Dubious grammatical assertions at Carm.

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Here is a pretty bad one :

No. In these examples, γίνομαι + πρός is the equivalent of a verb of motion, "the word of the Lord came to...." a rather literal translation of the Hebrew idiom

וַיְהִי דְּבַר־אֱלֹהִים אֶל

These in no way support your argument.

Let's inspect LXX 1 Ch. 17:3 on this score:

καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ἐκείνῃ καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Ναθαν λέγων

The word of the Lord "came to be" ("became") with Nathan, not that it "came to" (motion towards) him. Had the writer meant the latter, he would have used a verb of motion with πρὸς here, like so:

καὶ ἦλθεν λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Ναθαν λέγων
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Another:

Carm poster: That is not how Greek would express the concept if the entire clause were the subject of the ἐσκήνωσεν.

Apostle John intended for two clauses here, not an "entire" clause :

....καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.

Every time there is a καὶ in this verse, a different clause is intended by the apostle. The following are good translations:

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.

KJV

The Word became a human being and, full of grace and truth, lived among us. We saw his glory, the glory which he received as the Father's only Son.

Good News Bible

---

Carm. poster: Λόγος is quite simply the subject of both clauses.

In any case, had the apostle repeated the noun, then would have had a case: Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν. And this is his style in the prologue when he intends the same referent. The very first verse of the prologue attests to this:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

But the apostle did not do this at verse 14 because he intended ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο (i.e. Jesus, not a pre-flesh Logos or phantom) to be the subject of ἐσκήνωσεν and of all the following verbs and pronouns.

This poster's reading essentially denies that the one who dwelt with us and who we beheld was the Word made flesh, which leads to an impossible reading of the immediate verse (did they behold a ghost ?), and of an impossible syntax moving forward. So for instance αὐτοῦ in verse 15 would then not refer to a human being, but to a non-human being.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
Here is a pretty bad one :



Let's inspect LXX 1 Ch. 17:3 on this score:



The word of the Lord "came to be" ("became") with Nathan, not that it "came to" (motion towards) him. Had the writer meant the latter, he would have used a verb of motion with πρὸς here, like so:
You've already been proven wrong on this. Listen, prepositions are a big deal in any language in that they tend to have lots of idiomatic usages, and you have to pay careful attention to context. You are ignoring context and supplying the meaning you want. That's not really the best methodology, is it?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
You've already been proven wrong on this.

How can you honestly say that though, especially since your only comment on this issue so far has been a three or four sentence posting (see the OP, where you simply assert, not prove )?


Listen, prepositions are a big deal in any language in that they tend to have lots of idiomatic usages, and you have to pay careful attention to context. You are ignoring context and supplying the meaning you want. That's not really the best methodology, is it?.

Just asserting that the use of γίνομαι + πρός is an idiomatic use which apparently converts the to be verb here into a verb of motion is not proof, it is just that, a very lazy, empty assertion devoid of any evidence. For starters, does any grammar agree with you on this ? I suspect that you need this expression to connote motion as otherwise it threatens for you the so-called "personality" of the Logos at John 1:1b ?!

You have a history of making far out , unfounded assertions devoid of real evidence . For instance you went on record multiple times in the Old Carm. to actually deny that τὸν Θεόν at John 1:1b is the Father in Heaven. A very troubling denial which hints at a strong spiritual bondage concerning the scriptures.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
How can you honestly say that though, especially since your only comment on this issue so far has been a three or four sentence posting (see the OP, where you simply assert, not prove )?




Just asserting that the use of γίνομαι + πρός is an idiomatic use which apparently converts the to be verb here into a verb of motion is not proof, it is just that, a very lazy, empty assertion devoid of any evidence. For starters, does any grammar agree with you on this ? I suspect that you need this expression to connote motion as otherwise it threatens for you the so-called "personality" of the Logos at John 1:1b ?!

You have a history of making far out , unfounded assertions devoid of real evidence . For instance you went on record multiple times in the Old Carm. to actually deny that τὸν Θεόν at John 1:1b is the Father in Heaven. A very troubling denial which hints at a strong spiritual bondage concerning the scriptures.
And you need to stick to the subject at hand. The reason I can make these "assertions" is because I know how the language works and I can read them in context. You've also been cited the lexical evidence, compiled by individuals who knew Greek far better than you ever will. Can you find anybody who agrees with you on this? Any commentator? Here's the LES (Lexham English Septuagint) on 1 Chr 17:3:

It happened in that night, a message of the Lord also came to Nathan

The Lexham English Septuagint. (2020). (Second Edition, 1 Ch 17:3). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

The NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint) agrees:

And it happened in that night, and a word of the Lord came to Nathan saying...


For most people, who don't have some sort of odd theological axe to grind, this would more than sufficient proof.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
How can you honestly say that though, especially since your only comment on this issue so far has been a three or four sentence posting (see the OP, where you simply assert, not prove )?




Just asserting that the use of γίνομαι + πρός is an idiomatic use which apparently converts the to be verb here into a verb of motion is not proof, it is just that, a very lazy, empty assertion devoid of any evidence. For starters, does any grammar agree with you on this ? I suspect that you need this expression to connote motion as otherwise it threatens for you the so-called "personality" of the Logos at John 1:1b ?!

You have a history of making far out , unfounded assertions devoid of real evidence . For instance you went on record multiple times in the Old Carm. to actually deny that τὸν Θεόν at John 1:1b is the Father in Heaven. A very troubling denial which hints at a strong spiritual bondage concerning the scriptures.

There is nothing in BDAG about a verb of motion. It is εαναι. Where did you get that notion?
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
There is nothing in BDAG about a verb of motion. It is εαναι. Where did you get that notion?
Just a note, you keep repeating the typo. It should be εἶναι. Also, there appears to be some confusion (as is often the case in a thread with multiple responses). Here, we have been talking about γίνομαι + πρός...
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
And you need to stick to the subject at hand. The reason I can make these "assertions" is because I know how the language works and I can read them in context. You've also been cited the lexical evidence, compiled by individuals who knew Greek far better than you ever will. Can you find anybody who agrees with you on this? Any commentator? Here's the LES (Lexham English Septuagint) on 1 Chr 17:3:

It happened in that night, a message of the Lord also came to Nathan

The Lexham English Septuagint. (2020). (Second Edition, 1 Ch 17:3). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

The NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint) agrees:

And it happened in that night, and a word of the Lord came to Nathan saying...


For most people, who don't have some sort of odd theological axe to grind, this would more than sufficient proof.

Forgive me, but my experience with you (as pertains the Greek of the New Testament) strongly suggests otherwise. You are truly unable to read some of the simplest statements of the NT in context. John 1:1b is a case in point. In any case, even if you knew how the Greek of the NT worked and how to read it contextually, that still does not excuse you from providing evidence for every single claim which you do make.

I would say the NETS has been careless here. The following is much closer to the original Greek of the LXX:

Young's Literal Translation

And it cometh to pass on that night that a word of God is unto Nathan, saying,
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I am following. Where did you get the notion that a verb of motion impacts the sense of προς? You don't document this.

You're still not following.

Let me explain. I have offered verses like 1 Ch. 17:3 from the LXX as proof that at John 1:1b a thing is "with" a person. If you will look at the syntax of the below, you will realize that it is identical with John 1:1b, -- you have a to be verb + a singular substantive in the nominative + πρὸς + another singular substantive in the accusative , and right down to καὶ (καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν)

καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ἐκείνῃ καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Ναθαν λέγων

This is deadly to the notion of a personal Λόγος at John 1:1b, as the Word of God clearly is not a person at 1 Ch. 17:3. So to counter this, Gryllus invents a grammatical rule which asserts that γίνομαι + πρός is the equivalent of a verb of motion ! In other words he wants to believe that at 1 Chr. 17:3 γίνομαι is not a "to be verb" in order to be able to negate it's identical syntax to John 1:1b.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
You're still not following.

Let me explain. I have offered verses like 1 Ch. 17:3 from the LXX as proof that at John 1:1b a thing is "with" a person. If you will look at the syntax of the below, you will realize that it is identical with John 1:1b, -- you have a to be verb + a singular substantive in the nominative + πρὸς + another substantive in the accusative , and right down to καὶ (καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν)



This is deadly to the notion of a personal Λόγος at John 1:1b, as λόγος κυρίου clearly is not a person at 1 Ch. 17:3. So to counter this, Gryllus invents a grammatical rule which asserts that γίνομαι + πρός is the equivalent of a verb of motion ! In other words he wants to believe that at 1 Chr. 17:3 γίνομαι is not a "to be verb" in order to be able to negate it's identical syntax to John 1:1b.

You can make things up but your examples don't fit the syntax of John 1:1 or use ειμι.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
You can make things up but your examples don't fit the syntax of John 1:1 or use ειμι.
That's Gryllus's forte, I fear.

Of course my examples fit the syntax. ειμι and γίνομαι are both "to be" verbs. But if it is ειμι which you desire, try the following:

οὐκ ἔστιν σοφία οὐκ ἔστιν ἀνδρεία οὐκ ἔστιν βουλὴ πρὸς τὸν ἀσεβῆ

Isaiah 17:14

Unless σοφία, ἀνδρεία and βουλὴ are individuals, you have no excuses left.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
Forgive me, but my experience with you (as pertains the Greek of the New Testament) strongly suggests otherwise. You are truly unable to read some of the simplest statements of the NT in context. John 1:1b is a case in point. In any case, even if you knew how the Greek of the NT worked and how to read it contextually, that still does not excuse you from providing evidence for every single claim which you do make.

I would say the NETS has been careless here. The following is much closer to the original Greek of the LXX:

Young's Literal Translation
My view of John 1:1 and the referent for θεός is on the level of hermeneutics, not linguistics, and is irrelevant to this discussion. The translators are not careless, but capture the force of the Greek perfectly. The YLT was designed to give people with less than competent knowledge of the original languages a reference point, and is based on the Hebrew, which uses וַיְהִי from היה, which actually has quite a wide range of meaning (see HALOT on this). It's pretty universally rendered:

It came about the same night that the word of God came to Nathan, saying... [NAS1995]

So you really appear not to know what you are talking about.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
That's Gryllus's forte, I fear.

Of course my examples fit the syntax. ειμι and γίνομαι are both "to be" verbs. But if it is ειμι which you desire, try the following:



Isaiah 17:14

Unless σοφία, ἀνδρεία and βουλὴ are individuals, you have no excuses left.

BGAG does not say any to-be verb qualifies, it says ειμι.

And ειμι is stative but γινομαι is not. There is no movement in any of the BDAG examples with ειμι.

And you have no scholarly references to back you up.

So your "proof" is more like an unlikely suggestion.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
You're still not following.

Let me explain. I have offered verses like 1 Ch. 17:3 from the LXX as proof that at John 1:1b a thing is "with" a person. If you will look at the syntax of the below, you will realize that it is identical with John 1:1b, -- you have a to be verb + a singular substantive in the nominative + πρὸς + another singular substantive in the accusative , and right down to καὶ (καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν)



This is deadly to the notion of a personal Λόγος at John 1:1b, as the Word of God clearly is not a person at 1 Ch. 17:3. So to counter this, Gryllus invents a grammatical rule which asserts that γίνομαι + πρός is the equivalent of a verb of motion ! In other words he wants to believe that at 1 Chr. 17:3 γίνομαι is not a "to be verb" in order to be able to negate it's identical syntax to John 1:1b.
Key terms that RJM needs to study: semantic range, usage in context and idiomatic.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
RJM will likely not benefit from this, but for the rest of this, this is the LSJ entry on γίγνομαι + various prepositions, a treasure trove of idiomatic usages in the broader literature of ancient Greek.

c. with Preps., γ. ἀπὸ δείπνου, ἐκ θυσίας, have done .., Hdt.2.78, 1.50; πολοὺν χρόνον γ. ἀπό τινος to be separated from .., X.Mem.1.2.25; γ. εἴς τι, εἰς ἄλλο τι γιγνόμενον Pl.Ti.57a, ὅταν δὲ εἰς πύον γίνεται Gal.16.71.4, turn into, τὸ κακὸν γ. εἰς ἀγαθόν Thgn.162; freq. in Lxx, ἐγενήθη μοι εἰς γυναῖκαGe.20.12; εἰς βρῶσιν ib.La.4.10; εἰς οὐδέν, εἰς κενόν, Act.Ap.5.36, 1Ep.Thess.3.5; γ. τι εἴς τινα comes to him, of a dowry, Is.3.36; of a ward, And.1.117; γ. ἐξ ὀφθαλμῶν τινι to be out of sight, Hdt.5.24; ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γ. disappear from .., Paus.4.26.6; γ. ἐν Χίῳ Hdt.5.33, etc.; γ. ἐν .., to be engaged in .., οἱ ἐν ποιήσει γινόμενοι in poetry, Id.2.82; ἐν [πολέμῳ] Th.1.78; ἐν πείρα γ. τινος X.An.1.9.1; ἐν ὀργῇ ἐν αἰτίᾳ πρός τινα γ., Plu.Flam.16, Rom.7; of things, ἐν καιρῷ γ. to be in season, X.HG4.3.2; ἐν τύχῃ γ. τινί τι Th.4.73; γ. διὰ γηλόων, of a road, X.An.3.4.24; but διʼ ἔχθρας γ. τινί to be at enmity with, Ar.Ra.1412; γ. ἐπὶ ποταμῷ, ἐν τῷ προθύρῳ arrive or be at .., Hdt.1.189.1, Pl.Prt.313c; γ. ἐπί τινι fall into or be in one’s power, X.An.3.1.13, etc.; ἐπὶ συμφοραῖς γ. D.21.58 codd. (-ᾶς Schaefer); γ. ἐπί τινι, also, to be set over .., X.Cyr.3.3.53; γ. ἐφʼ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν to be alone, Aeschin.2.36; γ. ἐπὶ τῆς διοικήσεως D.C.43.48; γ. ἐπʼ ἐλπίδος to be in hope, Plu.Sol.14: Math., γ. ἐπὶ ἀριθμόν to be multiplied into a number, Theol.Ar.3; γ. κατά τινα or τι to be near .. or opposite to .., in battle, X.Cyr.7.1.14, HG4.2.18; but κατὰ ξυστάσεις γ. to be formed into groups, Th.2.21; καθʼ ἓν γ. Id.3.10; καθʼ αὑτοὺς γ. to be alone, D.10.52; γ. μετὰ τοῦ θείου to be with God, X.Cyr.8.7.72, etc.; ἡ νίκη γ. σύν τινι Id.Ages.2.13; γ. παρʼ ἀμφοτέροις τοῖς πράγμασι to be present on both sides, Th.5.26; γ. παρά τι to depend upon .., D.18.232; γ. περὶ τὸ συμβουλεύειν to be engaged in .., Isoc.3.12; γενοῦ πρός τινα go to So-and-so, PFay.128, etc.; γ. πρὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ to be at or near .., Pl.Phd.118, etc.; γ. πρός τινι to be engaged in .., Isoc.12.270, D.18.176; αὐτὸς πρὸς αὑτῷ meditate, Plu.2.151c; so γ. πρὸς τὸ ἰᾶσθαι Pl.R.64d; πρὸς παρασκευήν Plb.1.22.2: impers., ἐπεὶ πρὸς ἡμέραν ἐγίγνετο X.HG2.4.6; γενέσθαι πρός τινων to be inclined towards them, Hdt.8.22.2; γ. πρὸ ὁδοῦ to be forward on the way, Il.4.382; γ. ὑπό τινι to be subject to .., Hdt.7.11, Th.7.64; γ. ὑπὸ ταῖς μηχαναῖς to be under the protection of .., X.Cyr.7.1.34.


Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon (pp. 349–350). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
RJM will likely not benefit from this, but for the rest of this, this is the LSJ entry on γίγνομαι + various prepositions, a treasure trove of idiomatic usages in the broader literature of ancient Greek.

c. with Preps., γ. ἀπὸ δείπνου, ἐκ θυσίας, have done .., Hdt.2.78, 1.50; πολοὺν χρόνον γ. ἀπό τινος to be separated from .., X.Mem.1.2.25; γ. εἴς τι, εἰς ἄλλο τι γιγνόμενον Pl.Ti.57a, ὅταν δὲ εἰς πύον γίνεται Gal.16.71.4, turn into, τὸ κακὸν γ. εἰς ἀγαθόν Thgn.162; freq. in Lxx, ἐγενήθη μοι εἰς γυναῖκαGe.20.12; εἰς βρῶσιν ib.La.4.10; εἰς οὐδέν, εἰς κενόν, Act.Ap.5.36, 1Ep.Thess.3.5; γ. τι εἴς τινα comes to him, of a dowry, Is.3.36; of a ward, And.1.117; γ. ἐξ ὀφθαλμῶν τινι to be out of sight, Hdt.5.24; ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γ. disappear from .., Paus.4.26.6; γ. ἐν Χίῳ Hdt.5.33, etc.; γ. ἐν .., to be engaged in .., οἱ ἐν ποιήσει γινόμενοι in poetry, Id.2.82; ἐν [πολέμῳ] Th.1.78; ἐν πείρα γ. τινος X.An.1.9.1; ἐν ὀργῇ ἐν αἰτίᾳ πρός τινα γ., Plu.Flam.16, Rom.7; of things, ἐν καιρῷ γ. to be in season, X.HG4.3.2; ἐν τύχῃ γ. τινί τι Th.4.73; γ. διὰ γηλόων, of a road, X.An.3.4.24; but διʼ ἔχθρας γ. τινί to be at enmity with, Ar.Ra.1412; γ. ἐπὶ ποταμῷ, ἐν τῷ προθύρῳ arrive or be at .., Hdt.1.189.1, Pl.Prt.313c; γ. ἐπί τινι fall into or be in one’s power, X.An.3.1.13, etc.; ἐπὶ συμφοραῖς γ. D.21.58 codd. (-ᾶς Schaefer); γ. ἐπί τινι, also, to be set over .., X.Cyr.3.3.53; γ. ἐφʼ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν to be alone, Aeschin.2.36; γ. ἐπὶ τῆς διοικήσεως D.C.43.48; γ. ἐπʼ ἐλπίδος to be in hope, Plu.Sol.14: Math., γ. ἐπὶ ἀριθμόν to be multiplied into a number, Theol.Ar.3; γ. κατά τινα or τι to be near .. or opposite to .., in battle, X.Cyr.7.1.14, HG4.2.18; but κατὰ ξυστάσεις γ. to be formed into groups, Th.2.21; καθʼ ἓν γ. Id.3.10; καθʼ αὑτοὺς γ. to be alone, D.10.52; γ. μετὰ τοῦ θείου to be with God, X.Cyr.8.7.72, etc.; ἡ νίκη γ. σύν τινι Id.Ages.2.13; γ. παρʼ ἀμφοτέροις τοῖς πράγμασι to be present on both sides, Th.5.26; γ. παρά τι to depend upon .., D.18.232; γ. περὶ τὸ συμβουλεύειν to be engaged in .., Isoc.3.12; γενοῦ πρός τινα go to So-and-so, PFay.128, etc.; γ. πρὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ to be at or near .., Pl.Phd.118, etc.; γ. πρός τινι to be engaged in .., Isoc.12.270, D.18.176; αὐτὸς πρὸς αὑτῷ meditate, Plu.2.151c; so γ. πρὸς τὸ ἰᾶσθαι Pl.R.64d; πρὸς παρασκευήν Plb.1.22.2: impers., ἐπεὶ πρὸς ἡμέραν ἐγίγνετο X.HG2.4.6; γενέσθαι πρός τινων to be inclined towards them, Hdt.8.22.2; γ. πρὸ ὁδοῦ to be forward on the way, Il.4.382; γ. ὑπό τινι to be subject to .., Hdt.7.11, Th.7.64; γ. ὑπὸ ταῖς μηχαναῖς to be under the protection of .., X.Cyr.7.1.34.


Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon (pp. 349–350). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Here is Danker's Concise:


γίνομαι [Ionic and Hell. form = γίγνομαι, cp. Lat. gigno; the central mng. ‘tranfer from one state or condition to another’] this multivalent verb depends heavily on context for its signification, which the rich resources of English can express in a variety of ways; some idea of the boundaries is here projected, but their fluidity is to be kept in mind:—1. ‘come into being by birth or natural process’, be born, be produced Mt 21:19; J 8:58; Ro 1:3; 1 Cor 15:37; Gal 4:4.—2. ‘exist through application of will or efforg by an entity’, be made, be performed, be done
Mt 11:21f; Lk 14:22; J 1:3; Ac 19:26; 1 Cor 9:15; Eph 5:12.—3. ‘undergo a state of existence, change, or development’—a. come to be, become, take place, happen, occur, arise, be Mt 1:22 and oft . in the gospels; Ac 1:16, 18 and oft . in Ac; Lk 14:12 (befall).—ἐγένετο γνώμης made up his mind Ac 20:3.—belong (to), in
sense of intimate connection Mt 18:12; Mk 16:10; Lk 20:14; Ro 7:3f.—In narrative progression, now or other appropriate circumlocution, but freq. omitted in
transl. = older rendering it came to pass: ϰαὶ ἐγένετο (Hebraized) Mt 7:28; Mk
1:9; Lk 1:23; ἐγένετο 1:8; 2:1; J 10:22; ἐγίνετο δέ Ac 2:43.—In forceful negation
μὴ γένοιτο by no means, certainly not, unthinkable! Lk 20:16; Ro 3:31 and oft . in
Paul’s letters.—b. turn out to be, prove to be, be Mt 9:16; 10:25; 12:45; Mk 10:43;
Lk 11:30; 16:11; Ro 2:25; 11:5; 12:16; 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 1:19; 5:21; Gal 3:24; 4:12; Eph 4:32; Col 1:18; 1 Th 1:5; 2:14; 3:5; Phlm 6; Hb 1:4; 11:24; Js 1:12; 1 Pt 2:7; 5:3; 2 Pt 1:4; 2:20; 2 J 12; 3 J 8; Rv 2:10.—c. of presence be there, appear Mk 1:4; J 1:6.—d. of movement come, arrive Ac 27:7.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
My view of John 1:1 and the referent for θεός is on the level of hermeneutics, not linguistics, and is irrelevant to this discussion. The translators are not careless, but capture the force of the Greek perfectly.

Even if it were on the level of hermeneutics it would still be damning, since it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are unable to read the most straightforward biblical clauses contextually. But your disconnect is also at the level of linguistics, since John 1:1b is reiterated by apostle John at 1 John 1:2 using an identical syntactical structure, but you still are blind:

καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν

and

ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα

Why can't you see that τὸν Θεόν at John 1:1b is τὸν Πατέρα ?


The YLT was designed to give people with less than competent knowledge of the original languages a reference point, and is based on the Hebrew, which uses וַיְהִי from היה, which actually has quite a wide range of meaning (see HALOT on this). It's pretty universally rendered:

It came about the same night that the word of God came to Nathan, saying... [NAS1995]

So you really appear not to know what you are talking about.

Thank you for realizing that. Those who originally translated the LXX did so by consulting the original Hebrew, and their choice of ἐγένετο was apt and faithful to the original. Had the agreed with you, these translators of the LXX had a very common way of writing what you want in the Greek, they would have written the following: καὶ ἦλθεν λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Ναθαν λέγων

That they did not speaks volumes.
 
Top