₦airaland Forum

^^^ Who edited the Bible in Nicea?

davidylan: . . . . I dont have much respect for people who egg on atheists insulting the intelligence of christians then try to pull the moral card once they get a taste of their own medicine. . .

+1000000

This is something I detest thoroughly especially when done by people claiming to be some sort of "Christian"!

^^^ Wrong! Constantine did not 'structure' anything. He called a conference and left the Christians to sort things out among themselves.

In any event, Christians were known as Christians long before Constantine!

Anyone heard of Antioch?

^^ What else can one do but to laff?

^^ The Trinity argument in its basics is quite simple: the Bible says God is ONE; the Bible also says that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

The intellectual aspect of the doctrine (e.g. from Nicea) is both complex yet simple as well.

truthislight: ^^^

True .. . .

Says who?

There are strong arguments in the scholarly literature that Matthew himself omitted "nor the Son".

All that is diversion and obfuscation anyway; what I'm waiting for is evidence of the 'fraud' or 'error' that led to the translation of John 1:1 as "the Word was God".

ijawkid: Hahahahaha..........abeg translate am for me....abeg you........you really remember am o..........

So you are yoruba??....

Roughly:

He who is truthful and stands firm will not give his heart to fear but will have boldness in the truth . . . . . . come out let's go, stride on, let truth be our light, Jehovah calls me etc etc etc

Another one:

Ọjọ Jehofa de; aṣẹ rẹ si bẹrẹ --- Jehovah's day is here and his rule/authority has started

Ẹlẹri jah ni awa, a n'jẹri lọ l'aibẹru ---- we are Jehovah's witnesses, we are witnessing about without fear.

Now, find and post those your hymns.

Well, as no proof whatsoever has been produced of the "agenda" or fraud or whatever that led to the rendering of John 1:1 as "the word was God", there really isn't much reason to bother much about this thread any longer.

However here is something that is basic and not even hugely scholarly (if necessary, there are loads of those that can be produced); it may not help those to be forgotten but it will help those whom it will help.

http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/answer-frame-john1_1.htm

Verse in Question: John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Question:
My name is Bethany, and recently I have been trying to learn Greek. One reason is to be able to (hopefully) better understand the bible. But also because of what it says at John 1:1. There it says that the Word was with God and the word was God. But a friend of mine, who is a devote Christian, pointed out the Greek there. The spelling for God, in the sentence 'and the word was God' is different than the spelling of God else where. I looked at this and saw it too. This same spelling is seen when referring to 'other' gods. My friend and I are wondering if maybe the translation wasn't done correctly. Maybe it should say 'and the word was a god' or something of the sort. Please look into this, with an open mind.
Thank you for your help. May God guide you and protect you.
Bethany.

Answer:
In answering your question, let me first note that understanding the Greek text of the New Testament is extremely important and necessary for a clear apprehension of what the writers of the New Testament meant as they wrote the letters and accounts that we now enjoy. One note of caution is needful because Greek, like every language, has its own nuances and ways of saying things that can lead to confusion or misunderstanding when looking at it from the perspective of an English (or foreign) reader. An excellent example of this is the phrase you asked about in John 1:1.

The Apparent Difference in Spelling

First of all, the same Greek word is used in both occurrences of the word "God" in John 1:1. This same word is used in many contexts, whether it refers to the Only True God or whether it is referring to a false god - such as a man-made god (1 Cor. 8:5) or Satan as the ‘god of this age’ (2 Cor. 4:4). The apparent differences in spelling between the word ‘God’ in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’ (‘theos’) and in other places, (even in the previous phrase, ‘and the Word was with God’ (‘theon’)) is due to inflection in the Greek language. Each Greek noun normally has 8 or 9 forms (cases & number) in which it can appear. (See my page on ‘Inflection’ and ‘Cases’ on the Web site). In the first instance in John 1:1 it is the object of preposition and thus is in the accusative case. In the phrase in question, it is in the nominative case (indicating the subject or predicate nominative - equal to the subject). But it is the same word for ‘God’, and in both phrases here indicates the One and Only True God. So the apparent difference is spelling is not because ‘theos’ is a different word than ‘theon’, but is a different form of the identical word.

The Lack of a Greek Definite Article

Another common confusion in John 1:1 comes from the fact that in Greek there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ (‘theos’) in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’. The confusion arises from an assumption that if there is no definite article in the Greek, then it must have an indefinite meaning and thus should be translated with the indefinite article "a". Based on this understanding, some argue that this phrase in John 1:1 should be translated "the word was a god," rather than "the word was God." It is important at this point to understand that the Greek language has a definite article (‘the’), but does not have an indefinite article (‘a’ or ‘an’). In certain instances, when the Greek omits a definite article, it may be appropriate to insert an indefinite article for the sake of the English translation and understanding. But we cannot assume that this is always appropriate. Greek does not operate in the same way as English does in regard to the use of the words ‘the’ and ‘a’. In many instances in which English would not include the word ‘the’, the Greek text includes it. (We don’t see it in the English translations because it would sound non-sensible in our language.) (See Note 1, below.) And in many cases where the Greek omits the definite article, the English translation requires it to convey the correct meaning of the Greek. (See Note 2, below.) Therefore it cannot be assumed that if the definite article is absent, then an indefinite article should be inserted. (For a clear illustration of this, see an example of the use of the word ‘God’ and the definite article in John chapter one.) Furthermore, even though the Greek language does not have an ‘indefinite article’ like we think of in English, there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea and thus avoid confusion. This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun ‘tis’.

In John 1:1 there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ in the phrase, ‘and the Word was God’. However, in this instance, it cannot just be assumed that the word ‘God’ is meant to be ‘indefinite’, and therefore an indefinite article used in the English translation. Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was ‘a certain god’, but not the one he was just referring to. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1 (among many, many other examples). So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ - John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father.

(For a more thorough explanation of the function and use of the Greek article (and meaning of its absence), see ‘Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics’, by Daniel Wallace. He includes fifty pages - entitled ‘The Article, Part I’ - which is a more complete treatment of the subject that many grammar books present and explains all the general uses of the article. He actually has a ‘Part II’ which discusses some special issues with the article. Fifteen pages of this second section apply directly to understanding this passage in John 1:1. It is highly recommended for those who really desire an honest and thorough understanding of this passage.)

The Predicate Coming Before the Subject

Also, this phrase in John 1:1 is an example of a predicate nominative coming first in the sentence, before the subject. (Sentences like this one that use a linking verb require the noun in the predicate part of the sentence to be in the nominative case. Thus the phrase 'predicate nominative'.) The subject of this clause is ‘the Word’ and the predicate is ‘God’. In Greek, the word ‘God’ comes before the word ‘Word’. According to normal Greek usage (Colwell's Rule), the word ‘God’ should not have a definite article. Oftentimes, emphasis is shown in Greek by placing a word out of its normal, expected word order. Special emphasis is shown when the predicate comes first in the sentence. In other words, contrary to the thought that ‘since there is no definite article used here it could belittle the fact of the Word being God’, the fact that the word ‘God’ is used first in the sentence actually shows some emphasis that this Logos (Word) was in fact God in its nature. However, since it does not have the definite article, it does indicate that this Word was not the same ‘person’ as the Father God, but has the same ‘essence’ and ‘nature’.

The Context of All of the Apostle John’s Writings

It is also necessary to see this statement in context of the rest of John’s writings. When comparing this with other statements about who the person and nature of Jesus Christ really is, it adds to what is already made clear by the Greek grammar. See for instance: John 8:56-59 (cf. Exo. 3:13-14); 10:28-33; 14:6-11; 1 John 5:20; (also John 8:23; 3:12-13; 5:17-18). These verses also indicate that, in John’s understanding and thus the Bible’s clear statements, Jesus Christ is the same essence and nature as God the Father, but distinct in their person-hood.

Consulting with Other Well Respected Greek Scholars and Grammarians

For a further explanation and clarification about these items, it is helpful to consult with many of the well respected Greek scholars and expositors. Personally I have never come across any objective, well respected Greek grammarian that has come up with different conclusions that what has been presented here. Many of them go into much more detail than I have in these few short paragraphs. See for instance the writings of Daniel Wallace (‘Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics’), A.T. Robertson (both his ‘Grammar’ and ‘Word Pictures’), R.C.H. Lenski (in his commentary on the Gospel of John), Henry Alford (‘Greek Testament’), J.A. Bengel (‘Word Studies), Albert Barnes (‘Barnes’ Notes’), B.F. Westcott, and F.L. Godet, (and many others).

Final Comment

Bethany, I hope this helps to answer your questions. Obviously you are asking about a very large topic that can only be touched upon in such a small answer. My answer here is not meant to argue some theological doctrine, but to point out how important it is to have a pure heart when seeking God in His revealed speaking (the Bible) and how much it helps to know the Greek language in helping to answer some very complicated questions. A little (and incomplete) knowledge of Greek can do more harm than good when people try to apply it beyond their scope of knowledge. I beg you to seek the Lord honestly and continue to love Him with your whole heart. 1 Corinthians 8:1b-3 says, ‘Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him’. Many questions that are beyond our human understanding will only be answered when we see Him face to face. But for now, we continue to love Him and seek Him with our whole heart. The rest is up to Him. Please let me know if I can be of further help or guidance.

People like Higgs are too sensible for the Chief Apostle, Pope, Daddy G.O., Grand Quadi, Buddha and Abd Ru Shin of atheists like the mumu Richard Dawkins and his lieutenant apostles like Barker (probably barmy), the prat Harris and their even waaaay more mumu followers and sheeples.

^^
Adapted from something previously posted here https://www.nairaland.com/1160347/difference-between-reasonable-unreasonable-skepticism#13809842

[Even the Higgs of Higgs Boson fame does not think that science and faith are necessarily incompatible; see quote below] ---- especially for comparison with all the shouts of science science science and 'science debunks faith' that we hear on this forum.

"The growth of our understanding of the world through science weakens some of the motivation which makes people believers. But that's not the same thing as saying they're incompatible. It's just that I think some of the traditional reasons for belief, going back thousands of years, are rather undermined.

"But that doesn't end the whole thing. Anybody who is a convinced but not a dogmatic believer can continue to hold his belief. It means I think you have to be rather more careful about the whole debate between science and religion than some people have been in the past."

He said a lot of scientists in his field were religious believers. "I don't happen to be one myself, but maybe that's just more a matter of my family background than that there's any fundamental difficulty about reconciling the two."

Tunby: Its called faith man.Faith!!! You believe first before understanding it.

Reyginus: Dude, I don't get you.

Compare here https://www.nairaland.com/1009338/succinctly-anony/2#11713105

Enigma: Could be one way to understand/explain Augustine's Crede, ut intelligas (believe, so that you may understand) and Anselm's Credo ut intellegam (I believe so that I may understand).

Hmm

Ẹni ba ṣ'ootọ to duro ṣinṣin ki yio f'ọkan rẹ f'ẹru

(snip)

Jade ka lọ, lakaka nṣo
k'otitọ ṣe 'mọlẹ wa
Jehofa pe mi n'iranwọ rẹ etc

ijawkid: no matter how you call the Jehovahs witnesses cultists they would still knock on your door till thy kingdom come.....

I know them well and get on well with some of them. In fact, when I was growing up, I was in their 'kingdom hall' a number of times. I even still remember some of their somgs in Yoruba.

truthislight: Was it an over sight or omission?

Whichever way you wish to look at it?

Did the translation committee or group of the KJV remove "nor the Son" when they produced the KJV translation?

Oh, and I am still waiting for proof of the "agenda" or fraud concerning the rendering of Johnn 1:1 as "the Word was god".

And this is Mark 13:32 from the KJV ----- so why is "neither the Son" retained and not removed.

32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Oh, I suppose the next accusation will be that the scribes whose manuscripts did not have "neither the Son" had an "agenda".

Or maybe Matthew had an "agenda" like the apostle John had an "agenda" when he wrote John 1:1.

Ubenedictus: be very careful on dis matter, d absence of "nor d son" in matthew isnt becos it was removed by d kjv but becos dat phase is absent from many ancient manuscript of matthew. D phase is found in mark and even d kjv has it becos it is present in all manuscript. This isnt a matter of whether d kjv believes d divinity of christ, because if d kjv was simply influencing her translations it would not have "nor d son" in mark.
Besides, not just d kjv has manuscript dat doesnt have "nor d son" d drv also doesnt have nor d son in matthew but they both have it in mark.
"nor d son" is also absent from d matthew manuscript used by many earlier xtian.
This isn't some influenced translation, it is absent from many manuscript.

Yep, elementary stuff. In fact, aletheia showed up this stuff in another example (funny, from the same poster here as it happens) some time ago:

here https://www.nairaland.com/770577/which-version-bible-read-why/1#9274592


Meanwhile I notice that no proof has emerged of the "agenda" or fraud or whatever that led to the translation of John 1:1 as "the Word was God".

Boomark: Enigma and some others know why they can't help you. He only comes to encourage you cos part of what you are saying is what he believes in. You are not honest in learning and answering questions.

Well as a prophet, i know what you are doing. Trying to nail every confusing parts.

Bidam alone has shown that the cultists and Jehovah's witnesses don't know what they are talking about. I admire his/her persistence, patience and tolerance very much.

Personally, I don't have much time to waste with cultists and other alakatakitis; let them hold on to their belief in a Jesus that was created or that did not exist until he was born by Mary. It is probably only worthwhile to explain the Trinity doctrine to other Christians who are honest enough to say that they don't understand it or for some non-Christians who have an honest desire to understand it.

Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ my God!
All the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to His blood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDkuxEIcpdI

brokoto: Mr. Naptu, I don't know where you are from or which religion u follow if any but if per chance I see you in real life I would like to shake your hands. I've been following you from your Nigeria @52 thread and I've never been privileged to learn so much from someone as much as I've learnt from you. Its people like you that give me the hope that we can still succeed as a nation. Thumbs up to you. You are my NL hero!

I really think naptu2 is very cool and classy; certainly a Nairalander I wouldn't mind to meet up with to reminisce about the past over a glass of wine or three ---- or whatever is his own 'poison'.

Ishilove: Enigma is very very smart. I hear he's a law stuident.

lol 100 level sef!

truthislight: . . . . but that is lacking in wisdom and does show how trinity has destroyed you brain and ability to reason. . . . .

Is this a good thing to say? You don't think that and even much much worse can be said about some of the doctrines of the Jehovah Witnesses?

^^ I don't think so, but sorry if I did.

^^ But Kay, you should remember my point on that issue on that other thread!

Anyway, refresh your memory here https://www.nairaland.com/966459/arming-faithful-against-logic/1#11156971

Reyginus: I also think and know their are better ways to make people see the flaws you claim enshrined in their post. Don't you think so?

Maybe there are ---- that is subject to if the "people" are reasonable, honest and intelligent people.

Purist: I'm gonna spare you the agony for now. I've played with you enough for today. Now I shall attend to things that actually matter.

You remain a thicko, slanderer and intellectual nonentity.

And as I said before:

"Those who matter don't mind; those who mind don't matter."

Reyginus: Seriously, you guys(Enigma and Purist) are going below the maturity line.
We're watching.

Sometimes, a person has to do what he has to do,

Sometimes these things are necessary.

^^
If you are confident you won't be so keen to rehash here.

Maybe you want to learn, but I am never keen to have a thick mumu or dunce for a student.

Mumu who does not even know that the first step is to read the cases, who also does not know that it is unreliable to rely on persons who themslves had not read the cases.

Intellectual nonentity wanting me to be his teacher.

Kay 17: What of Evangelical theism?

Reyginus: What about it?

Maybe Kay17 wants reassurance that it is a religion lol

^^^ So you no longer have confidence that people going to the thread can see my argument --- and so you want to rehash here.

I will not indulge you. I am confident enough to leave intelligent people going to the thread to form their own conclusions.

For this thread, I give you this response below once more.

You still remain too thick to understand the argument; so I will not bother to answer your misrepresentations. You have proven yourself unworthy of that.

However, I will show how much of a nonentity you are intellectually: you have never read the cases in issue.

A person who is not a thicko would read them first before feeling competent to discuss them ----- but on that thread you mumus relied on third hand information from others who similarly had not even read the cases.

So, NO I cannot take you seriously on the substantive issues.

^^^ And you have the same answer. You still remain too thick to understand the argument; so I will not bother to answer your misrepresentations. You have proven yourself unworthy of that.

However, I will show how much of a nonentity you are intellectually: you have never read the cases in issue.

A person who is not a thicko would read them first before feeling competent to discuss them ----- but on that thread you mumus relied on third hand information from others who similarly had not even read the cases.

So, NO I cannot take you seriously on the substantive issues.

Oh, and once again: I stand completely by my arguments on the concerned thread and related threads though this thicko calling himself "Purist" is trying to misrepresent those arguments.

^^^ You still remain too thick to understand the argument; so I will not bother to answer your misrepresentations. You have proven yourself unworthy of that.

However, I will show how much of a nonentity you are intellectually: you have never read the cases in issue.

A person who is not a thicko would read them first before feeling competent to discuss them ----- but on that thread you mumus relied on third hand information from others who similarly had not even read the cases.

So, NO I cannot take you seriously on the substantive issues.