Parallel grammatical construction to John 1:1b

[cjab]

Don’t see how that helps your case. Certainly it renders the Trinitarian translation as being invalid.

I'm not with you, I don't what you're referring to at all.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Bottom line : The English translation “..and the Word was with God” denotes that one person was in a relationship / communing with another person. Such a translation is not consistent with the original Greek of John 1:1b. πρὸς plus accusative & “to be” verb does not denote together with / relationship. It has more to do with direction. Amy Trinitarian wants to challenge this ?

 

[cjab]

Bottom line : The English translation “..and the Word was with God” denotes that one person was in a relationship / communing with another person. Such a translation is not consistent with the original Greek of John 1:1b. πρὸς plus accusative & “to be” verb does not denote together with / relationship. It has more to do with direction. Amy Trinitarian wants to challenge this ?

I would say your statement is partly inaccurate and partly true. "With" in some sense will usually be a connotation or consistent with πρὸς plus accusative, even with the “to be” verb, as per Mark 6:3 (sisters of Jesus here with us).

However "with" won't necessarily be a meaningful connotation due to the large numbers of nuances of "with". "With" seems rather to be a case of ambiguous and sloppy and therefore meaningless translation that appears to say something, but in reality says not nearly enough, in Jn 1:1b. For 'with' could only infer 'was distinct from' in Jn 1:1b which isn't what the Greek is saying.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I would say your statement is partly inaccurate and partly true. "With" in some sense will usually be a connotation or consistent with πρὸς plus accusative, even with the “to be” verb, as per Mark 6:3 (sisters of Jesus here with us).

However "with" won't necessarily be a meaningful connotation due to the large numbers of nuances of "with". "With" seems rather to be a case of ambiguous and sloppy and therefore meaningless translation that appears to say something, but in reality says not nearly enough, in Jn 1:1b. For 'with' could only infer 'was distinct from' in Jn 1:1b which isn't what the Greek is saying.

Notice the sisters of Jesus in Mark 6:3 were not even literally with the speakers, let alone interacting with them. His sisters were only in their vicinity . In fact most of these anonymous speakers probably had never met Jesus’s sisters, but were simply aware that they lived close by.

 

[cjab]

Caragounis says "There ought to be no doubt, therefore, that πρός + acc. is an infrequent
late formation and that it is used [by ECFs] as an alternative to παρά + dat. (παρά τφ Θεφ).

 

[The Real John Milton]

Caragounis says "There ought to be no doubt, therefore, that πρός + acc. is an infrequent
late formation and that it is used [by ECFs] as an alternative to παρά + dat. (παρά τφ Θεφ).

In the bible πρός + acc. with to be verb does not mean “with” as in “John was with God.”

 

[cjab]

Young - Grammar

Space—Παρά can convey spacial extension (from) or spacial position (among, near). For example, a decree went out from Caesar (Luke 2:1 gen.); the story was spread among the Jews (Matt. 28:15 dat.); Jesus passed alongside the sea (Mark 1:16 acc.); Jesus set the child beside Him (Luke 9:47 dat.); and he who does the law is righteous before God (Rom. 2:13 dat.).

Association— Two disciples spent the rest of the day with Jesus (John 1:39 dat.); Jesus spoke certain things while with His disciples (John 14:25 dat.).

In the bible πρός + acc. with to be verb does not mean “with” as in “John was with God.”

Doesn't have to mean that. Consider:

μισθὸν οὐκ ἔχετε παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ (Matt 6:1). "No reward ye have from (of) the Father."
παρὰ δὲ θεῷ πάντα δυνατά ἐστίν (Mat 19:26) "but from/in/of (but usually translated by "with") God all things are possible."

So by analogy, Jb 1:1b "The Word was from/of/in God."

But I still prefer "The word was according to God" where the "to" (not the from) element seems to be implied by πρός + acc. If you had to include "to" in John 1:1b, how else could you phrase it, given the semantics of the nouns used?

 

[The Real John Milton]

Young - Grammar

Space—Παρά can convey spacial extension (from) or spacial position (among, near).

As long as you can understand that “with” is not a real option here.

 

[cjab]

As long as you can understand that “with” is not a real option here.

Jn 1:18 θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο

"in the bosom of the Father."

κόλπον

• the front of the body between the arms
• the bosom of a garment, i.e. the hollow formed by the upper forepart of a rather loose garment bound by a girdle or sash, used for keeping and carrying things (the fold or pocket)
• a bay of the sea

εἰς (strongs) a preposition governing the accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, toward, for, among.

For this reason, in Jn 1:1 πρός + acc. can't mean "with" as it would contradict Jn 1:18. Possibly πρός + acc. means "internal to God," as, thinking about it, the Word couldn't have been "external to God" if in the bosom of God.

Strongs, πρός with the accusative case: the place, time, occasion, or respect, which is the destination of the relation, i.e. whither or for which it is predicated):—about, according to , against, among, at, because of, before, between, (where-)by, for, × at thy house, in, for intent, nigh unto, of, which pertain to, that, to (the end that), × together, to (you) -ward, unto, with(-in).

So the Word was "according to God" or "predicated on God." (the Word depends on the existence or truth of God).