In The Beggining

That is not how it works. In the Greek, when the noun carries the definite article the noun is definite. When the noun lacks the definite article it is either definite or indefinite depending on the context.
Note, the Gospel of John in the NWT published by the WTS God is translated capitalized , therefore God and not god, even though THEOS does not carry a definite article in 1:6,12,13,18, 3:2,21, 9:33. How did the WTS or any other translators come to these conclusions? Based on the text.
No one seems to argue these verses. Or better yet within the NT “God” appears 282 times lacking the definite article , of which it translates the indefinite as definite 266 times as "God" and the remaining 16 times as anarthrous translating theos as either god, a god, gods, and godly.

So again what in premise one or two brings you to the conclusion that Jesus is godlike in Jn 1:1c

When a scripture only speaks of the true God, plain Theos is used. When The true God is with another called-god HoTheos to the true God, plain Theos to the one being called small g god. Theos is the only word in Greek for either God or god, thus when 2 are mentioned in the same paragraph The true God got HoTheos.
 
When a scripture only speaks of the true God, plain Theos is used. When The true God is with another called-god HoTheos to the true God, plain Theos to the one being called small g god. Theos is the only word in Greek for either God or god, thus when 2 are mentioned in the same paragraph The true God got HoTheos.
Sorry this is not true.
Following that line of reasoning, if I find Jesus being referred to as Theos {carrying the definite article} anywhere in the NT then that should be enough to establish deity. Notice that in Hebrews 1:8 and 9 Theos carries the definite article in all three occurrences, including {But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever}, {Therefore God, Your God} where the Father is addressing the Son as “The God” establishing deity.



Heb 1:8 But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”



Heb 1:8

πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν• ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ

to but the son the throne of you the God into the age of the





αἰῶνος, καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου.

age and the rod of the straightness rod of the kingdom of you



Heb 1:9

ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἐμίσησας ἀνομίαν • διὰ τοῦτο

You loved rightness and you hated lawlessness through this



ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς

anointed you the God the God of you oil of gladness along the

μετόχους σου.

shares of you

So again what in premise one or two brings you to the conclusion that Jesus is godlike in Jn 1:1c
 
In the beginning, was (ἐν ἀρχ͂ῃ ἦν)[en- ar•khay eimi].

If we are able to draw an imaginary line, on a razor's edge, where one side there exists only God and the eternal, and the other exists the created and the temporal, this razors edge is what John is opening to. John does not open referring to the beginning of Genesis but prior to it, in fact prior to time itself. Note this imaginary line relates to the eternal and the temporal, and not to the Genesis account of creation because creation is not mentioned until vs. 3. Notice where John places the Logos in reference to the beginning; if the Logos is a created being, then the Logos would be included in the ‘beginning’ or after. Using [ἦν eimi] “was”, which denotes absolute existence instead of [ἐγένετο, egeneto] “came into being”, or “began to be”, which is used in vs. 3, John is placing the Logos prior to the beginning. John is saying that the Logos absolutely existed prior to the beginning, and the only One who existed prior to the beginning is God in the eternal. Therefore, the only logical conclusion for John 1:1 is “the Word was God” not “was a god”.
 
Sorry this is not true.
Following that line of reasoning, if I find Jesus being referred to as Theos {carrying the definite article} anywhere in the NT then that should be enough to establish deity. Notice that in Hebrews 1:8 and 9 Theos carries the definite article in all three occurrences, including {But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever}, {Therefore God, Your God} where the Father is addressing the Son as “The God” establishing deity.



Heb 1:8 But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”



Heb 1:8

πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν• ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ

to but the son the throne of you the God into the age of the





αἰῶνος, καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου.

age and the rod of the straightness rod of the kingdom of you



Heb 1:9

ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἐμίσησας ἀνομίαν • διὰ τοῦτο

You loved rightness and you hated lawlessness through this



ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς

anointed you the God the God of you oil of gladness along the

μετόχους σου.

shares of you

So again what in premise one or two brings you to the conclusion that Jesus is godlike in Jn 1:1c
Therefore God, your God--saying God is Jesus' God. You twist it into something it didnt say.
 
I can understand English very well. I dont to look it up.
I didn’t ask if you understood English. I asked you to look it up in Greek, that’s the original language, and the oldest manuscripts we have, that were translated from.
 
And the English is clear-Jesus has a God, just like us.
Was the NT written in English or Greek? Every translation originates from the Greek manuscripts. Your translation and mine. So how do we know which is correct? Looking up the verse in the original language.
BTW the three renderings of theos carry the definite article in the Diaglott.
 
Was the NT written in English or Greek? Every translation originates from the Greek manuscripts. Your translation and mine. So how do we know which is correct? Looking up the verse in the original language.
BTW the three renderings of theos carry the definite article in the Diaglott.

In 1822 A.Kneeland a Greek scholar translated the NT from the same materials used by all up to that point. He compared the Greek to English side by side to prove to the world-a god small g is correct in the last line at John 1:1. 19 other translations had it right, 3 had was divine, 1 had was godlike. Rejected by trinity clergys because that 1 fact proves they are false religionsssssssssssss.
 
In 1822 A.Kneeland a Greek scholar translated the NT from the same materials used by all up to that point. He compared the Greek to English side by side to prove to the world-a god small g is correct in the last line at John 1:1. 19 other translations had it right, 3 had was divine, 1 had was godlike. Rejected by trinity clergys because that 1 fact proves they are false religionsssssssssssss.
What you posted is called the fallacy of appealing to authority. X is true because Y said so. I can do the same. What matters is how anyone came to their conclusion of the verse based on the verse.
You still have not given an explanation as to how god like can be concluded from the two premises.

I posted #283 on this thread as to why it is translated God. In a court of law you present your case with evidence. Mine is posted, awaiting yours.
 
In 1822 A.Kneeland a Greek scholar translated the NT from the same materials used by all up to that point. He compared the Greek to English side by side to prove to the world-a god small g is correct in the last line at John 1:1. 19 other translations had it right, 3 had was divine, 1 had was godlike. Rejected by trinity clergys because that 1 fact proves they are false religionsssssssssssss.
Just noticed. When translating ,one compares manuscripts side by side not manuscripts side by side with translations.
That goes against the established “rules”.
 
What you posted is called the fallacy of appealing to authority. X is true because Y said so. I can do the same. What matters is how anyone came to their conclusion of the verse based on the verse.
You still have not given an explanation as to how god like can be concluded from the two premises.

I posted #283 on this thread as to why it is translated God. In a court of law you present your case with evidence. Mine is posted, awaiting yours.

Small g god carries the meaning godlike. small g god is not calling that one God.( As in the true God)
 
Just noticed. When translating ,one compares manuscripts side by side not manuscripts side by side with translations.
That goes against the established “rules”.

He was showing the world the correct way to translate from Greek to English--There is no rule against that.
 
Small g god carries the meaning godlike. small g god is not calling that one God.( As in the true God)
He was showing the world the correct way to translate from Greek to English--There is no rule against that.
You keep arguing the end product being correct without justifying it. Again what in the two premises justifies god like. Unless anyone can justify this, they cannot rightly claim that they are rooted in scripture.
What you are rooted is in opinion.
 
You keep arguing the end product being correct without justifying it. Again what in the two premises justifies god like. Unless anyone can justify this, they cannot rightly claim that they are rooted in scripture.
What you are rooted is in opinion.
Lxx-- God called HoTheos=God at John 1:1--The word called plain Theos=god--same rule at 2 Cor 4:4--God called HoTheos=God, satan called plain Theos=god--Your scholars know its fact. That is the sad truth about it.
 
Lxx-- God called HoTheos=God at John 1:1--The word called plain Theos=god--same rule at 2 Cor 4:4--God called HoTheos=God, satan called plain Theos=god--Your scholars know its fact. That is the sad truth about it.
The sad truth is you continually dodging the question. Honestly is the best policy. If you can justify godlike from the premises do so, and if you cannot admit so.
In a court of law you would lose the case. No evidence.
Post 283 proves “God” is the correct translation.
 
The sad truth is you continually dodging the question. Honestly is the best policy. If you can justify godlike from the premises do so, and if you cannot admit so.
In a court of law you would lose the case. No evidence.
Post 283 proves “God” is the correct translation.

You will find out different in Gods court.
 
You will find out different in Gods court.
In God’s court, or in man’s court, you and I would have to prove that god like, or God is the proper translation from the original text, there is no difference. Why? Because truth is universal. What is true in God’s court is true in man’s court. You will still be presenting a case based on personal opinion vs what God inspired man to write.
 
Back
Top