Cross Reference
New member
The Son of God became the Son of man?
Why doesn't that ring logical given John 1:1 KJV?
Why doesn't that ring logical given John 1:1 KJV?
ECT John 1:1 KJV vs The Word as being a Son?
- Thread starter Cross Reference
- Start date
oatmeal
Well-known member
Matthew 1:18. By either title this verse tells us that Jesus had a beginning a genesis, the KJV says birth
John 1:1 KJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Who are what is the word that was with God?
Clearly by the structure of the verse specifically "the word was with God" we see that the word is separate from God.
The word "with" or "pros" in the Greek establishes that. It means "with yet distinctly independent of" This is clearly illustrated in Mark 9:19
"He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me."
in the phrase "how long shall I [Jesus Christ] be with you [the faithless generation]"
Was Jesus "the faithless generation" or "with yet distinctly independent of" the faithless generation?
the word was with yet distinctly independent of God.
Does "being with God, yet distinctly independent of God" equal "is God"
Are you with God,or are you God?
How could the word, ie, message of God, be with God yet be distinctly independent of God seeing that your Bible, the scriptures you hold in your hand was not with God in the beginning?
By God's foreknowledge. He speaks of those things that be not as though they were, you can find that in Romans 4
John 1:1 when given some thought and elaborated on by other scriptures clearly distinguishes between God and the scriptures in writing and the scriptures in the flesh.
John 1:1 KJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Who are what is the word that was with God?
Clearly by the structure of the verse specifically "the word was with God" we see that the word is separate from God.
The word "with" or "pros" in the Greek establishes that. It means "with yet distinctly independent of" This is clearly illustrated in Mark 9:19
"He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me."
in the phrase "how long shall I [Jesus Christ] be with you [the faithless generation]"
Was Jesus "the faithless generation" or "with yet distinctly independent of" the faithless generation?
the word was with yet distinctly independent of God.
Does "being with God, yet distinctly independent of God" equal "is God"
Are you with God,or are you God?
How could the word, ie, message of God, be with God yet be distinctly independent of God seeing that your Bible, the scriptures you hold in your hand was not with God in the beginning?
By God's foreknowledge. He speaks of those things that be not as though they were, you can find that in Romans 4
John 1:1 when given some thought and elaborated on by other scriptures clearly distinguishes between God and the scriptures in writing and the scriptures in the flesh.
Last edited:
Tigger 2
Active member
Probably because nearly all Trinitarian-translated Bibles reject the most probable translation of John 1:1c.
John is the only Gospel writer who points out the truth about the various meanings of 'theos' ('God' or 'a god'). He shows, and dozens of Trinitarian scholars actually agree, that men who have been chosen by God for His purposes may be called 'gods.' Angels are also included in this category of 'gods' in a good sense.
So when John 1:1c is properly translated according to John's usage in all his writings, it is not in a polytheistic sense of false gods (as some Trinitarians insist would be the case). In other words, grammatically and rationally "And the word was a god" is a scripturally and grammatically accurate translation.
The usual modern insistence that word order determines the usual rendering at John 1:1c ('God') is refuted by a proper examination of all John's other uses which are truly parallel to John 1:1c.
Last edited:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Who created all things........ :chuckle:
Cross Reference
New member
Jesus, the human, was son of God by virtue of his conception. That's it. Otherwise, if you believe he was a son before that 'event', you must come up with a mother in ordr for your theology to connect the dots..
There is no doubt Jesus was the Word of God, GOD, made flesh, but, then all of that was removed from him to fulfill what needed to be accomplished/fulfilled. . . . purely as a human being otherwise his glorification would have made his glorification, meaningless.
Here what the scriptures about him:
He was/is the "first of fruits" of a whole new creation which could only have been built upon a whole new foundation called: "Redemption".
Think "Son of Man", the fulfillment of the Divine intention conceived in the heart of God, executed by the "Word" of Himself for everything eternal made vulnerable by the human flesh of Jesus Christ who, in his vulnerability, was entrusted with handling this faze of business of the Godhead. He was the habitation of the "Word of God' who submitted Himself to the flesh of Jesus who won the victory to become the divine Human which will forever be the conclusion to the plan of which was conceived before anything created ever came into being.
"And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." John 17:5 (ESV). . . . *the same glory, Moses saw.
". . . . . . And then shall they see the . . Son of man. . . coming in the clouds with great power and glory." Mark 13:26 (KJV)
* The "Word of God " who Moses saw in EX.33:20-23 KJV.
There is no doubt Jesus was the Word of God, GOD, made flesh, but, then all of that was removed from him to fulfill what needed to be accomplished/fulfilled. . . . purely as a human being otherwise his glorification would have made his glorification, meaningless.
Here what the scriptures about him:
He was/is the "first of fruits" of a whole new creation which could only have been built upon a whole new foundation called: "Redemption".
Think "Son of Man", the fulfillment of the Divine intention conceived in the heart of God, executed by the "Word" of Himself for everything eternal made vulnerable by the human flesh of Jesus Christ who, in his vulnerability, was entrusted with handling this faze of business of the Godhead. He was the habitation of the "Word of God' who submitted Himself to the flesh of Jesus who won the victory to become the divine Human which will forever be the conclusion to the plan of which was conceived before anything created ever came into being.
"And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." John 17:5 (ESV). . . . *the same glory, Moses saw.
". . . . . . And then shall they see the . . Son of man. . . coming in the clouds with great power and glory." Mark 13:26 (KJV)
* The "Word of God " who Moses saw in EX.33:20-23 KJV.
My personal take is that God has made several logoi i.e. statements. But of humans being god or gods, they may be a heresy of the moseretic text. I suspect god or a king, but it is silly for any human to be god. It would be limiting for God to put himself in a box.
You believe Jesus to be the word and son of god, so what; so did Valentinus.
You believe Jesus to be the word and son of god, so what; so did Valentinus.
Cross Reference
New member
Not if the "box" was glorified. Not if the "box" was Himself.
Your statement is unconvincing.
Cross Reference
New member
Too bad. Your problem, not mine.
That still leaves the actual sense of passages like the following to have to rightly solve for...
Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
And that passage contains two sides to that - what God had meant that Moses had obviously rightly understood, and what Pharoah would be percieving.
As with this here...
Acts 14:11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.
The Word was a god?
Okay, let's run with that.
That would be this...
Isaiah 55:10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
As in...
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Just as, as God had done through His Word in Moses, that Pharoah had perceived as the work of "a god" - of "your God, Moses."
Exodus 10:16 Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste; and he said, I have sinned against the LORD your God, and against you.
And so on..
Which still leaves the issue of..
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
The issue of...
John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
John 17:7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Which is the issue of HIS aspect ALONE - of the following...
Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Acts 17:11,12
Tigger 2
Active member
It's sad that no one here is able (or willing) to actually look into my post on John 1:1c and John's other uses which are truly parallel to it. Nothing you quote to attempt to show that Jesus is God makes any difference to the proper translation of this particular scripture. If you wish to pursue another scripture, please start a new discussion for it, and I will join you there.
In the meantime let some brave Christian show how John's use of Grammar makes "God" at 1:1c the best rendering.
In the meantime let some brave Christian show how John's use of Grammar makes "God" at 1:1c the best rendering.
It is not a problem.
Cross Reference
New member
At what period time in his life is this alluding to re "Christ Jesus"? Can we start from there?
Did Moses see "Christ Jesus" in Ex 33:20-23 KJV?
Tigger 2
Active member
John 1:1c (continued from posts 3 and 11 above.)
John always uses 'ho theos' ('the god') when he means the Most High 'God.'
There are 27 uses of 'ho theos' in the writings of John (14 in John and 13 in 1 John) and many more if you include Revelation. These are all the uses by John when he means 'God.'
The remaining examples of 'theos' (without the article) either refer to Jesus or are improper examples because of article ambiguity.
Article ambiguity arises when the example is one of the few which may be properly rendered with or without the article (the article use or non-use is grammatically uncertain).
One example of this is when 'theos' is modified by a preposition ('God of...'; 'God with...'; 'God to...': etc.
This is the beginning of a study of why John 1:1c should not be translated "And the Word was God." The word 'theos here does not have the article ('the'). But, remember, when John (and the other Gospel writers) intends "God" he always writes 'ho theos' ('the god').
John always uses 'ho theos' ('the god') when he means the Most High 'God.'
There are 27 uses of 'ho theos' in the writings of John (14 in John and 13 in 1 John) and many more if you include Revelation. These are all the uses by John when he means 'God.'
The remaining examples of 'theos' (without the article) either refer to Jesus or are improper examples because of article ambiguity.
Article ambiguity arises when the example is one of the few which may be properly rendered with or without the article (the article use or non-use is grammatically uncertain).
One example of this is when 'theos' is modified by a preposition ('God of...'; 'God with...'; 'God to...': etc.
This is the beginning of a study of why John 1:1c should not be translated "And the Word was God." The word 'theos here does not have the article ('the'). But, remember, when John (and the other Gospel writers) intends "God" he always writes 'ho theos' ('the god').
Last edited:
Cross Reference
New member
So says The New World JW translation.
Tigger 2
Active member
No, so says my own in-depth study of John 1:1c and John's usage and grammar as found in the NT text!! I doubt that you will find much of what I have independently found repeated in the NWT. The fact that we arrived at the same translation by differing methods certainly does not make it wrong.
If you wish to pursue this subject honestly, please do so. You could, for example, look up all the uses of 'theos' in John's writings as I have done and correct my 'errors.'
Or find out if my examples of improper examples (those with 'article ambiguity') are truly to be excepted.
Last edited:
Cross Reference
New member
Phoowee. It isn't worth it. But, why do you want to change what it says, which has been factual irrespective of how you fathom it out?
Tigger 2
Active member
That's a standard response. John 1:1c was very important to me over 30 years ago when I began. I was willing to spend all the time it took with a concordance, interlinear, about 20 different Bible versions, and a typewriter.
It's relatively easy today. And, although I offer to help others find the online texts, interlinears, etc, that would help immensely, they invariably refuse. I believe it is more than just laziness or a belief that this #1 Trinitarian 'proof' is unimportant. I believe that they truly don't want to learn anything that upsets their traditional beliefs.
The traditional John 1:1c translation is clearly not 'factual,' and an honest, complete examination can prove it.
Cross Reference
New member
Clearly, it is. Open up your "context ears". Read the Bible again , . . for the first time.
Hi and I was reading a Greek manuel by a known Greek scholar , Mounce and the Greek text has John 1:1 like this !!
KAI THEOS NV O LOGOS !
and God was the Word !!
The Greek Article THE is used and that means that the LOGOS is God !!
dan p
Last edited: