What did John mean?

[marco]

John's famous opening: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God� has caused much controversy. Some have suggested God should not have a second capital. Given John was a human, writing for humans, perhaps we should not excavate his words for meanings accessible only to a few men and angels.


Let's go with the text, including capitals. We've already discussed the non-capital interpretation.

Does this opening inevitably lead to Christ's being God?
Can we make sense of Word that allows us to see Jesus as human messenger, without discrediting John's authority?

[tigger2]

John's famous opening: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God� has caused much controversy. Some have suggested God should not have a second capital. Given John was a human, writing for humans, perhaps we should not excavate his words for meanings accessible only to a few men and angels.


Let's go with the text, including capitals. We've already discussed the non-capital interpretation.

Does this opening inevitably lead to Christ's being God?
Can we make sense of Word that allows us to see Jesus as human messenger, without discrediting John's authority?

But the actual NT Greek text used to translate John 1:1 into English had no initial capital letters for words. What caused translators to use the capital 'G' for God was the fact that the first use (John 1:1b) had the definite article with it.

The final use of theos (John 1:1c) does not have the definite article. The rest of John's writings shows that he (like the other Gospel writers) consistently uses the article with the nominative theos (ho theos) to mean 'God.'

Trinitarian defenders have for many years been trying to make theos in John 1:1c be understood as though it had the article, or that it had a questionable 'qualitative' meaning. I can show that both are incorrect, but the proof takes a study of a dozen pages or more to cover all arguments. No one has ever decided to discuss it all with me in the last 30 years, and I have no illusions that anyone here is any different.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... c-a.html

[marco]

But the actual NT Greek text used to translate John 1:1 into English had no initial capital letters for words. What caused translators to use the capital 'G' for God was the fact that the first use (John 1:1b) had the definite article with it.

Yes I know the grammatical argument but I am quoting God. I have the passage in various languages, and they all prefer the capital. John as you know believed in one God and his piece addressed his God not gods. Had he placed the two words in such proximity and intended completely different meanings, at the very least this would constitute a piece of rhetorical clumsiness; and the text does not suggest this flaw. The only reason I can see for insisting on this dual explanation of the word God (or god) is to avoid problems of ascribing deity to Jesus. Maybe John had no problem with that.

My question is: IF we accept the text with capitals, does it follow we MUST accept Jesus as God? I don't think we need to.

No one has ever decided to discuss it all with me in the last 30 years, and I have no illusions that anyone here is any different.

They are just daunted by grammar and recondite grammatical reasoning. It doesn't follow you are right, just that you've wrapped your arguments in a cloak of grammatical reasoning, inaccessible to the majority.

Anyway, the text we are looking at has God in capitals. That's what I believe John intended. Let's content ourselves with that.... and its shortcomings.

[By Grace]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

Are you perhaps aware that the early Greek manuscripts were all written in unicals, meaning capital letters, and had nothing that resembles modern punctuation?

Thus it would look like this: THECATINTHEHATISMYSONSFAVORITEBOOK

Of course, we English speakers would have no problem deciphering that, and we would underline, make an apostrophe and add spaces and a period

Tigger2 is correct here

But the actual NT Greek text used to translate John 1:1 into English had no initial capital letters for words. What caused translators to use the capital 'G' for God was the fact that the first use (John 1:1b) had the definite article with it.

What you seem to bbe not understanding, as I have explained this to you before is that John 1:1 us what we in English call a PREDICATE NOMINATIVE,

[By Grace]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

Are you perhaps aware that the early Greek manuscripts were all written in unicals, meaning capital letters, and had nothing that resembles modern punctuation?

Thus it would look like this: THECATINTHEHATISMYSONSFAVORITEBOOK

Of course, we English speakers would have no problem deciphering that, and we would underline, make an apostrophe and add spaces and a period

Tigger2 is correct here

But the actual NT Greek text used to translate John 1:1 into English had no initial capital letters for words. What caused translators to use the capital 'G' for God was the fact that the first use (John 1:1b) had the definite article with it.

What you seem to bbe not understanding, as I have explained this to you before is that John 1:1 us what we in English call a PREDICATE NOMINATIVE,

[By Grace]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

Are you perhaps aware that the early Greek manuscripts were all written in unicals, meaning capital letters, and had nothing that resembles modern punctuation?

Thus it would look like this: THECATINTHEHATISMYSONSFAVORITEBOOK

Of course, we English speakers would have no problem deciphering that, and we would underline, make an apostrophe and add spaces and a period

Tigger2 is correct here

But the actual NT Greek text used to translate John 1:1 into English had no initial capital letters for words. What caused translators to use the capital 'G' for God was the fact that the first use (John 1:1b) had the definite article with it.

What you seem to be not understanding, as I have explained this to you before is that John 1:1 is what we in English call a PREDICATE NOMINATIVE, which is a renaming of the subject, "word" in the predicate (second part) of the sentence, following a form of the verb "be".

That is the simplest and best explanation without going into Greek grammar.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

Are you perhaps aware that the early Greek manuscripts were all written in unicals, meaning capital letters, and had nothing that resembles modern punctuation?

Thus it would look like this: THECATINTHEHATISMYSONSFAVORITEBOOK

Of course, we English speakers would have no problem deciphering that, and we would underline, make an apostrophe and add spaces and a period

Tigger2 is correct here

But the actual NT Greek text used to translate John 1:1 into English had no initial capital letters for words. What caused translators to use the capital 'G' for God was the fact that the first use (John 1:1b) had the definite article with it.

What you seem to be not understanding, as I have explained this to you before is that John 1:1 is what we in English call a PREDICATE NOMINATIVE, which is a renaming of the subject, "word" in the predicate (second part) of the sentence, following a form of the verb "be".

That is the simplest and best explanation without going into Greek grammar.

Of course it's a predicate noun (nominative). That is why my study lists first all of John's uses of predicate nouns. And the next list is all those (predicate noun) clauses by John which are parallel to John 1:1c. And finally a list of all those clauses parallel to John 1:1c with exceptions (admitted by noted Trinitarian NT Greek grammarians) removed. The final total is about 20 proper examples.

Perhaps you would like to refresh your memory by re-examining the thread you abandoned when I attempted to discuss this with you before:

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum ... start=20 (post 21 onward is probably most significant)

[brianbbs67]

It seems it boils down to the actual use of ton and ho as Koine was used and we are not 100% on that. Or these interesting charts wouldn't exist.

https://biblehub.com/text/john/1-1.htm

[tigger2]

It seems it boils down to the actual use of ton and ho as Koine was used and we are not 100% on that. Or these interesting charts wouldn't exist.

https://biblehub.com/text/john/1-1.htm

Part A of the 7-part study found through my link in post 2 above will answer most questions about ho being needed for a proper translation of 'God.'

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 3 by marco]

You claim John's writing is "clumsey" yet make no reference to what was clumsy in Greek about it. Perhaps you can support this by presenting the uncumsy alternative and explain how you feel it would better express what the writer was trying to communicate (presumably you are in a position to say what the writer was thinking and trying to communicate as well as in possession of sufficient Greek to be able to make the "clumsiness" assessment).

If you argument is the clumsiness stems from the use of theos twice in close proximity again it for you to support this curious claim with actual rationale as to their occurrences in the language of origin. How do you know if such use was not the epitome of grace and good writing in koine Greek? Do you know and more importantly can you prove?

Don't worry there are I'm confident those of us including trigger himself who will do our best to rise to the intellectual challenge of understanding the Greek grammatical points you need to make in order to support your yet un supported claim of "clumsiness".