory and Power! I could only imagine Moses could hardly stand on his feet from the overwhelming fear that he experienced!

2- Jesus, when he supposedly declared The Ultimate and Final Statement about himself being the "I am", what did he do? He hid himself and ran away from the beating. This is what he did after he willingly decided to declare his Ultimate and Final Statement about his being and supposed deity. Do you still fail to see the overwhelming inconsistency here?

3- Jesus' supposed statement, "I am", was documented on paper in Greek. Yahweh Almighty's Statement in Exodus 3 was in Hebrew. The two languages are not only far too different from each others, but the two statements are also not the same.

"I am" is not the same as "I am What I am".

1- The text of John 8:58:

Throughout the Bible, Jesus Christ is recorded to have made many claims regarding how GOD Almighty is Higher and Greater than him. These statements should be clear enough to demonstrate and prove that Jesus Christ, the Messiah (anointed, chosen to be the lord/leader/master of the Jews, their final Prophet), is no more than a creation of GOD Almighty. However, Christians often bring few verses that supposedly prove otherwise; that Jesus is GOD Almighty Himself. Such verses are: John 1, John 8:58, Colossians 1:15-16 and perhaps few others. This article will analyze John 8:58 in great details to find out whether or not their claims are true.

Here is how John 8 reads:



John 8
1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them.
3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group
4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.
5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"
6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.
7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.
10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
11 "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."



The Validity of Jesus' Testimony



12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
13 The Pharisees challenged him, "Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid."
14 Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going.
15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.
17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid.
18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me."
19 Then they asked him, "Where is your father?" "You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also."
20 He spoke these words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his time had not yet come.
21 Once more Jesus said to them, "I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come."
22 This made the Jews ask, "Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, 'Where I go, you cannot come'?"
23 But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."
25 "Who are you?" they asked. "JUST WHAT I HAVE BEEN CLAIMING ALL ALONG," Jesus replied.
26 "I have much to say in judgment of you. BUT HE WHO SENT ME IS RELIABLE, AND WHAT I HAVE HEARD FROM HIM I TELL THE WORLD."
27 They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father.
28 So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.
29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, FOR I ALWAYS DO WHAT PLEASES HIM."
30 Even as he spoke, many put their faith in him.




The Children of Abraham



31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.
32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
33 They answered him, "WE ARE ABRAHAM'S DESCENDANTS and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?"
34 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.
35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever.
36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
37 I KNOW YOU ARE ABRAHAM'S DESCENDANTS. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word.
38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your father."
39 "ABRAHAM IS OUR FATHER," they answered. "If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did.
40 As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things.
41 You are doing the things your own father does." "We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."



The Children of the Devil



42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.
43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.
44 YOU BELONG TO YOUR FATHER, THE DEVIL, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!
46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me?
47 He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."




The Claims of Jesus About Himself



48 The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"
49 "I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me.
50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge.
51 I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."
52 At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death.
53 ARE YOU GREATER THAN OUR FATHER ABRAHAM? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"
54 Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.
55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word.
56 YOUR FATHER ABRAHAM REJOICED at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
57 "YOU ARE NOT YET FIFTY YEARS OLD, " THE JEWS SAID TO HIM "AND you HAVEseen ABRAHAM!"
58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am(wrong translation)
CORRECT TRANSLATION (I have seen Abraham before he was even born)!"

Important Note:

Below, we will see how Jesus in John 8:58 didn't say "I AM". He rather said "I HAVE (seen Abraham before he was even born)". See the proofs from the Greek language below!







John 8:58's deliberate mistranslation of Jesus saying "I AM" with new evidence from the Greek language!

The sections of this article are:

1- The text of John 8:58.

(a)- Jesus was the foretold Messiah and the greatest and final Jewish Prophet.

(i)- Jesus also was the heir who will inherit the earth.

2- The Greek text of John 8:58. My detailed analysis.

(a)- Jesus didn't even say it in Greek!

3- Rebuttal from JewsforJudaism.org. Must read!
4- Conclusion.

King James Bible
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.





New World Translation
Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”






Aramaic Bible Translated Into English



58. Eashoa told them, “Amen, amen, I am telling you, if Abraham had never been born, I am [the One] who Comes [the Omnipresent Allaha]!








We could see all the translation stated above are very distinct and different in translations and meaning







This will make us examine the Greek Bible.. John 8:58 in its original content and context

Weah96:
Allah of the Quran is all powerful, invisible, inaudible, and immaterial. How do you know that the Quran was commissioned by him?
I mean, apart from your head still being connected your neck in THIS life, how do you know for sure that Allah spoke to someone if neither you nor your brother has been contacted?

Revelation of Holy Books isn't a new thing.


What you really asking is the authenticity of Qur'an..



Your answer is, GO AND READ IT.




Its when we muslims read Bible we found out all the trash in it.. And we disbelief in it..





Go read Qur'an and come back with questions

"Truly, the Religion in the Sight of God is Islam (literally: "the submission". Nor did those who were given the scripture dissent therefrom except after knowledge had come to them, through envy of each other. But whosoever disbelieves in the Signs of God, [then surely,] God is swift in calling to account. (The Noble Quran, 3:19)"

"They are not all alike. Of the People of the Scripture there is a party who stand [for that which is right], they recite the revelations of Allah throughout the night, falling prostrate [before Him]. (The Noble Quran, 3:113)"

"And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book, those who believe in God, and in that which was sent down unto you, and in that which was sent down unto them, humbling themselves before God: They will not sell the Signs of God for a miserable gain! For them is a reward with their Lord, and God is swift to take account. (The Noble Quran, 3:199)"

"O people of the Book! Now has come unto you Our messenger, revealing to you much of what you used to hide in the Book, and passing over much. Indeed, there has come to you from God a light and a plain Scripture (The Noble Quran, 5:15)"

[color=#990000][/color]82 % of Jesus words are not his




82% of the words of Jesus are not his:

"The Five Gospels," is a 550 page book containing translations of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It was the result of a six year study by 24 Christian scholars from a number of Western universities. They decided to produce a translation of the Gospels which would be uncolored by the translator's personal faith. It was decided that this translation was to give the reader an honest picture of what Jesus truly said. They scanned the text for the words of Jesus, and collect an index of over 1,500 such sayings. They then tested the validity of each of these sayings, one at a time, to see whether Jesus truly said each one. They then produced a fresh translation, color-coded to show authentic Jesuit sayings and those of an unreliable nature. Their conclusion (page 5) was:

"Eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him."

They go on to reveal that:

"biblical scholars and theologians alike have learned to distinguish the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith. It has been a painful lesson for both the church and scholarship. The distinction between the two figures is the difference between a historical person who lived in a particular time and place...and a figure who has been assigned a mythical role, in which he descends from heaven to rescue humankind and, of course, eventually returns there."

Well then, if 82% of the "words of Jesus" found in the Bible were apparently never spoken by him then where did they come from? Some of the sources demonstrated by the authors are:

"The concept of plagiarism was unknown in the ancient world. Authors freely copied from predecessors without acknowledgment. Sages became the repository of free-floating proverbs and witticisms. For the first Christians, Jesus was a legendary sage: it was proper to attribute the world's wisdom to him. The proverb in Mark 2:17, for example, is attested in secular sources (Plutarch and Diogenes for example)...in the parallel to the Markan passage, Matthew adds a sentence taken from the prophet Hosea (Matt 9:13)."

Also:

"Hard sayings are frequently softened in the process of transmission to adapt them to the conditions of daily living...Variations in difficult saying often betray the struggle of the early Christian community to interpret or adapt sayings to its own situations... Matthew's version of the aphorism "The last will be first and the first last"(Matt 20:16) is softened in Mark 10:31 to "MANY of the first will be last, and of the last MANY will be first"."

And probably most revealing:

"Christian conviction eventually overwhelms Jesus: he is made to confess what Christians had come to believe...The contrast between Christian language or viewpoint and the language or viewpoint of Jesus is a very important clue to the real voice of Jesus, the language of Jesus was distinctive, as was his style and perspective."

The above is only a very small sampling of the very large cache of evidence clearly showing the Bible to have been seriously distorted and altered. To this day it is being continuously edited, corrected, and modified. This is not to say that Christians are not good and honest people in search of the truth. Quite the opposite. Among them are some of the most decent and moral people on this earth. The goal of this book is only to show that the Christian faith as it stands today is not the same one preached by Jesus peace be upon him to his followers nineteen hundred years ago. This is exactly what the Qur'an has been asserting for over fourteen hundred years now.

"O People of the Book! Why do you reject the Signs of God, when you [yourselves] bear witness [to their truth] ?. O People of the Book! Why do you clothe Truth with falsehood, and conceal the Truth, while you have knowledge? (The Noble Quran, 3:70-71)"

"Say: 'O People of the Book (Jews and Christians)! Why do you reject the Signs of God, when God is Himself witness to all you do?

Well, the R.S.V. is just one Bible:

So is the revised Standard Version of the Bible the only one that makes these changes? Is it just a matter of the KJV vs. the RSV? Far from it. These very same changes have become so widely acknowledged by the scholars of Christianity that we find the very same changes made to most other modern versions of the Bible, such as the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Version (NASV), etc. Go to your local library and have a look.



So, where did these discarded verses come from in the first place?

St. Paul was answerable for having made during his lifetime wholesale changes to the religion of Jesus . Changes which Jesus himself never authorized to anyone during his lifetime. After his departure the pagan gentiles who accepted Paul's simplified version of "Christianity" continued to adapt it and to introduce into it many of the doctrines of paganism which they had already been practicing for so may centuries. Among these doctrines was the concept of the "trinity" which was a very widely practiced and accepted concept in the pagan beliefs of the surrounding nations of Romans, Greeks, Babylonians, and Hindus many centuries before they were finally officially defined and "recognized" in the fourth century C.E. After this doctrine received the official support of the pagan Roman emperor Constantine, a massive campaign of death and torture was launched against all Christians who refused to renounce the teachings of the apostles in favor of the modified and expanded Pauline doctrines. All but the Gospels acceptable to the Pauline faith were then systematically destroyed or re-written. Rev. Charles Anderson Scott has the following to say:

"It is highly probable that not one of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) was in existence in the form which we have it, prior to the death of Paul. And were the documents to be taken in strict order of chronology, the Pauline Epistles would come before the synoptic Gospels."

History of Christianity in the Light of Modern Knowledge, Rev. Charles Anderson Scott, p.338

This statement is further confirmed by Prof. Brandon:

"The earliest Christian writings that have been preserved for us are the letters of the apostle Paul"

"Religions in Ancient History," S.G.F. Brandon, p. 228.

In the latter part of the second century, Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth says:

"As the brethren desired me to write epistles(letters), I did so, and these the apostles of the devil have filled with tares (changes), exchanging some things and adding others, for whom there is a woe reserved. It is not therefore, a matter of wonder if some have also attempted to adulterate the sacred writings of the Lord, since they have attempted the same in other works that are not to be compared with these."

The Noble Qur'an (the Muslims' Holy Scripture) confirms this with the words:

"Then woe to those who write the book (of Allah/God) with their own hands and then say: 'This is from Allah', to traffic with it for a miserable price. Woe to them for what their hands do write and for the gain they make thereby (The Noble Quran, 2:79)"

Victor Tununensis, a sixth century African Bishop related in his Chronicle (566 AD) that when Messala was consul at Costantinople (506 AD), he "censored and corrected" the Gentile Gospels written by persons considered illiterate by the Emperor Anastasius. The implication was that they were altered to conform to sixth century Christianity which differed from the Christianity of previous centuries (The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gospel of Barnabas, and the New Testament, by M. A. Yusseff, p. 81)

These "corrections" were by no means confined to the first centuries after Christ. Sir Higgins says:

"It is impossible to deny that the Bendictine Monks of St. Maur, as far as Latin and Greek language went, were very learned and talented, as well as numerous body of men. In Cleland's 'Life of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury', is the following passage: 'Lanfranc, a Benedictine Monk, Archbishop of Canterbury, having found the Scriptures much corrupted by copyists, applied himself to correct them, as also the writings of the fathers, agreeably to the orthodox faith, secundum fidem orthodoxam."

History of Christianity in the light of Modern knowledge, Higgins p.318

In other words, the Christian scriptures were re-written in order to conform to the doctrines of the eleventh and twelfth centuries and even the writings of the early church fathers were "corrected" so that the changes would not be discovered. Sir Higgins goes on to say:

"The same Protestant divine has this remarkable passage: 'Impartiality exacts from me the confession, that the orthodox have in some places altered the Gospels'."

The author then goes on to demonstrate how a massive effort was undertaken in Costantinople, Rome, Canterbury, and the Christian world in general in order to "correct" the Gospels and destroy all manuscripts before this period.

Theodore Zahan, illustrated the bitter conflicts within the established churches in Articles of the Apostolic Creed. He points out that the Roman Catholics accuse the Greek Orthodox Church of remodeling the text of the holy scriptures by additions and omissions with both good as well as evil intentions. The Greek Orthodox, on the other hand, accuse the Roman Catholics of straying in many places very far away from the original text. In spite of their differences, they both join forces to condemn the non-conformist Christians of deviating from "the true way" and condemn them as heretics. The "heretics" in turn condemn the Catholics for having "recoined the truth like forgers." The author concludes "Do not facts support these accusations?"

"And from those who said: "We are Christians," We took their covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message which was sent to them. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, and Allah will inform them of what they used to do. O people of the Scripture! Now has Our messenger (Muhammad) come to you, explaining to you much of that which you used to hide in the Scripture, and forgiving much. Indeed, there has come to you a light from Allah and a plain Scripture. Wherewith Allah guides him who seeks His good pleasure unto paths of peace. He brings them out of darkness by His will into light, and guides them to a straight path. They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then has the least power against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He creates what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things. The Jews and Christians say: We are sons of Allah and His loved ones. Say; Why then does He punish you for your sins? No, you are but mortals of His creating. He forgives whom He will, and punishes [for their sins] whom He will. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and unto Him is the return [of all]. O people of the Scripture! Now has Our messenger (Muhammad) come unto you to make things plain after a break in [the series of] the messengers, lest you should say: There came not unto us a messenger of cheer nor any Warner. Now has a messenger of cheer and a Warner come unto you. And Allah is Able to do all things. (The Noble Quran, 5:14-19)"

St. Augustine himself, a man acknowledged and looked up to by both Protestants and Catholics alike, professed that there were secret doctrines in the Christian religion and that

"there were many things true in the Christian religion which it was not convenient for the vulgar to know, and that some things were false, but convenient for the vulgar to believe in them."
Sir Higgins admits:

"It is not unfair to suppose that in these withheld truths we have part of the modern Christian mysteries, and I think it will hardly be denied that the church, whose highest authorities held such doctrines, would not scruple to retouch the sacred writings" (The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gospel of Barnabas, and the New Testament, M. A. Yusseff, p.83)

Even the epistles attributed to Paul were not written by him. After years of research, Catholics and Protestants alike agree that of the thirteen epistles attributed to Paul only seven are genuinely his. They are: Romans, 1, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philipians, Philemon, and 1 Thessalonians.

Show me some examples of thesee 'grave defects' in the Bible:

So if these highly esteemed 32 Christian Biblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations tell us that through their study of recently discovered manuscripts of the Bible they have found many grave and serious defects in the King James Version of the Bible then where are some examples of these "defects"? A good question, let us have a look:

In 1 John 5:7 (King James Version) we find:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. (John 5:7)"

As we have already seen in much greater detail in section 1.2.2.5, this verse is the closest approximation to what the Church calls the holy Trinity. However, as seen in that section, this cornerstone of the Christian faith has been scrapped from the RSV by these thirty two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, once again all according to the "most ancient manuscripts." However, we find that the noble Qur'an (the Muslims' Holy Scripture) did not need to wait for 2000 years for these Christians to discover this fact. Indeed God revealed it to us fully fourteen hundred years ago:

"O people of the book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah, and his Word, which he bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit preceding from him so believe in Allah and his messengers. Say not "Three" desist It will be better for you for Allah is one God Glory be to him Far exalted is he above having a son. To him belong all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough is Allah as a disposer of affairs. (The Noble Quran, 4:171)"

Are there any other examples? Well, how about John 3:16(KJV) ?:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life..(John 3:16)"

This verses is a cornerstone of Christian preaching the world over. Even at american football matches you will find people in the stands holding up massive signs declairing:

"JOHN 3:16"

But as seen in section 1.2.3.10, this fabrication "begotten" has now been unceremoniously removed from the Bible by these most eminent of Bible revisers. However, once again, humanity did not have to wait 2000 years for this revelation. In Maryam(19):88-98 of the noble Qur'an we read:

"And they say 'Allah Most Compassionate has begotten a son!'. Indeed you have put forth a thing most monstrous! The skies are ready to burst (at such a claim), and the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin. That they should ascribe a son to the Most Compassionate. But it is not befitting [the majesty of] the Most Compassionate that He should beget a son. Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to the Most Compassionate as a servant. He has taken account of all of them and has numbered them all exactly. And every one of them will come to him singly on the day of judgment. On those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, will Allah most gracious bestow love. Verily, We have made this [Qur'an] easy in your tongue [O Muhammad] that you might deliver glad tidings to those who seek refuge [in Allah] and warn with it a people who are contentious. And how many a generation before them have we destroyed! Can you find a single one of them or hear from them so much as a whisper?"

The reader is encouraged to obtain a copy of the New Revised Standard Version and to compare it to the King James Version. Specifically, notice that the following 17 verses have been omitted outright in the newer and more faithful translations:

Matt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mk. 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; 17:36; 23:17; Jn. 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Rom. 16:24; and 1 John 5:7.

Further, in the NRSV Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53 - 8:11 are also marked as highly questionable since they do not appear in the most ancient copies of the Bible. This Bible also questions four other verses with footnotes-- Matt. 12:47; 21:44; Lk. 22:43; 22:44. This makes a total of 45 entire verses which are removed entirely or seriously questioned. In addition there are 147 other verses with significant portions missing (eg. Rev 1:11 etc.).

Prior to 1952 all versions of the Bible made mention of one of the most miraculous events associated with the prophet Jesus peace be upon him, that of his ascension into heaven. This great event is mentioned in only two places in the NT. They are:

"So then the lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God (Mark 16:19)"

and once again in Luke:

"While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. (Luke 24:51-52)"

In the 1952 RSV Mark 16 ends at verse 8 and the rest is relegated in small print to a footnote (more on this later). Similarly, in the commentary on the verses of Luke 24, we are told in the footnotes of the NRSV Bible "Other ancient authorities lack "and was carried up into heaven'" and "Other ancient authorities lack 'and worshipped him'". Thus, we see that the verse of Luke in its original form only said:

"While he blessed them, he parted from them. And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy."

It took centuries of "inspired correction" to give us Luke 24:51-52 in their current form.

As another example, in Luke 24:1-7 we read:

"Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulcher. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. (Luke 24:1-7)"

Annunaki:
This deathwish boy, you won't kill yourself over a bible you claim is corrupted, if I were you, I will be spending myself trying to untangle the numerous errors, contradictions and inconsistencies in the so called 'perfect' quoran.

#laughing# if it were another person that said Quran has fault .. I would be eager to hear.. But you.. Annunaki...#laughing#.. Only someone who doesn't know your level of IQ will listen to your argument

V) Conclusions

1. An anarthrous theos (θεος) can actually refer to God.
2. Articled theos (ο θεος) does not always refer to God.
3. θεος in John 1:1c is qualitative, not indefinite.

(John 1:1 [TR]) εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

(John 1:1 [NIV]) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In the end, I’ll leave you with my favorite translation of this verse:
John 1 Aramaic Bible in Plain English
(John 1:1)
In the origin The Word had been existing, and That Word had been existing with God, and That Word was himself God.

c. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Qualitative?
The most likely candidate for θεός is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word’s deity, which was already present in the beginning (ἐν ἀρχῇ … θεὸς ἦν [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later (σὰρξ ἐγένετο [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two statements mirrors each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity. But θεός was his nature from eternity (hence, εἰμὶ is used), while σάρξ was added at the incarnation (hence, γίνομαι is used).

Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus “divine” could be misleading in an English translation. The idea of a qualitative θεός here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.

Here’s another detailed explanation from Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Daniel B. Wallace.

John 1:1 states: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. In the last part of the verse, the clause καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1c), θεός is the PN. It is anarthrous and comes before the verb. Therefore, it fits Colwell’s construction, though it might not fit the rule (for the rule states that definiteness is determined or indicated by the context, not by the grammar). Whether it is indefinite, qualitative, or definite is the issue at hand.

a. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Indefinite?
If θεός were indefinite, we would translate it “a god” (as is done in the New World Translation [NWT]). If so, the theological implication would be some form of polytheism, perhaps suggesting that the Word was merely a secondary god in a pantheon of deities.

(Isaiah 43:10 [NIV]) You are my witnesses, declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

The grammatical argument that the PN here is indefinite is weak. Often, those who argue for such a view (in particular, the translators of the NWT) do so on the sole basis that the term is anarthrous. Yet they are inconsistent, as R. H. Countess pointed out:
In the New Testament there are 282 occurrences of the anarthrous θεός. At sixteen places NWT has either a god, god, gods, or godly. Sixteen out of 282 means that the translators were faithful to their translation principle only six percent of the time. …The first section of John-1:1–18-furnishes a lucid example of NWT arbitrary dogmatism. Θεός occurs eight times-verses 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 18-and has the article only twice-verses 1, 2. Yet NWT six times translated “God,” once “a god,” and once “the god.”
If we expand the discussion to other anarthrous terms in the Johannine Prologue, we notice other inconsistencies in the NWT: It is interesting that the New World Translation renders θεός as “a god” on the simplistic grounds that it lacks the article. This is surely an insufficient basis. Following the “anarthrous = indefinite” principle would mean that ἀρχῇ should be “a beginning” (1:1, 2), ζωὴ should be “a life” (1:4), παρὰ θεοῦ should be “from a god” (1:6), Ἰωάννης should be “a John” (1:6), θεόν should be “a god” (1:18), etc. Yet none of these other anarthrous nouns is rendered with an indefinite article. One can only suspect strong theological bias in such a translation.

According to Dixon’s study, if θεός were indefinite in John 1:1, it would be the only anarthrous pre-verbal PN in John’s Gospel to be so. Although we have argued that this is somewhat overstated, the general point is valid: The indefinite notion is the most poorly attested for anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives. Thus, grammatically such a meaning is improbable. Also, the context suggests that such is not likely, for the Word already existed in the beginning. Thus, contextually and grammatically, it is highly improbable that the Logos could be “a god” according to John. Finally, the evangelist’s own theology militates against this view, for there is an exalted Christology in the Fourth Gospel, to the point that Jesus Christ is identified as God (cf. 5:23; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28, etc.).

b. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Definite?
Grammarians and exegetes since Colwell have taken θεός as definite in John 1:1c. However, their basis has usually been a misunderstanding of Colwell’s rule. They have understood the rule to say that an anarthrous pre-verbal PN will usually be definite (rather than the converse). But Colwell’s rule states that a PN which is probably definite as determined from the context which precedes a verb will usually be anarthrous. If we check the rule to see if it applies here, we would say that the previous mention of θεός (in 1:1b) is articular. Therefore, if the same person being referred to there is called θεός in 1:1c, then in both places it is definite. Although certainly possible grammatically (though not nearly as likely as qualitative), the evidence is not very compelling. The vast majority of definite anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are monadic, in genitive constructions, or are proper names, none of which is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a definite θεός in John 1:1c.

Further, calling θεός in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed the verb it would have had the article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition with λόγος (i.e., “the Word” = “God” and “God” = “the Word”). The problem of this argument is that the θεός in 1:1b is the Father. Thus to say that the θεός in 1:1c is the same person is to say that “the Word was the Father.” This, as the older grammarians and exegetes pointed out, is embryonic Sabellianism or modalism. The Fourth Gospel is about the least likely place to find modalism in the NT.

From :
http://www.christiandefense.org/NWT.....1_article.htm

Simply put, if John had written: ho theos ēn ho logos (lit., “the God was the Word” making theos definite), he would have been teaching Oneness doctrine (or Modalism)! In other words, the passage would have indicated that “God” in 1:1b (the Father) and “God” in 1:1c (the Word) were the same Person! But semantically, theos is (qualitative), not definite (and surely not indefinite).

"Definite" nouns point to the specific identification of someone or something (thus, in 1:1b “the God” identifies the Father) while "qualitative" nouns point to the essence or nature of someone or something [1]. The anarthrous theos indicates exactly as to what John was communicating: As to the Word’s nature (quality), He was fully God, but as to His Person (or specific identity), He was not identified as the Father, but personally distinct from Him: “The Word was with [pros] God.” [2]


[Footnote 1] Nouns generally fall under three semantic categories: Definite (identity), Indefinite (one of a class of others), or Qualitative (essence or nature—not identity). The anarthrous theos in John 1:1c is qualitative. As with the noun “flesh” in John 1:14: “The Word became flesh,” not “the flesh” (definite), or “a flesh” (indefinite), but “flesh” (qualitative)—as to the Word’s new nature. Likewise, it would be most unnatural to translate "ho theos agapē estin" in [1 John 4:8, God is Love] as “God is a love” (tagging agapē [“love”] as indefinite) or “God is the love” (definite) “ο θεος αγαπη εστιν”. Here agapē is qualitative. Grammatically, in John 1:1c, theos is an anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative. A predicate nominative describes the class or category to which the subject (the “Word”) belongs. Hence, the Word belongs to the category of theos (“God”) as to His essence or nature—not His personal identity.

Besides the blatant polytheism that an indefinite rendering of theos in 1:1c produces, there are two additional problems. First, theos is placed in the “emphatic position.” Thus, John placed theos *first in the clause* to draw attention to it as if he wanted the reader to shout out the word of emphasis: “GOD! was the Word,” which makes an indefinite rendering (one of many gods) all the more improbable. And second, John 1:1a (“In the beginning was [ēn] the Word”) indicates that the Word was eternal.


The verb translated “was” (ēn) is an imperfect tense (from the verb eimi). An imperfect tense denotes an on-going past action. Thus, in the beginning the Word was already existing—no beginning. And in verses 3, 6, and 10, the aorist verb egeneto (from ginomai), which does denote a beginning, is used to refer to all things created:“all things came into being (egeneto) through Him” (v. 3) while the imperfect verb ēnegeneto is used of the Word to describe the Word’s new nature—which had a beginning: “The Word became [egeneto] flesh.” (“was”) is used of the eternal Word. It is not until verse 14 that egeneto is used of the Word to describe the Word’s new nature—which had a beginning: “The Word became [egeneto] flesh.”

We find the same verb contrast (eternal vs. origin) in John 8:58: “Before Abraham was born [genesthai], I Am [eimi]. Both egeneto (“came into being”) in 1:3 and genesthai (“was born”) in 8:58 are from the same baseverb ginomai denoting a beginning. And ēn in 1:1 (“was”) is from eimi (“Am” as in 8:58) denoting eternality, that is, the Word’s preexistence in those contexts. Thus, in 1:1 and 8:58 the contrast is clear: the Word’s eternal existence (eimi) vs. all things created (ginomai; cf. also Ps. 90:2).

[Footnote 2] Of all the Greek prepositions that John could have used in 1:1b (such as en, para, sun, which all can mean “with”), he specifically chose the preposition pros (lit., “facing” or “toward”). Pros (when persons are in view) signifies more than being near or beside. Rather, pros denotes intimate personal fellowship between persons. Thus, in 1:1b, pros expresses the intimate and special relationship that Christians will experience “at home with [pros] the Lord.” And in 1 Cor. 13:12, the double use of pros describes the personal converse believers will have with the Lord “face to face” (prosōpon pros prosōpon).

5-
(Jeremiah 23:23 [NIV]) Am I only a God nearby, declares the LORD, "and not a God far away?
(Jeremiah 23:23 [LXX]) θεος εγγιζων εγω ειμι λεγει κυριος και ουχι θεος πορρωθεν
(Jeremiah 23:23 [HiSB]) הַאֱלֹהֵ֧י מִקָּרֹ֛ב אָ֖נִי נְאֻם־ יְהוָ֑ה וְלֹ֥א אֱלֹהֵ֖י מֵרָחֹֽק׃
(Jeremiah 23:23 [NWT]) "Am I a God nearby," is the utterance of Jehovah, "and not a God far away? "

Again, YHVH (the LORD, Jehovah) is θεος. Again anarthrous!!! No definite article!!!

6-
(Ezekiel 45:9 [NIV]) 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: …
(Ezekiel 45:9 [LXX]) ταδε λεγει κυριος θεος …
(Ezekiel 45:9 [HiSB]) כֹּֽה־ אָמַ֞ר אֲדֹנָ֣י יְהוִ֗ה...
(Ezekiel 45:9 [NWT]) "This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, ...

κυριος θεος (the Sovereign LORD) is anarthrous!!!

Actually there are many other examples, but I think these examples are enough to show that Anarthrous theos ( θεος) can refer to "God" too, and is not necessarily translated "a god".


III) Let’s examine the opposite:
Can "ο θεος" (with definite article) refer to “a god” and not “God”?

1-
(2 Corinthians 4:4 [NIV]) The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
(2 Corinthians 4:4 [TR]) εν οις ο θεος του αιωνος τουτου ετυφλωσεν τα νοηματα των απιστων εις το μη αυγασαι αυτοις τον φωτισμον του ευαγγελιου της δοξης του χριστου ος εστιν εικων του θεου
(2 Corinthians 4:4 [NWT]) among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.

Here, "the god", is ο θεος, with definite article.

2-
(Isaiah 36:19 [NIV]) Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim? Have they rescued Samaria from my hand?
(Isaiah 36:19 [LXX]) που εστιν ο θεος αιμαθ και αρφαθ και που ο θεος της πολεως σεπφαριμ μη εδυναντο ρυσασθαι σαμαρειαν εκ χειρος μου
(Isaiah 36:19 [NWT]) Where are the gods of Ha'math and Ar'pad? Where are the gods of Seph·ar·va'im? And have they delivered Sa·mar'i·a out of my hand?

Here again, ο θεος with definite article refers to gods.

From these examples, we can see that , ο θεος ,with definite article, can refer to “god” and not “God”.


I think so far we have destroyed the argument of the Anarthrous theos, or "a god"


IV) But why is θεος anarthrous in John 1:1c ?

John 1:1 Anarthrous Theos: The Big Lie of the NWT
"and the Word was God"

(John 1:1 [TR]) εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

(John 1:1 [NIV]) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The NWT renders it:

(John 1:1 [NWT]) In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

The argument given for using “a god” is: Since θεον (in John 1:1b) is preceded by the definite article τον, it is translated “God”, thus referring to the one true God.
And Since θεος (in John 1:1c) isn’t preceded by a definite article (anarthrous), it is translated “a god”, thus implying that “the Word” or “ο λογος” is not God, only a god.

So, what should it be? "God" or "a god"?

Contents:
I) Brief introduction to cases in Greek
II) Let’s examine the argument that anarthrous θεος (without a definite article, θεος, θεον,…) refers to “a god”
III) Let’s examine the opposite: Can "ο θεος" (with definite article) refer to “a god” and not “God”?
IV) But why is θεος anarthrous in John 1:1c ?
V) Conclusions



I) Brief introduction to cases in Greek

In English the words do not change according to their function in the sentence. So the word “God” as a subject, object, or after a preposition is the same. This isn’t the case in Greek. A word used as a subject is in nominative case. While a word used as direct object and after some prepositions is in accusative case (like θεον in John 1:1b). Sometimes nominative is used for objects (like θεος in John 1:1c). Even the definite article takes different forms according to its function in the sentence.
So θεος and θεον are the same word, but the difference is due to the function of each word in the sentence. One other common form is θεου, which is the genitive case.



II) Let’s examine the argument that anarthrous θεος (without a definite article, θεος, θεον,…) refers to “a god”:


1-Actually reading John 1 in Greek, we find many uses of θεος without the definite article (like in John 1:6,12,13,18a). Let’s check:
(John 1:18a [NIV]) No one has ever seen God
(John 1:18a [TR]) θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε
(John 1:18a [NWT]) No man has seen God at any time

We see that θεον (the accusative form of θεος) isn’t preceded by a definite article (τον), and is translated God, even in NWT. Of course, rendering it “No one has ever seen a god” is meaningless. So this is an "Anarthrous theos" referring to God.

2-
(Nahum 1:2a [NIV]) The LORD is a jealous and avenging God
(Nahum 1:2a [LXX]) θεος ζηλωτης και εκδικων κυριος
(Nahum 1:2a [HiSB]) אֵ֣ל קַנּ֤וֹא וְנֹקֵם֙ יְהוָ֔ה נֹקֵ֥ם יְהוָ֖ה
(Nahum 1:2a [NWT]) Jehovah is a God exacting exclusive devotion and taking vengeance

So here YHVH (יְהוָ֖ה) is θεος. Which is anarthrous!!!

3-
(Isaiah 37:16 [NIV]) O LORD Almighty, God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth.
(Isaiah 37:16 [LXX]) κυριε σαβαωθ ο θεος ισραηλ ο καθημενος επι των χερουβιν συ θεος μονος ει πασης βασιλειας της οικουμενης συ εποιησας τον ουρανον και την γην
(Isaiah 37:16 [HiSB]) יְהוָ֨ה צְבָא֜וֹת אֱלֹהֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ יֹשֵׁ֣ב הַכְּרֻבִ֔ים אַתָּה־ ה֤וּא הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ לְבַדְּךָ֔ לְכֹ֖ל מַמְלְכ֣וֹת הָאָ֑רֶץ אַתָּ֣ה עָשִׂ֔יתָ אֶת־ הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֶת־ הָאָֽרֶץ׃
(Isaiah 37:16 [NWT]) "O Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, sitting upon the cherubs, you alone are the true God of all the kingdoms of the earth. You yourself have made the heavens and the earth.

Here, YHVH (LORD Almighty, O Jehovah) is θεος. Again aranrthrous!!!
Note that συ means "you", it isn’t an article.

4-
(Isaiah 41:4b [NIV]) I, the LORD--with the first of them and with the last--I am he."
(Isaiah 41:4b [LXX]) εγω θεος πρωτος και εις τα επερχομενα εγω ειμι
(Isaiah 41:4b [HiSB]) אֲנִ֤י יְהוָה֙ רִאשׁ֔וֹן וְאֶת־ אַחֲרֹנִ֖ים אֲנִי־ הֽוּא׃
(Isaiah 41:4b [NWT]) "I, Jehovah, the First One; and with the last ones I am the same."

Here, YHVH (the LORD, Jehovah) is translated θεος. Again "Anarthorus"

imorhle:
ofcourse
Moses wrote up until Deutronomy

And moses kept talking about himself in Third person narration mode? ?


Can you even write a story about yourself and keep using He or him for yourself?


Autobiography is written by you. . I and me Will be used to represent yourself



Biography is written by another person... He or him will be used.. .



...whether you agree or not...


Please don't quote me on this issue again

noblefada:
Thank you Richrich713, but I Think I've a little time for him today. Pls DeathStroke007 Kindly explain the verses below

Luk 24:13-27 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. 141417 And they talked together of all these things which had happened. 141517 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. 141617 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. 141717 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? 141817 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? 141917 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: 142017 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. 142117 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done. 142217 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; 142317 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. 142417 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. 142517 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 142617 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 142717 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Believe whatever you want. . Av stated my facts.. Only Insane person will talk in Third person ish.. Even insane person can't do such thing. .



This isn't about language.. It's about common sense..





If you believe Jesus spoke in Third person ish.. . Congratulations. .



If you don't.. . Congratulations..

Nlaand:
Hello parents and friends,

I used another user name.....I have a 14 yr old only sis who is getting out of hand. My parents are quite aged(mom - close to 60, dad - above 70 and challenged health-wise). Mom and sis are the only ones taking care of him. My brother serving while I work far from home. I go home once or twice in a month as I also do some casual jobs apart from my job during the weekends to make ends meet. P.S: I am the first girl and first born, so the need to hustle as I send money home and all. I am in mid 20s.

Each time I go home, I make sure I educate/groom my younger sis on how to behave. I educate her on sex education, composture as a woman, what and what-nots. I inquire about her academics, spiritual life, I ask about her friends and I know a few of them. I try my possible best to talk to her and obviously she tells me only what she feels I should know. I even give her pocket money every month #1000 just to encourage her and know I care about her which I belive she understands.

Last weekend when I went home, I noticed the way she spoke to my mom and I corrected her. I also noticed she painted her nails and I have corrected her on this issue for a while. I have advised her severally and given her strong reasons why she should not indulge in such yet. I understand what puberty means as I am a peer educator. My mom resorted to beating her when she goes wrong but I explained to my mom not to do that all the time cos she is in her puberty stage, she is prone to misbehaving. I advised she should talk to her which she adhered to but my sis has refused to listen. On getting home this weekend, I was infuriated when I saw her painted nails. I had to choice than to smack her. I asked her why she has refused to obey my instructions despite all advice and corrections, she didnt say anthing.

My neighbor came around and also advised her to stop such act. Just today, while at work, my mom chatted with me that she saw a diary my sister wrote confessing that she hates her parents because last year they refused to allow her go to Deeper life camp. Pls note that we are not members of that church but over the years, my mom has always allowed her go for their youth camp because its not far from us and its within the area but last year, dad had attack and mom sells egg which she distrubutes and she needed my sister to assist her,hence, her refusal. My sister told me about it and I explained to her that mom needs her more that period, and I assured her she would go this year.

Alas, mom just saw it in her diary today where she stated that she hates her parents because they refused her and for some silly reasons which bores down to correcting her. She also mentioned that she has a boyfriend but she doesnt like the boy because he refused to give her money.

Please note that, she takes #70 to school each day plus food. Even in our financial situation, my mom tries her best to satisfy her children. My sister even saves the money I send to her and buy meaningful things with it. She also wrote in her diary where mom beat and corrects herand she doesnt like it.

Infact, I just jokingly waved the whole thing when my mom told me in tears today because I dont want to worsen the whole thing. I told her I also had diaries where I wrote all sorts about disliking my parents and my brother when I was at her age because I thought they loved my brother more. I even thought she wasnt my mom because of the whole discipline thing which is quite true. Not untill I became matured that I saw that she actually loved me and her training has helped me troughout life even in tough situations till date...you cant spend an hour with me without liking me ....no, my mom tried

To cut the long story short, pls how do I manage this situation because I dont want this to cause a burden to my mom. My dad must not even hear. I just had to appease her that it is normal for teenagers to think that way and all and she shouldnt create a big deal over it. I advised that she should have a heart to heart talk with my sis. I will be going home this weekend, pls how do I get my sister to realise that we love her and we care about her alot, how do I explain to her that shes just been disciplined and nothing more... oro yi su mi..

pls your matured contributions goes along way...thank you sirs and mas

Since you Christian, quote from Bible to suit her bad behaviors...

Richirich713:
Nothing to do with moses, it's about Jesus words found in the red letters bible.

Nobody.. I repeat nobody will ever talk about him/herself using third person ish..


If you insist it's Jesus words. . Then OYO lo wa

Richirich713:
It's Jesus speaking, it's red in the red letter bible or any bible which uses red to indicate that Jesus is speaking.

You said we must take only he words, now u tell me not to take them cuz they in third person speech.

If you insist that is Jesus words. .then you mean moses wrote the book of Exodus ?