They ALL say The Word was God.No Greek manuscript says "the Word was God" (καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεὸς).
The closest would be two MSS from the 8th century (L Ws), which read "καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος"(--'and God was the Word').
So, if one says "the Deity of Moses", does such mean "Moses is Deity" or "the God of Moses"?
If one says "the Deity of the gods", does such mean "the gods are Deity" or "the God of gods"?
If one says "the Deity of all", does that mean "all are Deity" or "the God of all"?
Only to someone who does not understand.
If you say so.They ALL say The Word was God.
You may want to study Greek.God was The Word is NO different than The Word was God.
Actually they do.There is NO passage in the Bible which says The Deity of anyone.
Exactly!They all say The God of someone.
Not in English it doesn't.The Deity OF Jesus means He has ALL the attributes of God and thus IS God.
You just quoted Wallace where he said: "A definite meaning for the term (QEOS) is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God”.Please prove it from a peer reviewed accredited Greek grammar. Anybody can say "this means X."
Footnote from New English Translation.
NET Bible® - John 1 Notes [Dr. Dan Wallace author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics authored this foot note].
3tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of qeov" (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous qeov" in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.
Typical heterodox selective reading/quoting obfuscation. Read the rest of the quote, it does not stop at the sentence you quoted.You just quoted Wallace where he said: "A definite meaning for the term (QEOS) is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God”.
What he's stating, therefore, is "the Word was God" makes it seem as though QEOS at John 1:1c is definite(, ie, John wrote "hO LOGOS HN hO QEOS").
Or did you not notice that?
I read the rest.Typical heterodox selective reading/quoting obfuscation. Read the rest of the quote, it does not stop at the sentence you quoted.
Please share with us lesser beings your academic qualifications.
Wallace did not definitely say θεος ην ο λογος does not mean "The word was God." And OBTW neither do the ECF who quote John 1:1.I read the rest.
None of what Wallace stated helps to demonstrate that "the Word was God" is an accurate translation of QEOS HN hO LOGOS.
Might I suggest that you post your qualifications on your profile then link to it when some smart alec like me challenges them. And I have shown that you are wrong by quoting accredited scholars which you blow off out of hand as if you know more than all the scholars I quote.You've been on CARM for as long as I have.
Within that time, I've given the colleges I've graduated from (multiple times), the degrees I have (multiple times), my occupation (multiple times), and have written posts on the Biblical Languages board (multiple times).
Still, instead of demonstrating where I'm wrong in any of my posts, you--like every Trinitarian I've encountered on CARM (with the exception of those who posted on the Biblical Languages board)-- are (again) asking for my "academic qualifications".
If they didn't satisfy you when I gave them in 2005, 2012, and 2017, how is providing them now going to matter?
If the ancients, who penned what God told them, did not express a modern dictionary concept, it was not there. So, we cannot glue it on. Scripture is an ancient text, so to use modern concepts upon it is to change it and alter what it says.Love doesn't cause Jesus to call the Father "my God". (You'd only call someone "my God" if they were the One you worship.)
It depends on what you mean by "Christ is deity".
God's word is bound by grammar, however.
And His word follows grammatical laws (and principles) so that it can be understood--even by a child.
You could if the "modern dictionaries" used the terms to mean something the ancient texts didn't express.
However, since this is not the case, you can't use the above as a valid argument.
Natural selection has nothing to do with "the nature of the fallen world" as the term "fallen" only refers to those who have sinned.
And since animals do not sin(, and yet 'natural selection' occurs in the animal world), one should not conclude that "natural selection is not a construct of God".
I have no idea what this refers to.
Deity ALSO means the state of being God, i.e. The Divine NATURE and that is the sense and meaning when we speak of the deity of Jesus Christ.
The "divine nature" and "the state of being God" are two different things.Deity ALSO means the state of being God, i.e. The Divine NATURE
Unfortunately, the Bible never expresses anything about "the state of being God"(--especially such an expression makes no sense).and that is the sense and meaning when we speak of the deity of Jesus Christ.
If the above were true, you couldn't translate the Bible.If the ancients, who penned what God told them, did not express a modern dictionary concept, it was not there.
So, we cannot glue it on. Scripture is an ancient text, so to use modern concepts upon it is to change it and alter what it says.
While animals are "affected by sin", they (themselves) cannot sin.In paradise soon when this world ceases and His New Creation starts, lion and lamb will lie down together. Indeed, in this world, animals are affected by sin and are part of the sin realm -- which is this cosmos and its crude physicality.
Why?Might I suggest that you post your qualifications on your profile then link to it when some smart alec like me challenges them.
That's like me quoting scholars and saying "I have shown you are wrong by quoting accredited scholars".And I have shown that you are wrong by quoting accredited scholars which you blow off out of hand as if you know more than all the scholars I quote.
That's exactly what he expresses(, which is why he translates the text in the NET "the Word is fully God", which is still grammatically problematic only because "God" has become an adjective in the translation).Wallace did not definitely say θεος ην ο λογος does not mean "The word was God."
You realize none of the ECFs wrote in English, correct? Thus, them using John 1:1 wouldn't help your argument no more than the JWs use of the Coptic translation of John 1:1 (which uses the indefinite article with "god") helps theirs.And OBTW neither do the ECF who quote John 1:1.
Well look at it this way. To you I am just some anonymous dude online if I say something it is probably no more compelling than the scribblings on a public facility wall. Now switch it around if you say something it too is no more compelling that those scribblings. However if I quote a well known lexicon e.g. Brown, Driver, Briggs or Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich then it might have some validity. As I said everybody with a Strong's thinks they are a Hebrew and Greek expert. If I want medical advice I consult a licensed Dr. with creds, lawyer ditto, accountant ditto etc.Why?
Would posting my qualifications somehow make me right?
That's like me quoting scholars and saying "I have shown you are wrong by quoting accredited scholars".
Quoting scholars doesn't prove I am wrong and they are right.