ECT John 1:1 KJV vs The Word as being a Son?

[Tigger 2]

Hi and I was reading a Greek manuel by a known Greek scholar , Mounce and the Greek text has John 1:1 limke 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 !!

Mounce (and every other NT scholar) sees that the NT text is "KAI THEOS EN HO LOGOS." And the definite article ('HO') is with 'LOGOS' ('Word') but not with 'THEOS' ('god')!

Since John always uses 'HO' ('the') with 'THEOS' when it means 'God,' and he doesn't use it here, 'a god' not 'the god' ('God')is indicated. See my earlier posts on this link.

 

[nikolai_42]

Mounce (and every other NT scholar) sees that the NT text is "KAI THEOS EN HO LOGOS." And the definite article ('HO') is with 'LOGOS' ('Word') but not with 'THEOS' ('god')!

Since John always uses 'HO' ('the') with 'THEOS' when it means 'God,' and he doesn't use it here, 'a god' not 'the god' ('God')is indicated. See my earlier posts on this link.

In other words, The Word is Divine? After all, The Word is really the issue here. If The Word is particular (definite) and you really want to push the point about a general (non-specific) "god" in John 1:1c, then don't you really have something like "...The Word was with God and the Word was divine..."? Otherwise, you push The Word into being with (non-specific) god or with divinity. That makes no sense. How can this specific entity ("The Word") be with something non-specific? And if it is simply saying that The Word had divine qualities, then 1:1c is a mere restatement that clarifies nothing. However, as it is translated, all three clauses serve different purposes and clarify who and what The Word is (and was).

 

[nikolai_42]

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.

If you are going to be so dogmatic about this term "gods" being non-specific, you need to be specific about the criteria for being called "gods" :

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
John 10:35

This Word, then, is God. Not some non-specific being with divinity.

 

[Tigger 2]

"If you are going to be so dogmatic about this term "gods" being non-specific, you need to be specific about the criteria for being called "gods" :

"'If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; John 10:35'

"This Word, then, is God. Not some non-specific being with divinity."

The criteria for 'a god/gods' title (excluding false gods) is that those men and angels are serving God in some God-appointed position, (judges, kings, angels, etc.).

The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43:

"Elohim: 'a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.... b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels.... c. angels Ps. 97 7 ...'”

 

[nikolai_42]

The criteria for 'a god/gods' title (excluding false gods) is that those men and angels are serving God in some God-appointed position, (judges, kings, angels, etc.).

The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43:

"Elohim: 'a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.... b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels.... c. angels Ps. 97 7 ...'”

Jesus is very specific about who was being called "god" in the Psalms. He defined it clearly. To expand that based on a dictionary definition is to (at the very least) mischaracterize what Jesus was saying. The judges of Moses' day were indeed called Elohim. But that was because they were dealing directly with the commandments of God and implementing them in civil and religious life in Israel. It is very clear that the Word of God here is the vital component. Not just (vague definition of) service to God.