THE UNDERLYING TRUTH IN JOHN 1:1

THE UNDERLYING TRUTH IN JOHN 1:1

(An Analysis Based on Grammar Syntax and Meaning)


One of the debatable topics in the Bible is John 1:1. Some Bible scholars translated the verse of John 1:1c as “the word was God” while the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT) version translated it as “the Word was a god.” In this article we would find out whether it is possible to render it as “a god” as well as to know whether “God” in John 1:1c is correct. Many scholars say that if the subject and predicate has definite article (the), then both nouns are interchangeable.  As an example of this consider the study in Greek text of Matthew 13:38 which states, “the world is the field.” This would mean also as “the field is the world” which is true in the English grammar rule. However when the article is absent in the predicate then it would mean that they are not interchangeable. For example “the 144,000 people are chosen ones” could not mean as “the chosen ones are the 144,000 people.” In the previous example when using the concept of logic, one can say that all 144,000 people are chosen ones but one can never say that “the chosen ones are the 144,000 people” which would mean that the chosen ones are only 144,000 people and this is because we know that a lot of persons in the Bible are chosen people of God but not part of the 144,000. In studying logic, the validity of a sentence depends on how it is being delivered or structured. Thus, the sentence “the teacher is male” cannot mean as “the male is teacher” which would sounds bad definitely. So as with the sentence “the valedictorian was girl” (if for example it was written as the same as in Greek without article) cannot mean as “the girl was the valedictorian”. The first sentence states that the valedictorian was [a] girl (showing indefinite characteristics as of a girl and an indefinite noun who belongs from the class of girls), while the second sentence shows identity (a definite noun which was being identified from among the other students). The first sentence defines the characteristic of the valedictorian [i.e. the valedictorian has a nature of a girl] and that the valedictorian belongs to a group or class of girls while the second sentence identifies the valedictorian as the only girl who is different from the other students. This is true in the statement “the Word was God” which cannot mean as “[the] God was the Word” and “the Word is Man” which also cannot mean as “The Man is the Word” which is not in the rule of grammar (whether it could be in English or Greek) for the word God has no article and that it falls as a quality and not an identity – being an indefinite noun and not a definite noun. Unlike in the statement “the Word was a god’, it can mean definitely as “A god was the Word” which shows both sameness to “the valedictorian was girl” and “a girl was the valedictorian”. The statement “the valedictorian was girl” is almost the same as “the valedictorian was a girl”. The first statement shows that the valedictorian has a nature of a girl while the second statement shows the valedictorian is a girl [identified as a girl physically who has a nature of a girl and is belong to a group called girls]. To have a clear illustration of the thought let us have another example. Suppose the statement is “the model is girl”. How could we sense the sentence? The statement shows the model has a nature of being a girl. However, when you say “the model is a girl”, it really identifies as to what class or group of model it belongs i.e. it belongs from girls and on the other hand it also shows that the model has qualities like of a girl. The statement “the model is girl” is not really identifying the model as a literal girl but rather describing the model as it has the characteristics or attributes of a girl. Thus, when a model (suppose to be a male cross dresser is identified as “the model is girl./!”, it would definitely shows that he has a quality or nature of being a girl in the sense of fashion modeling and not that he is a girl (literally). Likewise, the statement “the model is a girl” shows that the model is identified as being literally a girl [someone who has the qualities or nature of being a girl] and is belong to the class or group of girls. So “the word was God” doesn’t really mean that the Word is the God Almighty but rather the Word is a god who has the quality or nature of God. The word “God” in John 1:1 that refers to the “Word” really refers only to someone who looks like a god. If we will not take the Word as “a god” and we take it as “God”, still the “Word” is described as someone who has the qualities or nature of a god therefore he is really a god. For if we say in a statement “Michael is spirit” we would always arrive in one conclusion – that is, Michael has the quality of being spirit (qualitative noun) and that he is a spirit from among many spirits (indefinite noun).

An example verse in the Greek Scriptures (NT) where Paul is identified as “theon” (god) without article is below. Here, Paul is being considered as a god and not the God. Someone who has a quality of a god because the power of God is manifested through him by the miracles he had performed in the eyes of many people. You can check the interlinear link of Acts 28:6 here (http://www.interlinearbible.org/acts/28.htm) Paul is described as GOD (THEON) without article therefore it shows qualitative and that he may be a god also.  Thus, we can say that if the subject is defined by a noun then it has an important and necessary force of meaning within that noun. However, we can only get the right and exact interpretation of the word based on the context of the whole sentence. We would not interpret the word that identifies the subject as it would contradict the other phrases. Thus, in getting the meaning of the word that identifies the subject, we have options on how to deal with the grammar structure of the whole sentence. These options that we may take vary on the degree of relevance of the word that defines the subject. Thus, when a sentence is translated into English we may have to look back for the original writings of that sentence whether it could be in Hebrew, Greek, Latin or Coptic and others. Basically, this is important and does matters especially when the word which is being identified has no related phrases to further support its identity. However, when the English translation is so obvious in its context we would need a little process on how we would deal with the words to interpret. In John 1:1b it is clear and obvious as it was said that the Word was with God. The preposition “with” when use in English varies differently according to its usage but basically all the usage of “with” when connected to the subject generally refers to something which is present with or within the subject. An example of this is: “I have come to this idea with my knowledge in English.” It means that I have known an idea because of the knowledge I have in English. Thus, my idea is presented with the knowledge I have. Another example using “with” as external objects is this: “He brought up this study with his colleagues.” Therefore, this means the person brought up a study together with his colleagues or it could be in this way, he and his colleagues brought up a study. Thus, there are two objects which are present with the brought up study. To have a plain example let us have this statement: “I went out with my friend” or “I am with my mother.” Obviously, a grade one American student could understand this plainly. That the two sentence means that I and my friend went out and I and my mother are together at the same time. Both suggest that there are two distinct subjects who are both present at a particular time.

In another example of the Watchtower in their magazine, the study presented in one example verse in Greek words “ho theos phos” which means “God is light” would not mean as “Light is God”. “Ho” is a definite article before theos but notice phos has no preceding definite article thus they are not interchangeable. They say this is also true in a Bible verse such as “God is a Spirit” which cannot be written interchangeably as “Spirit is God”. Take note the use of indefinite article (a) in that verse by the NWT translators to emphasize that God is a kind or sort of spirit. Some bible translation uses “God is Spirit” which made them conclude that Spirit is God (a person) and so likewise they would interchange it as “Spirit is God” (Holy Spirit is God). But this is not proper way to do so. The same also with “God is love” which is wrong to say as “Love is God”. These examples show that whenever God is describe by another noun which shows quality (that is abstract noun) or a noun that shows nature of God then the writer does not use article for the nouns that describes God. In John 1:1b it says that the “Word was with God” thus there are two separate beings that are together. Actually when you indicate definite article (the) before the word “God” in John 1:1b which makes it “the Word was with the God”, it would definitely mean very explicit that the Word is present with the God having a clear distinction of the two objects or subjects. Another example, “The Secretary was with the President.” It would mean that the Secretary is together with the President. In writing sentences in English which begins with God we usually don’t write the definite article “the” before God. Instead, we say like “God created everything” not “The God created everything” for we mean there is only one God that would stands for God – the Almighty. Now consider these examples:

1.      The Word was the King. (This is interchangeable – meaning the King is also the Word which is not acceptable in relation to verse we are talking because it would teach equality thus saying Jesus is Jehovah. Many scholars disregard this kind of translation in relation to John 1:1 but still they follow the doctrine of Sabellianism or the belief in a triune God that God became Jesus as a God-Man and died. The above example shows definiteness.)

2.      The Word was King. (Although it sounds not as good to the hearer, this clearly state a state of showing attribute or quality of being a king thus we may say in the verse above that we are talking that the Word was divine or having a godlike nature. This shows indefiniteness. This example really shows the meaning of John 1:1c. “The Word was King” shows that the word is a king who has the quality or attributes of being a king. This example shows not a definite king but rather indefinite from a group of kings. The Word is being described as a king who can compare to other kings but not the definite king who may be above and incomparable to other kings.)

3.      The Word was a king. (This indicates that the Word was one of a king from the class of kings. This would tell that the Word has the attributes of being a king and can have same nature as the other kings.)

Consider also the following statements in which the noun “man” is use by some scholars:

1.      “HE IS MAN.” – This really means that he is a man – a physical qualities and inner qualities that shows of being man. It does shows that the spoken about is human. For example: “Volta is man”. The peculiar name tells the hearer or reader as to what nature Volta has. Thus it suggests Volta has a nature like of a man therefore he is a man. The same suggests in the words “THE WORD IS GOD” in John 1:1c which really suggests “THE WORD IS A GOD”.

2.      “HE IS A MAN” – This really means that he has the good nature of being man; it shows attributes of a person that shows good qualities as man and that he is a man literally and belongs to a class of man.

3. “HE IS THE MAN” – This really means that he is identified as being “The Man” and would only refer to him as his identity who is distinct from all other men.

Thus you may render John 1:1c as “God” ONLY because the “Word” was divine in nature or having a godlike nature or is describe as being divine like of God but not to identify it as an identity as God (the Almighty) and it is also possible to translate it as “a god” for the Word is a kind or sort of god (that belongs to the class of gods) who is lower than the Almighty God Jehovah and has the qualities or nature of being god. It says in the Bible that the head of Christ is God and that he is going to give his kingdom to his Father after he defeated all his enemies and he will subject himself to God – 1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:27 – 28) These shows that they are not equal (Jesus ≠ Jehovah). Other translations use “The Word is God” to say that he is the God himself or equivalent to Jehovah but in John 1:1b and verse 2 it does shows that they are not equal but distinct who are both present at the same time. One thing would fail in the nature of Jesus with Jehovah is Jesus was created and has beginning while the God Almighty has no beginning and no ending or cannot die. – Proverbs 8:22-31 (Jesus is called the master worker or the craftsman); Colossians 1:15, John 1:14, 18; Habakkuk 1:12; Psalms 90:2

If the reader would insist the Word is God (Jehovah) then he would be violating the truth in the second phrase which states, “the Word was with God”. Take note the Greek term used here is “TON THEON” which would refer to Almighty God. Now, using the verse as “the Word is a god” would sense very acceptable because it clearly distinguishes the two persons discuss in John 1:1b which is “the Word was with God” and also with verse 2 which states “This one was in [the] beginning with God”. In this verse it does not only suggests two subjects but also suggests the presence of the two subjects at the same time. The verse that would prove that Jesus is “a god” and not the “God” is John 1:14 and John 1:18: Let us see some of the different Bible versions.

14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth. – NWT

14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.  – NASB

18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him. – NWT

18No man has ever seen God at any time; the only [e]unique Son, or [f]the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known]. – AMP

Footnote:  f John 1:18 Marvin Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament: This reading is supported by “a great mass of ancient evidence.”

18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. – KJV

18No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him – NASB

The evidence that it has the word “only-begotten” in Greek (which is monogeneses) from the early manuscripts would definitely show that Jesus was created by his Father or was begat by his Father but not literally. It only shows Jesus was brought up by his Father or in the same sense that someone has brought him in existence. He had just not existed by his own but someone had caused him to exist. Thus, he did not exist eternally but rather he existed from a definite time or from a very long and particular time ago. Some scholars say it should be translated as “one and only” for the root word of gennao was from “genos” which means “type” or “kind’ thus they say it could be “one of a kind” or simply “unique” and so the NIV and TNIV renders it as “one and only”. Even this word is going to use in the translation above, still it does not prove faulty that God is distinct and separate with the Word for the subject “only-begotten” or “only child” or “only one” is being described as the one who is in the bosom [position] of the Father that is the Word is in the presence of the Father literally because of the use of preposition “with” (NWT) but sadly, it is not the way it is written in other bible versions. However, when I say “the baby is in the bosom of the mother” how would it mean to a person? There is no other meaning of it than to say that the baby is in the close position (literally) of the mother. It cannot be the same as in a close relationship with someone because the Greek word for bosom which is “Kolpon” means place or position which requires a literal closeness of position of the two subjects spoken about. There is in no way to say that the Word (the begotten god) is equal with God (the Father) for they are described as they are both present at a particular time. Below is a quote that was taken from a commentator in one blog regarding John 1:1:

“As an aside to the discussion is the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c (Auw ne-u-noute pe p-shaje). The Coptic uses the indefinite noun possibly to refer to the abstract, or essence. More than likely the failure to use the article is possibly due to recognizing the previous phrase (Auw p-shaje ne-f-shoop n-nahrm p-noute) as contradictory if they did. Please note Horner’s Coptic translation (need this New Athena Unicode font) says, “[a] God was the word.” While he recognizes “a god” as a possible English translation of the Coptic, it is not the probable translation, based on the Greek.”

Notice that the commentator said that Horner statements said that “a god is not a probable translation based on Greek”. But how come the Coptic translated it as “a god”. The fact this was made in this translation is that the translators of the Coptic were really knowledgeable about the distinction of Jehovah and Jesus and that they see other texts on that chapter that identifies the separateness of God and Jesus in a same particular time. Many verses in the bible do not use article in Greek but when translated in English they use an indefinite article (a) to represent that the word is not definite or unique or simply to say that it belongs to a group or class of something.

Actually when a person said “HE IS GOD!”, it does shows that the person spoken about is like a god or that he is the God. To get the real meaning of what the speaker is trying to say is to see how it is being written. If this is translated in Greek and the speaker refers the person spoken about is the God then he would have to write an article before God and if the speaker refers the person spoken about as a quality and an indefinite noun then he have to leave the article before the word God showing that it is not an identity but rather a quality and an indefinite noun. Of course in English grammar the statement “He is God!” provide us two meanings. One is that he is [a] god showing a nature of God and the second is that He is God (the Creator). This now reveals our topic.  With this we can see that the first meaning applies to John 1:1c – that is the Word is a god [someone who belongs to gods] who has the nature of God but not the second meaning for it would show that Jesus is God (the Almighty) which is not in concordance with many verses in the Bible that speaks Jesus is not God (identity). Thus in order not to have misconception with the English translation of John 1:1c it should be necessary to render it as “a god” to emphasize that the word is not the God but a god who has the nature of God making it clear with the distinction of the Father and Son. In addition to this, God was addressed as the “Father” and Jesus as the “Son” in the Bible. Although Jesus was addressed also as a “Father”, God was never addressed as a “Son”. Likewise Jesus was addressed as a “brother” but God was never addressed as a “brother”. Moreover, God addressed his chosen ones as his “children” but Jesus addressed the little flock as to be his “brothers” and also Jehovah is identified as “Almighty God” but Jesus is only address as “Mighty God” and never as “Almighty God”.

rmnnoute shared a good comment on this post and he shared this link:

http://sahidicinsight.blogspot.com/2010/03/nominal-sentence-predicates-and-coptic.html

For discussion about the Trinity Doctrine please see the link below:

https://fromthesunrising.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/trinitya-false-doctrine-of-a-false-church/

For articles concerning about NWT please see the links below.

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/nwt-and-what-other-scholars-have-to-say-to-its-critics

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/nwt-and-other-translations-john-11

FOR IN-DEPTH discussion about qualitative, definite and indefinite nouns please see this link below.

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/the-word-was-a-god-and-qualitative-noun

ADDITIONAL STUDY:

Concerning about qualitative noun let us have examples again.

1.      “That boy is star!” and “That boy is a star.”

2.      “He is gay.” and “He is a gay.”

The first person in the first number indicates that the boy is describe as to being a star, suggesting he is famous and showing a quality of being a star while the second sentence in the first number indicates that he is a star who belongs to a group of stars. In the second example, the first person in the second number who is spoken about indicates a quality of being gay and so he may be therefore a gay. The second person in the second number indicates that he is a gay and belongs to a class of gays.  Both first examples in the two numbers show that the qualitative noun shows also as being an indefinite noun.

Now let us consider an example that is related issue to the Trinitarians.

“You are my princess.”

There are two meanings that implies here. The first one could be that she portrays the qualities of being a princess but never a literal princess in real life. Thus, it shows only qualitative but not definite or indefinite. The other one is, it implies that she is a literal or real princess in true life and she possesses the qualities of being a real princess and thus she belongs to a class of princess. Therefore, it suggest both qualitative and indefiniteness.

This is the thing that arises in theology in relation to John 1:1c. Some Trinitarians insist that the word “THEOS” is only qualitative and not definite nor indefinite because to say by them that “THEOS” is definite would mean the “Word” is “God [the Father]” but it prohibits them because of Greek grammar rule and to say the “Word” is indefinite means the “Word” is a god who belongs to a class of gods also dislike by them. Some still insist that “God” here is definite and would mean as “God” as being an identity even an anarthrous article (ho) is absent before the word “God”. However, this doesn’t hold true in Greek language when it comes to grammar rule and thus weakens the Colwell’s rule. If however, Trinitarians would not accept the word “THEOS” pertaining to the “Word” as indefinite noun but cannot accept it also as a definite noun because of the fact in the Greek grammar rule, and believing it is only a qualitative noun then there are two questions for them to be answered. One, if “THEOS” here in John 1:1c is qualitative only and they believe that Jesus is God as a definite being and consider no other gods, is it not true that being a qualitative noun as for a definite person (identity) means that the qualitative noun is also a definite noun? If yes, can you cite an example of qualitative noun in the Bible that suggests of being a definite noun or even in the English grammar? Second, if the qualitative noun is not a definite noun then how come it is not an indefinite noun?

Let us go back with the sentence “He is gay.” Obviously, the word ‘gay” is a qualitative noun. This shows not definite for there is no one consider as “the Gay” who is distinct from among the gays and so it is indefinite (a gay) who belongs to the class of gays. Trinitarians might use the point I have discussed in the examples above (as to the model and to the princess) that qualitative here maybe also refer to a definite noun but clearly in these two examples they are not have the legitimate characteristics to be called as a true girl and a true princess. In relation to “THEOS” in John 1:1c, some Trinitarians as those who claim it is both qualitative and definite noun only based their belief on assumptions on the belief that Jesus is God (the Almighty) founded back in the Nicene Creed and Athanasian Creed without really understanding the real truth presented in the Bible. On the other hand the Jehovah’s Witnesses asserted they belief based on what the Scriptures states alongside with the logic of reasoning and understanding plus the evidence of the factual information written by the early people in the early history of Christianity.

Some Trinitarians (as I am not sure if all of them) believe that there are no other gods to be considered because they believe there is only one true God and all the other gods are false gods. True Christians (the JW) believes that there is only one true God (John 17:3) yet they believe that there are other called gods but never to be considered as false gods. Read Psalms 97:9; 136:2 and 1 Corinthians 8:5. Remember the word “Almighty God” would not be meaningful and worthy of the title itself unless there are called other gods. (Compare Psalms 135:5; Deuteronomy 10:17) Being Almighty God means being the most powerful God among the other gods.

So the word “THEOS” in John 1:1c implies it is qualitative and indefinite. Trinitarians can only say it is qualitative and definite only in a sense of assumption of the belief that the “Word” is also the Almighty God. Yet, when force by grammatical standard rules in Greek language and by the supporting verses that identifies Jesus as the Son of God, it does not cope with the truth that the “Word” is “a god” (indefinite identity) who belongs from among the other called gods. What does the Greek Scriptures portend grammatically? Because of vast examples of showing definite nouns with anarthrous article before the nouns itself, it thus shows that the Greek writers are really aware and applied the knowledge of identifying the definite and indefinite nouns. Now, is a NWT version a valid and truthful translation with regards to John 1:1? Really it is. To say that a person is “a god” is to say that he has qualities of being god. What is implicit in John 1:1c shows explicitly by the NWT translators. Therefore, the sentence “THEOS EN HO LOGOS” implies that the Word is a person who has divine qualities like of God.

The word “THEOS” in John 1:1c suggests explicitly of being qualitative but implicitly indefinite and the translation word “a god” for “THEOS” in John 1:1c implies explicitly that it is indefinite (i.e. he belongs from a class of gods) and implicitly shows qualitative (i.e. he has the qualities as of being a god). A vice-versa rule indeed!

QUALITATIVE NOUN  IMPLIES   INDEFINITE NOUN = INDEFINITE NOUN  IMPLIES  QUALITATIVE NOUN

(Note: This applies to some qualitative nouns and some indefinite nouns. But what matters here is that most qualitative nouns can be indefinite nouns. While not many indefinite nouns can be qualitative nouns.)

For a final example, let us consider these statements.

1.      “HE IS DEVIL.” (if however written in Greek)

Should we mean that he possesses the qualities of Devil and that he is the devil or that he is a devil that possesses the qualities of the Devil? This is another example in the Bible that does not have definite article and so in one verse it is translated as “a devil”. I have an explanation of like this in one of my blogs about John 1:1.

2.      “Enjoy the power of majesty.

Basically, majesty is a qualitative noun merely an abstract noun. We know that majesty is used for a high class of persons and this could be used for a king or god such as in the expression as “Your majesty”. Thus, the word “majesty” shows qualitative and that it shows also of being indefinite from among those called “majesty”.

Regarding Isaiah 45:5 and 44:8 and among others saying that there is no God other than Jehovah, this does not mean literally that there is no other gods apart from Jehovah since he himself told in many verses in the Bible that there are other gods just for example he said in Deuteronomy 10:17 which he said He is God of gods. Literally, he is God of gods (those who possess his nature of course i.e. love, wisdom, power and justice) and so it involves gods in heaven and on earth and this is true in 1 Corinthians 8:5 in relation to Psalms 82:6 and Psalms 8:5* [*see the word used in Interlinear which suggest of being godlike because of the root word which suggest of being god]. Therefore, when Jehovah said that there is no God other than him, it is not literally but lexically with deeper sense, he is implying that there is no one like him being identified as the only true God (John 17:3) i.e. no other gods can be equated to him for all those gods are just like dust to him though he give importance with those gods he created and belongs to him and for him. He is identifying himself as someone who is unique and is incomparable with the other gods. We must interpret the words of Jehovah not as we understood it in literal way but through its lexical force of meaning and beyond what we thought plainly but according to his thought and not by our own understanding.

Regarding Isaiah 44:24 and among other verses, it is true that Jehovah who is Almighty God claim that he alone stretches the heavens and made the earth yet this doesn’t mean Jesus Christ is not with him. Although he asked who is with him and said no god is beside him, which would sound that he is alone by that time and he is alone when he stretches the heavens and made the earth, this doesn’t mean of literal interpretation. What he is saying that subject by himself alone (i.e. through HIS AUTHORITY, POWER AND SPIRIT) all of the things in the universe were created because of himself alone. When I say, “I, by myself  built this good system of government.”, would it not mean that I may have used someone or others who have helped me to built the good system of government I have planned to have? Also in this statement, “I by myself created this movie.” Does it only limit to myself or rather it may mean that there are persons involved when I created the movie? It only means that subject to the original thought of the creator of the movie as well as being part of the creation of the movie, he gave his authority, power and direction to others to create the movie he wanted. Therefore, God as the Creator alone or as the one who created the universe by himself alone means lexically (beyond the shallow thought of the sentence and in order not to contradict with the other proofs about Jesus Christ as being also his partner in creating all things) that He is the only one from whom by himself his original thought and plans were executed and subject only by himself alone. Now we can understand that in the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures), Jehovah is proclaiming himself as the only one who has authority and power above all yet when he sent Jesus Christ to earth, he introduced him as someone he used to create all things in heaven and on earth (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17) thus giving Jesus Christ the authority, power and spirit but in accordance or subject with the will of God. His will in the New Testament (Christian Greek Scriptures) is to reveal his son to mankind as the Son of God and that his son is the appointed ruler of all things both in heaven and on earth (Hebrews 2:8; 1 Peter 3:22; 1 Corinthians 15:27 – 28). But before the book of Isaiah were written it was foretold earlier that the Wisdom (personification of Jesus Christ) was beside of God who is acting as the master worker of God – Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30 (Note: He was the beginning of the works of Jehovah and he was set up or established but the literal wisdom of God is something which is eternally possess by God as he existed eternally yet this Wisdom (Jesus Christ) was said to be set up or established thus it means he was brought up into existence i.e. from being inexistence into being existence. Some would say before the universe were set up or created there is no knowledge upon yet that is why God created or establish his wisdom in himself. Is the Wisdom really the wisdom of God as it is the nature of God? No, because the wisdom of God is in his mind and acting only as his instrument in understanding his will. However, this Wisdom was called to be at the side of God who is delighted with God and acting as someone who has wisdom in creating things (Proverbs 8:30). If I have knowledge about something and wanted to build something through it, could my wisdom create that thought in my mind into physical things? Certainly no. But rather in order to have the concrete product of my thought, I will use someone/something who/that will help me to concretize the wisdom I have in my mind and that the person I will use will have the likeness of wisdom I have thus we will be having the same idea and so we can create the things which I wanted to create. Finally, we should remember that it is not through the mind (as if the mind can produce and hold things together) of God that all things were created but rather it is through his spirit (compare Psalms 33:6 104:30; Job 33:4) everything were created and that all hold together. Yes, the mind is used by God in organizing his will but not in creating though he uses it of course but it is through his spirit which is the powerful force in the universe that he use to perform or execute his will including in creating things.

In the concept of JOHN 1:1 the word THEON is a definite being of which he is identified as an identity. From the word THEON/THEOS (definite) there would be class of theon/theos of which they are in the nature of the word THEON/THEOS but they are indefinite from the groupmates of theon/theos. They show the qualities of being THEOS/THEON but not of the same substance or composition of THE THEON/THEOS. So whether they are taken as a whole group (all the theos/theon) but considered everyone individually or as individual they are really indefinite from among the other members of the group and are not really the same with THE THEOS/THEON which is identified as a single entity. Therefore, even the word “law” without article denotes all the laws of THE LAW it does not convey of being THE LAW but it suggest of all the laws in the law taken individually which are indefinite from among all the other laws within The Law and have the nature or qualities of being called a law. Lastly, if the Set A is THE THEOS from whom he created the class of theos which are his subsets, then every theos he created are being indefinite from among the other theos (elements) that THEOS had created and are his elements but all the theos or every theos is not the set THE THEOS. To have an example suppose a box is set A and its element is a ball (b). The element which is ball cannot be Set A since they are really different in nature. But what it says here is that A contains b and that b cannot contain A since you cannot put the box on the ball.

I do not say that this topic is of high level of proving yet I hope it may help in giving a more concrete explanation about the subject core I have discussed.

Here is the link about the words of Colin which got me interested to tackle.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/NF2213235?thread=8151777

ANOTHER SCOPE OF STUDY:

Yes, it is true that there are some instances in the Bible that speaks of God yet without article in Greek texts but how come the word “God” in John 1:1c should not mean definitely as the God but should determine only as “a god” that shows in the nature of the God?  The reasoning of Trinitarians in finding the many instances of word “God” without article in the Greek texts that suggest of being God himself is really shallow in thinking. Why? First, they do think that nouns without article is always definite which is not always true and with the other nouns (count nouns) without article can they say it can be a definite noun? Why for certain reason that those count nouns without article (except as identified explicitly by the context of the verse that the count noun is definite) is always indefinite? Why not use the same thought of being definite like of the word “God” without article without hesitantly doing it with the count nouns without article? The real thing is it cannot apply that thought of being definite since it is always identified that all the definite count nouns should have the definite article (the) except for those without article but clearly conveys of being definite because of the supporting context of a verse given. However, when speaking of the word “God”, whether there is an article present or absent before the word “God” if the context of the verse conveys of being the definite God then it has always no problem dealing with the word “God” as to be definite because it is really a requirement to do so that the rendering of the word “God” should be definite and not indefinite. If Trinitarians would insist in a way that “God” without article would show definite in many instances as it is acceptable even with those who believes only in one person God and would use this to back up the case in John 1:1c then why not by the same logic of reasoning use the same concept of definiteness with those nouns without article? The main point that always pointing by the Trinitarians is that God without article that refers to God is always definite and since they believe Jesus is God then he is God definitely. Even if we write in English translations the word THEON and THEOS of John 1:1 with the word “God” as it may be written as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word” [I put it in a literal transliteration of the original Greek], or in very transliterated way of the original root word of the Greek text as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was towards to [the] God, and God was the Word”, should we say that the Word is [the] God? Even getting the meaning of it literally it cannot equate equivalently since the Word is towards with the God and so would mean that in the beginning the Word was coming closer with [the] God. How about “and God was the Word”? Since many Trinitarians misinterpreted the word “God” in John 1:1c which they refer to God (the Father) but others only as the qualities of the Father (the divinely being of the Father) then they say that “the Word is God” would mean as “the Word is Divine” (in which I agree also) or “what the God was, the Word was” (in which I do not agree which means having same substance). If we will put on a mapping the word that identifies the qualities of God as the divinely being of the Father in the original Greek text of clause c then we will have “the divinely being of the Father was the Word” but it cannot be and would never be the same as “the Divine Being was the Word” which shows sameness with “the God was the Word” or “what the God was the Word was.” Let us focus on the words “the divinely being of the Father was the Word”. The divinely being of the Father includes all the qualities and nature of the Father which composed of love, power, wisdom and justice and all these four major qualities of God is represented by the Word and not just as “what the Father was the Word was” which shows of same or equivalent substance. What it conveys here is that the full attributes or divine nature of the Father can be seen through the Word (compare Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:15). Even in the Holy Scriptures these four major divine attributes of God which is love, wisdom, power and justice can be seen clearly from all the creation of God or of all the things he made or done – Romans 1:20. But the divine attributes of God is not limited unlike all the things he made or created. However, these works or creation [which are temporal in its qualities or in its own sense unlike with Jehovah] of Jehovah including Jesus as the Wisdom (Proverbs 8:22,23,30) shows the very attributes of the divinely being of the Father. Now, since the Father has divinely being of himself then he of course can be called as The Divine Being (identity). And since the Divine Being (the Father) has divinely being to himself and that his divinely being is represented by the Word or can be seen through the Word, then the Word is absolutely a divine being who has divinely being just like as of the Father. Thus, God who shows the qualities of being God himself is represented by Jesus who is also a god which shows the qualities of being God (Divine Being). In conclusion, the possible transliteration of the original Greek text of John 1:1 is “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was towards to [the] God, and the divinely being of God* was the Word.” But it is more acceptable and par of John 1:1c if this is translated as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and being divine was the Word.” And as I have explained above the possible parallel translation of these in its core meaning is “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word is being divine” or “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a divine being [or a god].”

*The divinely being of God may show as the equivalent meaning of the qualitative noun “God” in John 1:1c of which the qualities of God can be seen through the Word or that it represents by the Word (see 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30) thus the Word has the qualities of God or of being divine or has godly nature and therefore can be called as a god who has also the nature of God.

Another good literal transliteration of John 1:1c is “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was towards to [the] God, and being like God was the Word” or in a good translation in English we may have “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and being like God was the Word.” Therefore in proper English structure translation it would be “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was being like God.”

Let us focus on the third clause. The word “being like God” literally means of showing the qualities or nature of being God thus the Word was being like God in the beginning or in contractions it would definitely become as “the Word was like God.” In illustration if I say “the girl is like the princess” it means that the girl I am spoken about looks like the princess I am talking about. In other words, the girl shows her qualities of being a princess like of the princess (definite) I have mentioned and not the girl is being or becoming the princess. This means that the girl has the qualities of the princess but it does not conveys that all the exact and full nature of the princess is in her as like the identity of the princess was incarnated to her. The girl of being like a princess represents the whole being of the Princess but not really acting as the Princess or in other words the full nature of the Princess can be seen through her but not all the full nature of the Princess is also in her. She is only the representation or the manifestation of the princess i.e. the full qualities of the princess can be seen through her but her qualities are not the same or exact with the full attributes of the Princess. Therefore, the words “the Word is like God” simply shows that the Word shows the qualities like of [the] God and not that he is being God or the God and so in conclusion we can say that he is a god possessing the nature of God.

Thus the translation “The Word is Divine” only means that the Word is being divine and that he is a divine being but not as he is the Divine Being [the Father] (Compare Philippians 2:6).

What about the terms “It is in him that all the fullness of “THEOTES” dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:9)

THEOTES could have a meaning of a Diety, God, being God, divine nature/qualities

If we would write the words as “It is in him that all the fullness of the Diety dwells bodily.”

And since the Diety means Godhead then Trinitarians insist that the Diety which is the Godhead [God] is also Jesus.

Again, as I have explained in the previous above the divinely being of the Father (i.e.) his full nature of being God can be seen through Jesus or represents by Jesus. Thus, even it may mean as all the fullness of God resides in Jesus this does not mean that Jesus is also God. What the real context mean is that all the divine nature of God can be seen bodily or physically (i.e. by the naked eyes of man and by perceiving the wonders of works of God) through Jesus or that all the divine nature of God represents by Jesus since Jesus is the exact representation of the Father (Hebrews 1:3) and the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15) and that through him ALL THINGS were created (1 Colossians 1:16 – 17, Proverbs 8:30; John 1:3) which of course literally shows the full divine attributes of the Father. Like I have said about the girl who is like a princess, the girl never exists as the incarnated identity of the princess. The same thought can be seen between God and the Word. The Word never exists as the incarnated identity of God. To have a clear concrete illustration, let us say “Denver is the exact image of his father Billy.” or “Denver is the exact representation of his Father Billy.” Even you get the DNA analysis of Denver it would never be the same as unique as the DNA of the father Billy! To point one of the uniqueness of each other is their fingerprints. Clearly as asserted by Science no one in the world have the same fingerprint! What about the other qualities like the level of their IQ (wisdom), their inner personalities (emotional IQ), their physical image and strengths (power), the marks on their body, their ways of their thinking (judgment), their likes and interest, etc. Thus, even Denver is the exact image of the father Billy then it must not to conclude that Denver is the Father Billy. Thus, the sentence could only mean as “Denver has qualities like of his Father Billy.” The only acceptable and undeniable truth if Jesus is God (the Father) is that there would be words written as “and God became the Word” or “and God became Jesus” or “and God became the Son” however, no text or even single hint in all the Scriptures that gives this plain understanding.

Thus, the words “It is in him that all the fullness of the Diety dwells bodily” would only mean as “It is in him that all the full divine qualities (or nature) [of God] dwells bodily.”

See this in depth study about Colossians 2:9 in this link: (http://jehovah.to/xlation/theotes.html)

Here are the examples of words that are of the same structure as of divinely being:

powerful being, merciful being, godly being, friendly being, loyal being, almighty being, cheerful being, crazy being, etc.

Advertisements

19 responses to this post.

  1. Regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses’ “New World Translation” Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you to know that there is soon to be published an 18+ year study (as of 09/2010), a thoroughly researched reference work in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with “a god”), as it will be entitled, “What About John 1:1?”

    To learn more of its design and expected release date, we invite you to visit:

    http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

    Agape, JohnOneOne.

  2. Posted by rmnnoute on October 5, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    The comment about Horner saying that “a god” is not a probable translation based on Greek must be that of the blogger, because it does NOT appear in Horner’s Coptic translation, of which I have a bound hard copy. The comment is also inaccurate.

    Horner’s translation of John is nearly 100 years old, and understanding of the Coptic language has increased since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Coptic works in the 1940s.

    Modern-day, noted Coptic scholar Bentley Layton has an interlinear translation of the Coptic text of John 1:1 in his grammar book, Coptic in 20 lessons, published in 2007. How does Layton translate Coptic John 1:1c: ΑΥѠ ΝΕΥΝΟΥΤΕ ΠΕ ΠϢΑϪΕ (auw ne.u.noute pe p.shaje )? In this manner: “And a god [was] the Word.” He translates the common noun “noute” (god) that is bound to the Coptic indefinite article as “a god.” Because that is exactly what the Coptic says.

    There are so many examples of this construction in the Coptic New Testament which even Horner translates as “a” something, that it is beyond dispute. See:

    http://sahidicinsight.blogspot.com/2010/03/nominal-sentence-predicates-and-coptic.html

    Of course, the Greek text also can be translated to say “the Word was a god,” so the Coptic text is just giving a faithful translation of the New Testament Greek text.

  3. Posted by iwillnotstumble on October 7, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    context, context, context the example of the 144,000 is an example of why the Spirit is needed to understand the word. Your presupposition’s which were taught by your elder’s in the Watchtower will lead you to believe what they would have you believe. But the bible speaks for itself, it is the word of God and God says ‘You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.
    (Jeremiah 29:13 NASB)

    The Pharisees and teachers of the law were very religious and zealous (look at Paul) but they were not seeking God with all their heart they were seeking the approval of men. Do you want to know the truth or do you seek the approval of men? God is not an author of confusion, the devil is

    “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 there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. “I, even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me. “It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed, And there was no strange god among you; So you are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “And I am God. “Even from eternity I am He, And there is none who can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it?”
    (Isaiah 43:10-13 NASB)

    http://byhislight.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/an-examination-of-the-watchtowers-translation-of-john-11/

  4. Posted by fromthesunrising on October 8, 2010 at 1:03 am

    You assumptions to Moses as he will be as God shows it is a quality that is he will be like a god. That is why Jehovah’s Witnesses renders John 1:1 c as “a god” because of the requirement to do it so for the clarity of the two objects spoken about. When Moses said to be as God it does not require that he is God but rather as god that shows a quality or nature of being god. The problem with Trinitarians is they are too closed to see the grammatical force of the sentence. If someone really knows the syntax of the English grammar which I know the English language professors will definitely agree with me in my reedited blog about John 1:1 and the other proof text in the Bible, surely he will be convinced that what NWT translators and JW assert is really valid and acceptable than what the Trinitarians insisting twisted thought. I suggest you read my new blog concerning grammatical force in interpreting a certain word which is VERY basic in English language. It does not require a high degree of education for even an American grade one student can understand the plain and explicit thought of these verses. Please read my blog concerning this matter that is in connection in interpreting John 1:1. I hope you will see the real thought of John as it is also the thought of Jehovah. Please see this link for further explanation about the incredibilty of the Trinity doctrine.

    https://fromthesunrising.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/574/

    INSERTION (October 3, 2015)

    SO HOW MANY GODS DO YOU HAVE?
    True Christians would definitely say they have only one God to be worshipped and prayed to. However, many Christendom say that if Jesus is a god for them then they say JW have two Gods in their life – Jehovah and Jesus. Jesus is a god (having a divine nature of God) while Jehovah is God – the Supreme God. Jesus told that there is only one true God in John 17:3. Others say, “So if there is only one true God then Jesus is not a god.” Is it really the meaning of the context of the said verse? Not really. In order to know the exact and explicit thought of this verse, we should examine other verses that would give further light to it. Let us use 1 Corinthians 8:5 which states that there are gods in heaven and earth. Are gods in heaven equal with YHWH (Jehovah)? For us to know this, we should look up Genesis 17:1 and Revelation 16:14 which states that there is one Almighty God. Now, if there are gods in heaven, who are they? Of course they are angels created by God and thus Jesus is an angel too because he is a created being (Revelation 3:14 as well as the other verses). If gods in heaven are angels then definitely Jesus as a god is angel too. Are angels in heaven called gods? Yes. One proof of it can be found in Daniel 5:11. Was the “spirit” of holy gods (angels) literally possess by Daniel? It does not mean that way. The thought is Daniel has the ability of knowing or interpreting dreams. He has wisdom like of holy gods or angels. Jesus is called mighty god in Isaiah 9:6. Are angels in heaven consider as false gods because it says there is only one true God? Of course no. Are they true gods? They are true (AS REAL – NOT FAKE) gods in a sense that they really possess the divine nature of the true (ONLY DISTINGUISHED OR ABOVE ALL) God. Just an illustration of transcript of records or documents. The true documents are original yet you have can have real copies of it by photocopying them and so still these are considered as “true documents” and cannot be said as “fake” but not “original true documents”. Thus, John 17:3 saying as Jehovah as the true God in relation to Isaiah 44:8 would explicitly mean Jehovah is THE ONLY GOD WHO CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH OTHER PERSONS OR BEINGS AND THAT THERE WAS NO GOD WHO EXIST BEFORE HIM. Can Trinitarians use the photocopying of the true document to say that Jesus is God also as the exact representation of God? No. Because the original has original sealed – an actual mark of seal (THE TOTALITY OF ALMIGHTY GOD – HIS WHOLE BEING) which can never be copied on a photocopy document by copier machine. If you have have father and you are son, do you think you can have all the totality of your father? Can you have the same perfect DNA in all your body as exact and same as with your father? Definitely not. The sealed of the original father is never the same as with the photocopied son! But he can be the exact “representation” in a sense that he is also “human” who possess characteristics like of his father who is also “human”. The same applies to Jesus and Jehovah. Jesus is the exact representation of Jehovah which shows the qualities of Jesus is the same as of his Father. – *taken from post of mine (MARK VILLANUEVA) in FB dated on November 28, 2013. (additional words have done)

  5. Posted by fromthesunrising on October 8, 2010 at 2:49 am

    In your explanation regarding your blog concerning John 1:1 you state Moses as to be described as God. This is the real thing that we can see in John 1:1. Though Moses doesn’t have the whole nature of God he still has a nature of a god because the power of God is manifested through him. Though Moses said to be as God to Aaron which you may not say as a quality but obviously he is a god to Aaron who has authority and power over Aaron. Thus, when a psalmist stated Psalms 82:6 those gods he mentioned does not require full attributes or qualities of God but rather they are gods in their own way showing the lesser attributes of God on their own, that is the power or authority, wisdom, love and justice, thus they are gods because they possess these qualities as being judges or magistrates. But they are never considered as true or false gods. See my blogs under the category of Defending NWT entitled “About John 1:1”. Therefore when Moses is described to be as God to Aaron it does not violates the truth that he is a god to Aaron for he has authority over him as well as to the Israel before. Power or authority is an attribute or quality of a god. One thing in your blog, you said that Jesus is not divine. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not say that Jesus is not divine. They believe that Jesus is divine in his own way but lesser in the way God has. Thus, he [JESUS] has attributes of God but not the full attributes of God. Of course, Devil is out in the world to give and exert his all effort to discredit the truth and spread lies. I just hope you reverse the side of your thinking. Please see this link for additional discussion about John 1:1 and the Trinity Doctrine.

    https://fromthesunrising.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/about-john-11/

    https://fromthesunrising.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/trinitya-false-doctrine-of-a-false-church/

  6. Posted by fromthesunrising on October 9, 2010 at 6:07 am

    i will not stumble,

    The Doctrine of Trinity will never be proven true for it is also in the Bible which clearly says that Jesus is not Jehovah. Consider the verse in John 8:28 where Jesus said boldly that he only say things whatever the Father has instructed him to say. Can Jesus instruct himself as to what he will say? If he is God with eternal knowledge why would he need to instruct himself? This is in relation to John 15:15 where Jesus said he told everything to people according to what he had heard from his Father. The word heard means there is something that caused it to sounds for you to hear it. That is why when you said “I heard from …” this really means that from a distance away from you, the sounds transmit to your ears. Saying Jesus is God is the same to say his words as “I heard from myself…” and it is true only if the speaker has a problem in his mind or being possessed by an evil spirit. Another verse that proves the Trinity to be unreliable is John 7: 16, 17 in which Jesus said his teachings were not from himself but from the Father and he was not speaking from his own authority but from the authority of his Father. Read also John 14:31 and John 14:24 for additional proofs.

    I just hope he will see the real teachings in the Bible.

  7. Posted by fromthesunrising on October 9, 2010 at 6:33 am

    Trinitarians should study this verse. It was said that Jesus will hand over his kingdom to his Father. How would he hand it over to someone if he is that also. Can he hand over a kingdom to himself. This is the same as saying I gave my kingdom back to myself. Compare Revelation 1:1.

    24 Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. 26 As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. 27 For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone. – NWT

    1 Corinthians 15: 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
    26The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
    27For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.
    28When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. – NASB

    NASB and other versions are not clear. They used the same pronoun “He” making the verses not clear and making the writer on the first verse talks about a single person. We can see verse 27 as to have two persons being talk about. The words “He is excepted who put all things in subjection to him” would mean that there is one who put subjection of all things to another person. If there is only a single person here then the writing must be written in this way: “He is excepted who put all things in subjection to himself.” The translation of other Bible versions to this verse is not in conformity with the original translation. They changed the proper word to be rendered as “with the exception of the one” into “he is excepted”. Of course the very reason of doing it so is to hide the truth that there is One who subjected all things to Jesus and that is God. However, verse 28 proves Jesus will subject himself to the One who put all things in subjection to him. This verse is a raising question to Trinitarians. If Jesus is God then can he subject himself to himself also? How is that possible? It is a nonsense statement as this statement “I subject myself to myself.” or in the other way around as “He [Jesus] subjected himself to himself.” What a very wrong statement!

    I really believe Jehovah is working for the people to search for truth. This is a test for everyone as he permits the apostasy to come after the apostles which is the will of Satan. This is what I am thinking before as He just not spoken in all plain way but to let the people find the truth. This is a fair battle between God and Satan – to those God’s people versus the people lead by Satan. I wonder why the Greek word for “of the one” in NWT and “He” for the other bible versions is not present. However, the truth is clear in verse 28 but since they reject the plain words in the book of John it is also easy for them to reject this one. Of course God is not God of confusion but He is just to prove his truthfulness. He let Satan do its own will and through this way God can prove to Satan and to all that his will cannot be broken by anyone. The truth will shine and it will prevail.

  8. Posted by fromthesunrising on October 9, 2010 at 6:37 am

    iwillnotstumble,

    Yes, I am seeking for the approval of men but not for my own glory rather for the glory of Jehovah in connection with his words in the Bible.

    You cannot reverse the irreversible thing…

  9. Posted by fromthesunrising on October 9, 2010 at 6:57 am

    To reveal the truth about the Word of Jehovah is God’s will and since Satan don’t like it, he will make all moves to discredit everything in truth. He will use his full power to confuse and to mislead the people. However, a dilemma is now experiencing by Satan as well as his people who lead false doctrines! This shows how great Jehovah is. The works of the Devil will prove himself wrong as well as his people for they are also the one who gives light and way for the truth to stand out just what the one stated in his blog regarding Moses as to be God to Aaron. No offense people. I am here not for the closed ears but for the people with open heart and eyes. It is true it is more important to save even one person who is willing to accept the truth compare to a billion who are deaf and wants to be deaf (presenting truth to them yet not accepting it) and those who are really against with the truth.

  10. Posted by fromthesunrising on October 12, 2010 at 6:47 am

    Unless the Trinitarians can explain the plain textual evidence showing Jesus is separate with Jehovah at the same time I would agree that you are correct but since they cannot explain these plain verses it would only be true that the trinity doctrine cannot stand with the truth presented in the bible. This is the moment of truth! 🙂

  11. Posted by fromthesunrising on October 12, 2010 at 6:48 am

    Even the ordinary English professors would agree with my thinking when it comes to the usage of preposition “with”.I suggest you ask this matter from any English professors in your country. As long there is an English professor that will say that “with” is not something which is not present with you (that is a thing that is separate from you whether internally or externally) then maybe I would agree with Trinitarians. Obviously, no one would! The Trinitarian scholars you are pointing should have study first the grammar rule or grammatical force of this words; “we”; “him”; “with” and “come to”. If the scholars you are pointing to JW can present a study in grammar that will support the trinity doctrine using these words then Trinitarians might stand.

  12. Posted by fromthesunrising on October 12, 2010 at 6:49 am

    I am not against with the people who promote the trinity doctrine what I am against with is the doctrine itself. I am sorry if my words seems to be harsh but I cannot lie with my feelings with those people who are promoting lies. They are misled by Satan who is the Father of lie. This is a matter of acceptance and refusal. If your are not a leader in your church why would you tie yourself with your church? You are not bound to your church and you can free yourself from them. I am speaking in general Trinitarians who may read this and not only with you. There are only two options: to accept and leave the false or to deny the truth and embrace the false. We can choose whatever we want. We have a free will. So don’t someone misinterpret my actions of revealing the truth to those people who are mislead after all they may have chance to know more about the truth… Peace with all! I am here to present the truth not to criticize the false ideology of the people. If it may sounds bad well I am sorry but if this bad can bring truth to some why not be?

  13. Posted by fromthesunrising on October 12, 2010 at 7:06 am

    I suggest you read this verse Psalms 46:6. You may have answer as to why? Thanks to the people who helped me get through this. With regards to scholars and scholarly minded people who do not agree with Trinity and agreed with NWT, I thank you for the enlightenment you have shared with us and to the other people. For your wisdom was really from Jehovah and not from Satan who creates deception to mankind. The proof that every true knowledge and wisdom comes from Jehovah can be read in Proverbs 2:6 and Isaiah 54:17. That is why every scholar who presented truth is in line with the wisdom and knowledge of Jehovah. And since this is true, Jesus as a co-creator is only a product of Jehovah’s wisdom and knowledge. Thus in Isaiah, Jehovah can claim he is the only one who created everything including Jesus as one of his creation and Jesus’ power in creating other things was only a product of Jehovah’s power. To have an illustration of this, if for example I have a house but I built it through my workers, should I say I built it with my carpenters, plumbers, electrician, engineers and others? Or should I say I built it by myself? Why would I address the people I used if they owe their benefits through me? I have all my resources and they too are my resources. That is why I have the right to say I have built it by my self subject to all my resources I have. This shows clearly that Jehovah alone is the one that should be given worship for He created everything and everything has been possible even the works of Jesus only because of Him none other than Jehovah.

  14. Posted by fromthesunrising on October 15, 2010 at 4:43 am

    a blogger gave this comment to me:

    That’s right. The truth is as clear which is why I bring it out to be shown. You however don’t seem to think the truth of Arianism can be defended in a public sphere so you’d prefer to sit back and psychoanalyze me.

    If you can make the argument with just me, you can make it in public. If you’re unable to do that, then I’d avoid posting again with psychoanalysis. You haven’t written anything that myself and other Trinitarians answered long ago, but your hesitancy to show up in public tells me you don’t think your beliefs can last under a microscope.

    My answer to him:

    No, I am not psychoanalyzing you. It is the bible that shows the truth to everyone not only with you but to other trinitarians in the world. again the scholars you are pointing as well as the others including you are not presenting any explanation yet with what John 1:1b means. You jump to a conclusion that the word is god( almighty) yet you ignore the preceding phrase and not having an explanation of it? why would you claim that the word is god (almighty) when in facts it breaks it through the second phrase? just what i have said true wisdom will not break the wisdom itself. explain the many verses in the bible that uses the preposition “with” in relation to the father (uppercase emphasize) and jesus. that’s all the answer in order for the trinity stands. present a study on john 1:1b in line with the grammatical explanation of the usage of the preposition “with”. I suggest you ask even the trinitarians english professors and let us see how they will answer it. should anyone of them can present a study concerning the preposition “with” to defend the trinity in relation to john 1:1 b then I may believe that you have right to claim that trinity is an implicit thought of jesus and the early christians in the bible. i hope you will have time to present not only with me but to the world the necessity to prove yourself against arianism. unless you cannot show any supporting study based on grammar then it is only true that trinity lacks its credbility based on contextual evidence in the bible in which the grammar has a very big part in understanding a certain matter…. good bye for we can see now of what is really truth… a psychoanylysis which I am using to you? no, it is a grammatical force that you don’t accept… a grammatical force which is present and used in the bible. how can you stand against the language that used in the bible? does not god (uppercase empasize) did not use a language in its clear way to prove the real teachings of the bible? how could you say implicitly that god (uppercase empasize) is being blind with the grammatical language he is using? or is it you who are making your self blind and forcing yourself to be blind with the truth and with the ways of god (uppercase emphasize) that he is using. should god (the father) act without knowing all of these? should god (the father) do not know the grammatical force in john 1:1b in which he was the one who said it? why for a certain reason as you claim that he will ignore what he said through john in john 1:1b? is it not his words show what is truth and what is explicit? or is it you who makes blurd what is explicit in his words? a psychoanalysis you are telling me that i am using to you? is it not the analysis that needs thinking of what i am saying to you is more important and true??? a psychoanaylysis you are accusing that i am using to you yet you don’t even know that god (the father) show us the ability of thinking to analyze everything using our mind? are you accusing me that i am reversing the false as you claim that it is true? then why not prove to me and to all and to god (the father) that your defending belief is true? yes, i have done this, not to make you feel weak or the trinitarians but to make strong what the truth really presents through the bible. it now depends on you on how you will show yourself to the public… to stand with what the right or to lye down with the false… i thank you for this opportunity… I am very thankful with you for this wonderful conversation…. i appreciate your standpoints however, i just hope you see my standpoint which is in accordance with the bible… i know you may answer back to prove your claims as to your standpoint… well, it is not you or even myself that will judge this matter for there are many eyes in the world that looks this matter…. let the people with true understanding even not a jw give his judgment on this matter… goodbye and thank you…. this is another history that will look upon by the people with many differences… i hope that differences will give us a way to see the very different understanding about the truth…
    good bye…. may the truth shine to each of everyone…. 🙂

    again, I am not posting this for my own interest but rather for the interest of those ones who holds for the truth and those who want to know the real truth….

    let us not try to pull down the truth but rather raise it to its utmost level….

    Is it not true in the bible that Jehovah want his house to be raised as high as the highest mountain?

    Here is the link where our discussion takes place:

    http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/the-trinity-in-the-bible/

  15. Just as Moses was described to be God to Aaron in Exodus 7:1 and Exodus 4:16 in which we could say that the word “God” is a quality and not the God itself and that since Moses has a quality of God therefore he is also considered as a god to Aaron in which it shows that he is above Aaron.

    Exodus 4:16 And he must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you will serve as God to him.

    Exodus 7:1 Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: “See, I have made you God to Phar´aoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet.

    This is the same as saying that if you have the qualities of God and you are above the others then you must be a god. The same as if you have the qualities of a king and have authority over the others then you must be a king also. One example that uses the word “God” without definite article that represents a quality and not an identity is in 1 Corinthians 14:33 wherein God is described as a God showing quality not an identity (the God) and that quality shows that he is not a God of disorder but of peace. In Greek text it is not found but we can see the explicit thought of using the word “a God” to signify a quality that is why TNIV, NIV and NASB put also the word “a God” to have a complete thought. See the reason of God? In order for the Trinitarians prove the truthfulness of Trinity they must explain John 1:1b as what it means to them as well as the usage of the preposition “with” in English grammar which is used in many verses of the Bible identifying Jesus and Jehovah as separate individuals at the same time. They must present a study that identifies how the preposition “with” is being used and when it is being used and let them explain John 1:1b and John 1:2 in connection with their grammatical study. They should also explain John 8:16; John 8:29; John 16:32; John 17:5; Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5 and Revelation 3:21. All of these used the preposition “with” which suggest two persons who are both present at the same time. They have to cite an example in the Bible that shows a statement using “with” in which the other object is not in existence or an imaginary or not real but even an imaginary thing being associated with a person still is an object that is separate from a person. If they say Jesus is with God which Jesus mentioned in the book of John and they say God is separate from him and can hear him too (John 12:28) and speaks of him in his presence (Matthew 3:17, Matthew 17:5) and yet they believe that is him too, then they prove they are not monotheistic. However, if they say, Jesus is the incarnation of Jehovah, then they have to explain what Jesus means when he said that he is with the Father and he sits with his Father as well as John 7:16, 17; John 15:15; John 17:24 and John 12:49 – 50. If these are not literal how should it be interpreted? Was Jesus lying with his plain words? No. Indeed in Matthew 22:42- 45, Jesus explained to the Pharisees before that He is not the son of David but of Jehovah and he quoted it from Psalms 110:1 which was written by David and inspired by God. In this verse and the following verses on it, it shows that Jehovah told Jesus to sit on His right side and Jehovah promised to Jesus that Jesus will rule and destroy his enemies.

  16. The TRUTH is clear as clear as the sunlight… There is no need to show more to you… It is your ability of thinking that will show you what is truth…. and it is your heart that will decide for yourself to embrace the TRUTH.

  17. The word coequal is supposed to be link with the Father as God, the Son as God and the Holy Spirit as God. Though they are separate from each other and acting a single identity Trinitarians used to equate them as One Triune God that is the Father who is fully God becomes Jesus as fully God while fully man and that Holy Spirit is fully God. Thus Trinitarians put this trinity in a ven diagram having the center as God and connecting lines with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit or three circles with their intersection as of their being one God. Thus to Trinitarians it shows they are coequal but different in perspective or in facets in which I do not agree.

    Concerning my comments about the post link about Elohim in Genesis 1:1 and among others. I have translated a version of Reasoning from the Scriptures about this matter.

    The Hebrew word “Elohim” is a plural form of El (God) thus many Trinitarians used this as a proof for proving the Trinity. They also use Deuteronomy 6:4 as a way for proving their Triune God because of the plurality of “Elohim” which is God and they quoted it as “The LORD our God [from Elohim] is one LORD.”

    That plural form case of the said noun in Hebrew refers to majesty and excellence. (Please refer to NAB, St. Joseph Edition, Bible Dictionary, p. 330; also the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, volume V. p. 287) It does not implies persons acting together as a one divine being. Similar to this, when the false god Dagon is stated in Judges 16:23, it uses one form of a title “elohim”; the contained verb used is singular, which shows only one god. In Genesis 42:30, Joseph was called “lord” (‘adhoneh’, plural of magnificence) of Egypt. The Greek language has no plural of majesty and excellence. Thus, in Genesis 1:1 the translators of LXX (Septuagint) used of “ho Theos” (God, singular) as equivalent to ‘Elohim’. In Mark 12:29 which states the answer of Jesus wherein he quoted Deuteronomy 6:4, the Greek singular form of “ho Theos” was used the same as that. In Deuteronomy 6:4, it appears two times in Hebrew texts the Tetragrammaton, that is why it must correctly read as: “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” (NW) The nation Israel, who here are speaking with, are not believing in Trinity. The Babylonians and the Egyptians have worshipped to trinity god, but it was cleared to Israel that Jehovah is unique/different.
    The thoughts were taken and translated from another language version of Reasoning of the Scriptures, pp. 422-423.

    There are two examples of verses that I have found in the Interlinear Bible of the Hebrew word “Elohim” that shows singular form of noun when translated into English. The scripture texts can be found in 1 Kings 18:27 and 1 Samuel 28:13 – 14. It mentions that Baal is a god though some Biblical verses show many Baals. This is only because it is a man-made object or simply an idol crafted by man. Thus when plural of Baal is mention it does not refer to Baals as many gods and as different to each other but rather a single god just as what 1 Kings 18:27 is stated by Elijah which he described as someone who is not living. Another one is in 1 Samuel 28:13 – 14. The spiritist of Endor saw the vision of an evil spirit or a god in which in Hebrew texts it has the word “Elohim” who eventually disguised as Samuel since Samuel is dead already before King Saul appeared to the spiritist woman (1 Samuel 25:1; 28:3). However, some Bible translations and scholars translated the word “Elohim” as gods making it plural. Other translations such as NWT translated it as “a god” and NASB as “a Divine being” making it a singular noun. The word “Elohim” here is not plural in definition but only in context just as what JW believes as well as the other Bible scholars. How does the word “Elohim” suggest a singular noun just as NWT and NASB did? If we will see the context of verse 14, it clearly states that Saul asked the spiritist as to what HE looks like – that is using a singular pronoun (he) and the woman replied that an old man was coming out of the earth. She told that it was an old man (singular noun) and not men or gods. Saul saw the evil spirit and talked with him. This proves that the word “Elohim” should be taken as singular in translation though it is a plural form case of noun. You can check the Interlinear for the word “Elohim” of the two verses in the links below.

    http://interlinearbible.org/1_kings/18-27.htm
    http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/1kg18.pdf

    See also Exodus 32:1; 23 in Interlinear which both shows “Elohim” but suggest singular noun.
    http://interlinearbible.org/exodus/32-1.htm
    http://interlinearbible.org/exodus/32-23.htm
    http://interlinearbible.org/1_samuel/28-13.htm
    http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/1sa28.pdf

  18. I have a good conversation with one of the Trinitarians in this link. I suggest you read it to get some interesting points to disregard the Trinity.

    http://christthetruth.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/god-is-not-triune-the-devils-great-lie-part-3/#comment-9101

  19. […] TO PUBLIC READE…marcusampe on A MESSAGE TO PUBLIC READE…fromthesunrising on THE UNDERLYING TRUTH IN JOHN… Tags000 17 144 A GOD Archangel Bible Translators Bible Verses Bible Version biblical truths […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: