John 1:1 revisited ton usage

[brianbbs67]

Couldn't find the John 1:1 thread. So added this. I am a novice at beast, with Kione. But, I have been reading about the use of "ton". It seems else where in the scripture, it translated as "of the". Example, Acts 20:7 "mia ton Sabbaton", one of the Sabbaths(mia could also mean first, I hear). Why is it not "of the" in J 1:1? Ie, "and the word was of the God"?

[Elijah John]

Couldn't find the John 1:1 thread. So added this. I am a novice at beast, with Kione. But, I have been reading about the use of "ton". It seems else where in the scripture, it translated as "of the". Example, Acts 20:7 "mia ton Sabbaton", one of the Sabbaths(mia could also mean first, I hear). Why is it not "of the" in J 1:1? Ie, "and the word was of the God"?

If your interpretation/translation is correct, that certainly changes the meaning of the passage and Trintarian apologists would not be able to point to it as a proof text that "Jesus is God".

"Of God", ie from God, in league with God, or God-like. Shades of meaning none of which would equate Jesus with God.

[2timothy316]

"Translations by James Moffatt, Edgar J. Goodspeed and Hugh J. Schonfield render part of the verse as "...the Word [Logos] was divine". Murray J. Harris writes,

[It] is clear that in the translation "the Word was God", the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in normal English usage "God" is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, "the Word was God" suggests that "the Word" and "God" are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity … The rendering cannot stand without explanation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1

I love that last sentence, "But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity … The rendering cannot stand without explanation."

Most Bibles translate John 1:1 incorrectly. And websites like Biblegateway.com don't include translations with the correct wording. Why not? Because they are biased to the trinity. It even says so in their "Statement of Faith". https://www.biblegateway.com/about/faith/

The original Greek doesn't support Jesus as Almighty God and without people supporting the trinity doctrine pushing John 1:1 as a scripture that supports the trinity, the translation 'the Word is God' wouldn't exist.


Translations that correctly render John 1:1

1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)
1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)
1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863
1864: "and a god was the Word" – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading)
1867: "and the Son was of God" – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
1879: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)
1885: "and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)
1924: "the Logos was divine" – The Bible: James Moffatt Translation, by James Moffatt.
1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
1958: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany
1975: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 3 by 2timothy316]

Thanks for that list of translations. Seems men have been re discovering this for quite a while.

[brianbbs67]

Couldn't find the John 1:1 thread. So added this. I am a novice at beast, with Kione. But, I have been reading about the use of "ton". It seems else where in the scripture, it translated as "of the". Example, Acts 20:7 "mia ton Sabbaton", one of the Sabbaths(mia could also mean first, I hear). Why is it not "of the" in J 1:1? Ie, "and the word was of the God"?

If your interpretation/translation is correct, that certainly changes the meaning of the passage and Trintarian apologists would not be able to point to it as a proof text that "Jesus is God".

"Of God", ie from God, in league with God, or God-like. Shades of meaning none of which would equate Jesus with God.

The Acts 20:7 passage is also monkeyed with although ton is used as it is other places. "mia" means 1 or number 1, IE first. Sabbaton means sabbath or sometimes a 7 reference. "On the first day of the week" Is the KJV version. See what they have done there? Look again at the orginal. Mia ton Sabbaton. Clearly the Sabbaths are indicted, not "first of the 7". That is a stretch at best.

[tigger2]

Couldn't find the John 1:1 thread. So added this. I am a novice at beast, with Kione. But, I have been reading about the use of "ton". It seems else where in the scripture, it translated as "of the". Example, Acts 20:7 "mia ton Sabbaton", one of the Sabbaths(mia could also mean first, I hear). Why is it not "of the" in J 1:1? Ie, "and the word was of the God"?

Brian, is this the John 1:1 thread asked about in the OP?

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum ... &start=20

If so, the meat of it is found in posts 24 and 26.

The definite article ('the' in English) has a number of different forms in NT Greek.
Ho is used for nouns which are used as subjects or predicate nouns (ho theos).

Ton is used for nouns which are direct objects (ton theon).

And tou is used with nouns which, usually, are intending 'of ..." in English: tou theou '(of God').

Acts 20:7 uses the plural genitive form of 'of the' (twn - pronounced 'tone'), lit. 'of the Sabbaths.'

[brianbbs67]

Couldn't find the John 1:1 thread. So added this. I am a novice at beast, with Kione. But, I have been reading about the use of "ton". It seems else where in the scripture, it translated as "of the". Example, Acts 20:7 "mia ton Sabbaton", one of the Sabbaths(mia could also mean first, I hear). Why is it not "of the" in J 1:1? Ie, "and the word was of the God"?

Brian, is this the John 1:1 thread asked about in the OP?

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum ... &start=20

If so, the meat of it is found in posts 24 and 26.

The definite article ('the' in English) has a number of different forms in NT Greek.
Ho is used for nouns which are used as subjects or predicate nouns (ho theos).

Ton is used for nouns which are direct objects (ton theon).

And tou is used with nouns which, usually, are intending 'of ..." in English: tou theou '(of God').

Acts 20:7 uses the plural genitive form of 'of the' (twn - pronounced 'tone'), lit. 'of the Sabbaths.'

Yes that one of the threads. And thanks, if I have never said it to you for your diligent research.

If I understand correctly, one of the Sabbaths is correct for Act 20:7. Which is what I have come to believe. And the usage in John was "a" or divine(from) God?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 3 by 2timothy316]

Thanks for that list of translations. Seems men have been re discovering this for quite a while.

My pleasure!

Sadly, the correct translation also has been re-surpressed for quite awhile as well. But the Bible says, "For there is nothing hidden that will not become manifest, nor anything carefully concealed that will never become known and not come out in the open." Luke 8:17. There has been a constant attempt to 'carefully conceal' the truth about Jehovah, however Jesus said such efforts will never succeed. This is why the truth of such scriptures as John 1:1 is constantly re-discovered.

There are many more Bible teachings like John 1:1 that have been suppressed, but they too keep getting rediscovered. The truth of where the dead are, hellfire, the life expectancy of the Earth and many more Bible teachings keep getting rediscovered.

[brianbbs67]

Couldn't find the John 1:1 thread. So added this. I am a novice at beast, with Kione. But, I have been reading about the use of "ton". It seems else where in the scripture, it translated as "of the". Example, Acts 20:7 "mia ton Sabbaton", one of the Sabbaths(mia could also mean first, I hear). Why is it not "of the" in J 1:1? Ie, "and the word was of the God"?

Brian, is this the John 1:1 thread asked about in the OP?

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum ... &start=20

If so, the meat of it is found in posts 24 and 26.

The definite article ('the' in English) has a number of different forms in NT Greek.
Ho is used for nouns which are used as subjects or predicate nouns (ho theos).

Ton is used for nouns which are direct objects (ton theon).

And tou is used with nouns which, usually, are intending 'of ..." in English: tou theou '(of God').

Acts 20:7 uses the plural genitive form of 'of the' (twn - pronounced 'tone'), lit. 'of the Sabbaths.'

Yes that one of the threads. And thanks, if I have never said it to you for your diligent research.

If I understand correctly, one of the Sabbaths is correct for Act 20:7. Which is what I have come to believe. And the usage in John was "a" or divine(from) God?

I guess i should say or first of the Sabbaths. As many believe, this is a seven week countdown to Pentacost. The day, in scripture, of Acts 20:7, is definitely Saturday night(which is day one of the Hebrew and Greek, it seems). So, they gathered after the Sabbaths to discuss Christ and also, the first was a Pentecostal countdown. I have read that this phrase "mia ton sabbaton" is only used 9 times in ancient Greek literature and 7 are in the bible.

[elijahpne]

I presumed you were referring to the second part of John 1:1. Most translators render that "And the Word was with God." That alone should leave no doubt as to what John meant - that Jesus (the 'Word') is NOT Almighty God but was with him "In the beginning".

Nevertheless the greater controversy lies in the third part of John 1:1, not the second part, where KJV translates the text as "And the Word was God." This translation flies in the face of the second part where John definitely says that "the Word was with God" not God himself.

Greek, like Latin and Syriac, has no indefinite article. English has. Unfortunately English was not in use during the earliest centuries of our Common Era. If it were, then the meaning would have been clear. However, there was a language (Coptic) similar to English that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our common era which was used in translating the Scriptures.

"The language is the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus' earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: "Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses."

The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons. First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: "The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English."

Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word "god" in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: "And the Word was a god." Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John's words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty." - The Watchtower, November 1 2008, pp. 24-25 Was the Word "God" or "a god"?

For additional explanation see the YouTube video entitled "Real Truth about John 1:1". [/url]