Understanding Jesus Christ <GOD> the Word

[Zorn]

To understand the Scriptures, we must understand …
what is said, who (or what) it was said about,
when it was said, and the time period it was referring to.
The Lord wants us to believe …
NOT what someone taught us, but what the Scriptures say!

BEFORE the Incarnation

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (the Father),
and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God (the Father).” (John 1:1-2)
In the beginning … God the Word was actually the Second Person of the Trinity.

DURING the Incarnation

First: God the Holy Spirit performed a miracle in the virgin Mary’s womb …
producing the fetus who would be Jesus Christ/Messiah (Matthew 1:18,20; Luke 1:35).
IMO, Jesus inherited Mary’s sin nature … so He was “fully man”,
but because He also was “fully God” He was able to overcome His sin nature.

Next: God the Word came down from heaven and became flesh-human-Jesus.
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us …” (John 1:14)
The Word “became” Jesus (when?) … so, Jesus actually was God the Word.

AFTER the Incarnation

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard … seen …
concerning the Word of life –- the life was manifested … that eternal life
which was with (God) the Father (in the beginning) and was manifested to us …” (1 John 1:1-2)
The Word (God) was manifested to the world as the God-Man, Jesus Christ.
And so, “… His (Jesus’) name is called The Word of God.” (Revelation 19:13)

“And now, O Father, glorify Me (Jesus) together with Yourself,
with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” (John 17:5)
Jesus is speaking here as the One who He knew He really was (God the Word).

“… that they may know You, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ whom You have sent …” (John 17:3)
Yes, Jesus Christ was sent, but NOT sent from heaven …
He was sent into the world as the God-man.

“Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God.” (John 4:2)
“For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not
confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.” (2 John 7)
Here John is equating Jesus with God the Word …
who came in the flesh as the God-Man, Jesus Christ.

[onewithhim]

... In Acts there is no "a" in the Greek...

There is absolutely no Greek text with an article corresponding to "a/an" in English. It simply does not exist in that language. Wherever you see such an article in your English version, whatever it is, it has been added...

Translators from Greek into English and other modern languages ​​must add an indefinite article wherever the Greek text is understood to need it in order to give the text the proper meaning. This is something they must do WHENEVER they understand that the text is referring to what would be a noun that is grammatically indefinite.

If you compare any English biblical text that includes an indefinite article with its corresponding original Greek text, you will find that in no case does the article exist in the Greek text.

It is useless to try to accuse a translator of "adding a/an" when it is something that every translator is obliged to do if he wants to make sense of his translation every time he is called upon to do a translation.

It is something that someone who does not understand grammar needs to understand correctly, before making criticisms that could make him look ridiculous.

I think through your conclusion many translators who does not understand grammar looks ridiculous. You can find them below;
Please find the "a"

John 1:1

You don't understand Greek to English grammar, Capbook. It has been explained to you ad nauseum, yet you say the same ignorant things.

Even if you look at the plain Greek words, you can see that the two words for "God" are different.

Anyway, when the Greek text does not have an article, "a" must be inserted in the English text to make the meaning clear. You don't say, "Snoopy is dog"; you say "Snoopy is a dog. Because the second "god" does not have the article "the," it is known that it is not "the" God. THE God has the article. The second god does not.

Most versions follow after the King James Version and don't question it for some reason. There are some translators that do question the KJV, one of which is the James Moffatt Translation. He says: "and the Word was divine," meaning "of God, from God, or like God; sacred; more than humanly excellent." (Illustrated Oxford Dictionary. It does not mean that the divine Person is God.

The Emphatic Diaglott is another version that sees the necessity of inserting a "a" where there is no article in the Greek.

What I posted are translations. When you cannot face the many translations, attack the one who post? That's ad hominem.
There are just many credentialed translators that does not conform to your opinion.
I have some resources that does not follow the KJV, the ABP, Wescott & Hort text critical Translations and others but why not one of them follow your said, grammar rules?

Excuse me, how have I "attacked" you?

There are translators who do not conform to your opinion, as well. I have posted a reasonable view of this subject above. It has been said, concerning the difficulty with the translation of John 1:1: "The culprit appears to be the King James translators. These translators were much more familiar and comfortable with the Latin Vulgate than they were with the Greek New Testament. They were used to understanding passages based on reading them in Latin, and this worked its way into their reading of the same passages in Greek. Latin has no articles, either definite or indefinite. So the definite noun 'God' and the indefinite noun 'god' look precisely the same in Latin, and in John 1:1,2 one would see three occurrences of what appeared to be the same word, rather than two distinct forms used in Greek.

"Whether a Latin noun is definite or indefinite is determined solely by context, and that means it is open to interpretation. The interpretation of John 1:1,2 that is now found in most English translations was well entrenched in the thinking of the King James translators based on a millennium of reading only in Latin, and overpowered their close attention to the more subtle wording of the Greek.

"After the fact--after the King James translation was the dominant version and etched in the minds of English-speaking Bible readers--various arguments were put forward to support the KJV translation of John 1:1c as 'the Word was God,' and to justify its repetition in more recent, and presumably more accurate translations. But none of these arguments withstands close scrutiny."

Truth in Translation by Jason BeDuhn, page 116.

Do I post ignorant things? I mostly post Bible text and translations.

Yes, KJV mostly followed Textus Receptus, that translates John 1:1 as "the Word was God".
And those English translation that follows Codex Vaticanus even translates "and God was the Word"
NETS follows the Codex Sinaiticus and translates, "the Word was fully God".
We can't blame KJV and etc, what their translation are, are confirmed by other sources that the Word (Jesus) is God.

The New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) is an English translation that follows the Codex Sinaiticus. The Codex Sinaiticus is a Greek manuscript that contains the earliest known complete copy of the Christian New Testament.
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+en ... e&ie=UTF-8

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.(New English Translation)

You apparently did not read my post above where I explained that the translators of the KJV relied on the Latin Vulgate which has no punctuation or capital and lower case letters or definite or indefinite words and reads like the "gods" in John 1:1 are all the same, which they are not even according to the Greek.

The NET takes license with the verse, adding more words than are actually there.

KJV did not follow single edition, they incorporated readings from multiple editions of the Textus Receptus, Complutension Polyglot and Latin Vulgate.
And some English translation that follows Codex Vaticanus even translates "and God was the Word"
NETS follows the Codex Sinaiticus and translates, "the Word was fully God".
We can't blame KJV and etc, what their translation are, are confirmed by other sources that the Word (Jesus) is God.


The translators of the King James Version (KJV) had utilized. The translators of the King James Version did not rely on a single edition of the Textus Receptus but instead they incorporated readings from multiple editions of the Textus Receptus, including those by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza. Additionally, they consulted the Complutensian Polyglot and the Latin Vulgate itself.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Re ... e%20itself.

Yes, they consulted the Latin Vulgate itself which had no punctuation, no upper or lower case letters, no definite or indefinite words and didn't make a distinction between "the god" of John 1:1a and b and "god" of John 1:1c. They are not the same, but they look that way if you consult the Latin Vulgate.

[Capbook]

There is absolutely no Greek text with an article corresponding to "a/an" in English. It simply does not exist in that language. Wherever you see such an article in your English version, whatever it is, it has been added...

Translators from Greek into English and other modern languages ​​must add an indefinite article wherever the Greek text is understood to need it in order to give the text the proper meaning. This is something they must do WHENEVER they understand that the text is referring to what would be a noun that is grammatically indefinite.

If you compare any English biblical text that includes an indefinite article with its corresponding original Greek text, you will find that in no case does the article exist in the Greek text.

It is useless to try to accuse a translator of "adding a/an" when it is something that every translator is obliged to do if he wants to make sense of his translation every time he is called upon to do a translation.

It is something that someone who does not understand grammar needs to understand correctly, before making criticisms that could make him look ridiculous.

I think through your conclusion many translators who does not understand grammar looks ridiculous. You can find them below;
Please find the "a"

John 1:1

You don't understand Greek to English grammar, Capbook. It has been explained to you ad nauseum, yet you say the same ignorant things.

Even if you look at the plain Greek words, you can see that the two words for "God" are different.

Anyway, when the Greek text does not have an article, "a" must be inserted in the English text to make the meaning clear. You don't say, "Snoopy is dog"; you say "Snoopy is a dog. Because the second "god" does not have the article "the," it is known that it is not "the" God. THE God has the article. The second god does not.

Most versions follow after the King James Version and don't question it for some reason. There are some translators that do question the KJV, one of which is the James Moffatt Translation. He says: "and the Word was divine," meaning "of God, from God, or like God; sacred; more than humanly excellent." (Illustrated Oxford Dictionary. It does not mean that the divine Person is God.

The Emphatic Diaglott is another version that sees the necessity of inserting a "a" where there is no article in the Greek.

What I posted are translations. When you cannot face the many translations, attack the one who post? That's ad hominem.
There are just many credentialed translators that does not conform to your opinion.
I have some resources that does not follow the KJV, the ABP, Wescott & Hort text critical Translations and others but why not one of them follow your said, grammar rules?

Excuse me, how have I "attacked" you?

There are translators who do not conform to your opinion, as well. I have posted a reasonable view of this subject above. It has been said, concerning the difficulty with the translation of John 1:1: "The culprit appears to be the King James translators. These translators were much more familiar and comfortable with the Latin Vulgate than they were with the Greek New Testament. They were used to understanding passages based on reading them in Latin, and this worked its way into their reading of the same passages in Greek. Latin has no articles, either definite or indefinite. So the definite noun 'God' and the indefinite noun 'god' look precisely the same in Latin, and in John 1:1,2 one would see three occurrences of what appeared to be the same word, rather than two distinct forms used in Greek.

"Whether a Latin noun is definite or indefinite is determined solely by context, and that means it is open to interpretation. The interpretation of John 1:1,2 that is now found in most English translations was well entrenched in the thinking of the King James translators based on a millennium of reading only in Latin, and overpowered their close attention to the more subtle wording of the Greek.

"After the fact--after the King James translation was the dominant version and etched in the minds of English-speaking Bible readers--various arguments were put forward to support the KJV translation of John 1:1c as 'the Word was God,' and to justify its repetition in more recent, and presumably more accurate translations. But none of these arguments withstands close scrutiny."

Truth in Translation by Jason BeDuhn, page 116.

Do I post ignorant things? I mostly post Bible text and translations.

Yes, KJV mostly followed Textus Receptus, that translates John 1:1 as "the Word was God".
And those English translation that follows Codex Vaticanus even translates "and God was the Word"
NETS follows the Codex Sinaiticus and translates, "the Word was fully God".
We can't blame KJV and etc, what their translation are, are confirmed by other sources that the Word (Jesus) is God.

The New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) is an English translation that follows the Codex Sinaiticus. The Codex Sinaiticus is a Greek manuscript that contains the earliest known complete copy of the Christian New Testament.
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+en ... e&ie=UTF-8

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.(New English Translation)

You apparently did not read my post above where I explained that the translators of the KJV relied on the Latin Vulgate which has no punctuation or capital and lower case letters or definite or indefinite words and reads like the "gods" in John 1:1 are all the same, which they are not even according to the Greek.

The NET takes license with the verse, adding more words than are actually there.

KJV did not follow single edition, they incorporated readings from multiple editions of the Textus Receptus, Complutension Polyglot and Latin Vulgate.
And some English translation that follows Codex Vaticanus even translates "and God was the Word"
NETS follows the Codex Sinaiticus and translates, "the Word was fully God".
We can't blame KJV and etc, what their translation are, are confirmed by other sources that the Word (Jesus) is God.


The translators of the King James Version (KJV) had utilized. The translators of the King James Version did not rely on a single edition of the Textus Receptus but instead they incorporated readings from multiple editions of the Textus Receptus, including those by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza. Additionally, they consulted the Complutensian Polyglot and the Latin Vulgate itself.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Re ... e%20itself.

Yes, they consulted the Latin Vulgate itself which had no punctuation, no upper or lower case letters, no definite or indefinite words and didn't make a distinction between "the god" of John 1:1a and b and "god" of John 1:1c. They are not the same, but they look that way if you consult the Latin Vulgate.

If you visit Wikipedia, KJV's textual basis are;
OT: Masoretic Text, Septuagint and Vulgate, while in
NT: Textus Receptus.
That would mean that they did not consult Latin Vulgate in term of John 1:1. Please find link below;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

[onewithhim]

Translators from Greek into English and other modern languages ​​must add an indefinite article wherever the Greek text is understood to need it in order to give the text the proper meaning. This is something they must do WHENEVER they understand that the text is referring to what would be a noun that is grammatically indefinite.

If you compare any English biblical text that includes an indefinite article with its corresponding original Greek text, you will find that in no case does the article exist in the Greek text.

It is useless to try to accuse a translator of "adding a/an" when it is something that every translator is obliged to do if he wants to make sense of his translation every time he is called upon to do a translation.

It is something that someone who does not understand grammar needs to understand correctly, before making criticisms that could make him look ridiculous.

I think through your conclusion many translators who does not understand grammar looks ridiculous. You can find them below;
Please find the "a"

John 1:1

You don't understand Greek to English grammar, Capbook. It has been explained to you ad nauseum, yet you say the same ignorant things.

Even if you look at the plain Greek words, you can see that the two words for "God" are different.

Anyway, when the Greek text does not have an article, "a" must be inserted in the English text to make the meaning clear. You don't say, "Snoopy is dog"; you say "Snoopy is a dog. Because the second "god" does not have the article "the," it is known that it is not "the" God. THE God has the article. The second god does not.

Most versions follow after the King James Version and don't question it for some reason. There are some translators that do question the KJV, one of which is the James Moffatt Translation. He says: "and the Word was divine," meaning "of God, from God, or like God; sacred; more than humanly excellent." (Illustrated Oxford Dictionary. It does not mean that the divine Person is God.

The Emphatic Diaglott is another version that sees the necessity of inserting a "a" where there is no article in the Greek.

What I posted are translations. When you cannot face the many translations, attack the one who post? That's ad hominem.
There are just many credentialed translators that does not conform to your opinion.
I have some resources that does not follow the KJV, the ABP, Wescott & Hort text critical Translations and others but why not one of them follow your said, grammar rules?

Excuse me, how have I "attacked" you?

There are translators who do not conform to your opinion, as well. I have posted a reasonable view of this subject above. It has been said, concerning the difficulty with the translation of John 1:1: "The culprit appears to be the King James translators. These translators were much more familiar and comfortable with the Latin Vulgate than they were with the Greek New Testament. They were used to understanding passages based on reading them in Latin, and this worked its way into their reading of the same passages in Greek. Latin has no articles, either definite or indefinite. So the definite noun 'God' and the indefinite noun 'god' look precisely the same in Latin, and in John 1:1,2 one would see three occurrences of what appeared to be the same word, rather than two distinct forms used in Greek.

"Whether a Latin noun is definite or indefinite is determined solely by context, and that means it is open to interpretation. The interpretation of John 1:1,2 that is now found in most English translations was well entrenched in the thinking of the King James translators based on a millennium of reading only in Latin, and overpowered their close attention to the more subtle wording of the Greek.

"After the fact--after the King James translation was the dominant version and etched in the minds of English-speaking Bible readers--various arguments were put forward to support the KJV translation of John 1:1c as 'the Word was God,' and to justify its repetition in more recent, and presumably more accurate translations. But none of these arguments withstands close scrutiny."

Truth in Translation by Jason BeDuhn, page 116.

Do I post ignorant things? I mostly post Bible text and translations.

Yes, KJV mostly followed Textus Receptus, that translates John 1:1 as "the Word was God".
And those English translation that follows Codex Vaticanus even translates "and God was the Word"
NETS follows the Codex Sinaiticus and translates, "the Word was fully God".
We can't blame KJV and etc, what their translation are, are confirmed by other sources that the Word (Jesus) is God.

The New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) is an English translation that follows the Codex Sinaiticus. The Codex Sinaiticus is a Greek manuscript that contains the earliest known complete copy of the Christian New Testament.
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+en ... e&ie=UTF-8

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.(New English Translation)

You apparently did not read my post above where I explained that the translators of the KJV relied on the Latin Vulgate which has no punctuation or capital and lower case letters or definite or indefinite words and reads like the "gods" in John 1:1 are all the same, which they are not even according to the Greek.

The NET takes license with the verse, adding more words than are actually there.

KJV did not follow single edition, they incorporated readings from multiple editions of the Textus Receptus, Complutension Polyglot and Latin Vulgate.
And some English translation that follows Codex Vaticanus even translates "and God was the Word"
NETS follows the Codex Sinaiticus and translates, "the Word was fully God".
We can't blame KJV and etc, what their translation are, are confirmed by other sources that the Word (Jesus) is God.


The translators of the King James Version (KJV) had utilized. The translators of the King James Version did not rely on a single edition of the Textus Receptus but instead they incorporated readings from multiple editions of the Textus Receptus, including those by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza. Additionally, they consulted the Complutensian Polyglot and the Latin Vulgate itself.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Re ... e%20itself.

Yes, they consulted the Latin Vulgate itself which had no punctuation, no upper or lower case letters, no definite or indefinite words and didn't make a distinction between "the god" of John 1:1a and b and "god" of John 1:1c. They are not the same, but they look that way if you consult the Latin Vulgate.

If you visit Wikipedia, KJV's textual basis are;
OT: Masoretic Text, Septuagint and Vulgate, while in
NT: Textus Receptus.
That would mean that they did not consult Latin Vulgate in term of John 1:1. Please find link below;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

I don't think that is true. The Latin Vulgate influenced all of the translation of the whole Bible.

[Capbook]

I think through your conclusion many translators who does not understand grammar looks ridiculous. You can find them below;
Please find the "a"

John 1:1

You don't understand Greek to English grammar, Capbook. It has been explained to you ad nauseum, yet you say the same ignorant things.

Even if you look at the plain Greek words, you can see that the two words for "God" are different.

Anyway, when the Greek text does not have an article, "a" must be inserted in the English text to make the meaning clear. You don't say, "Snoopy is dog"; you say "Snoopy is a dog. Because the second "god" does not have the article "the," it is known that it is not "the" God. THE God has the article. The second god does not.

Most versions follow after the King James Version and don't question it for some reason. There are some translators that do question the KJV, one of which is the James Moffatt Translation. He says: "and the Word was divine," meaning "of God, from God, or like God; sacred; more than humanly excellent." (Illustrated Oxford Dictionary. It does not mean that the divine Person is God.

The Emphatic Diaglott is another version that sees the necessity of inserting a "a" where there is no article in the Greek.

What I posted are translations. When you cannot face the many translations, attack the one who post? That's ad hominem.
There are just many credentialed translators that does not conform to your opinion.
I have some resources that does not follow the KJV, the ABP, Wescott & Hort text critical Translations and others but why not one of them follow your said, grammar rules?

Excuse me, how have I "attacked" you?

There are translators who do not conform to your opinion, as well. I have posted a reasonable view of this subject above. It has been said, concerning the difficulty with the translation of John 1:1: "The culprit appears to be the King James translators. These translators were much more familiar and comfortable with the Latin Vulgate than they were with the Greek New Testament. They were used to understanding passages based on reading them in Latin, and this worked its way into their reading of the same passages in Greek. Latin has no articles, either definite or indefinite. So the definite noun 'God' and the indefinite noun 'god' look precisely the same in Latin, and in John 1:1,2 one would see three occurrences of what appeared to be the same word, rather than two distinct forms used in Greek.

"Whether a Latin noun is definite or indefinite is determined solely by context, and that means it is open to interpretation. The interpretation of John 1:1,2 that is now found in most English translations was well entrenched in the thinking of the King James translators based on a millennium of reading only in Latin, and overpowered their close attention to the more subtle wording of the Greek.

"After the fact--after the King James translation was the dominant version and etched in the minds of English-speaking Bible readers--various arguments were put forward to support the KJV translation of John 1:1c as 'the Word was God,' and to justify its repetition in more recent, and presumably more accurate translations. But none of these arguments withstands close scrutiny."

Truth in Translation by Jason BeDuhn, page 116.

Do I post ignorant things? I mostly post Bible text and translations.

Yes, KJV mostly followed Textus Receptus, that translates John 1:1 as "the Word was God".
And those English translation that follows Codex Vaticanus even translates "and God was the Word"
NETS follows the Codex Sinaiticus and translates, "the Word was fully God".
We can't blame KJV and etc, what their translation are, are confirmed by other sources that the Word (Jesus) is God.

The New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) is an English translation that follows the Codex Sinaiticus. The Codex Sinaiticus is a Greek manuscript that contains the earliest known complete copy of the Christian New Testament.
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+en ... e&ie=UTF-8

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.(New English Translation)

You apparently did not read my post above where I explained that the translators of the KJV relied on the Latin Vulgate which has no punctuation or capital and lower case letters or definite or indefinite words and reads like the "gods" in John 1:1 are all the same, which they are not even according to the Greek.

The NET takes license with the verse, adding more words than are actually there.

KJV did not follow single edition, they incorporated readings from multiple editions of the Textus Receptus, Complutension Polyglot and Latin Vulgate.
And some English translation that follows Codex Vaticanus even translates "and God was the Word"
NETS follows the Codex Sinaiticus and translates, "the Word was fully God".
We can't blame KJV and etc, what their translation are, are confirmed by other sources that the Word (Jesus) is God.


The translators of the King James Version (KJV) had utilized. The translators of the King James Version did not rely on a single edition of the Textus Receptus but instead they incorporated readings from multiple editions of the Textus Receptus, including those by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza. Additionally, they consulted the Complutensian Polyglot and the Latin Vulgate itself.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Re ... e%20itself.

Yes, they consulted the Latin Vulgate itself which had no punctuation, no upper or lower case letters, no definite or indefinite words and didn't make a distinction between "the god" of John 1:1a and b and "god" of John 1:1c. They are not the same, but they look that way if you consult the Latin Vulgate.

If you visit Wikipedia, KJV's textual basis are;
OT: Masoretic Text, Septuagint and Vulgate, while in
NT: Textus Receptus.
That would mean that they did not consult Latin Vulgate in term of John 1:1. Please find link below;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

I don't think that is true. The Latin Vulgate influenced all of the translation of the whole Bible.

I've always noticed that you reply with your opinion only. Dig a little deeper. No proof?
Mine provided with links.

[onewithhim]

You don't understand Greek to English grammar, Capbook. It has been explained to you ad nauseum, yet you say the same ignorant things.

Even if you look at the plain Greek words, you can see that the two words for "God" are different.

Anyway, when the Greek text does not have an article, "a" must be inserted in the English text to make the meaning clear. You don't say, "Snoopy is dog"; you say "Snoopy is a dog. Because the second "god" does not have the article "the," it is known that it is not "the" God. THE God has the article. The second god does not.

Most versions follow after the King James Version and don't question it for some reason. There are some translators that do question the KJV, one of which is the James Moffatt Translation. He says: "and the Word was divine," meaning "of God, from God, or like God; sacred; more than humanly excellent." (Illustrated Oxford Dictionary. It does not mean that the divine Person is God.

The Emphatic Diaglott is another version that sees the necessity of inserting a "a" where there is no article in the Greek.

What I posted are translations. When you cannot face the many translations, attack the one who post? That's ad hominem.
There are just many credentialed translators that does not conform to your opinion.
I have some resources that does not follow the KJV, the ABP, Wescott & Hort text critical Translations and others but why not one of them follow your said, grammar rules?

Excuse me, how have I "attacked" you?

There are translators who do not conform to your opinion, as well. I have posted a reasonable view of this subject above. It has been said, concerning the difficulty with the translation of John 1:1: "The culprit appears to be the King James translators. These translators were much more familiar and comfortable with the Latin Vulgate than they were with the Greek New Testament. They were used to understanding passages based on reading them in Latin, and this worked its way into their reading of the same passages in Greek. Latin has no articles, either definite or indefinite. So the definite noun 'God' and the indefinite noun 'god' look precisely the same in Latin, and in John 1:1,2 one would see three occurrences of what appeared to be the same word, rather than two distinct forms used in Greek.

"Whether a Latin noun is definite or indefinite is determined solely by context, and that means it is open to interpretation. The interpretation of John 1:1,2 that is now found in most English translations was well entrenched in the thinking of the King James translators based on a millennium of reading only in Latin, and overpowered their close attention to the more subtle wording of the Greek.

"After the fact--after the King James translation was the dominant version and etched in the minds of English-speaking Bible readers--various arguments were put forward to support the KJV translation of John 1:1c as 'the Word was God,' and to justify its repetition in more recent, and presumably more accurate translations. But none of these arguments withstands close scrutiny."

Truth in Translation by Jason BeDuhn, page 116.

Do I post ignorant things? I mostly post Bible text and translations.

Yes, KJV mostly followed Textus Receptus, that translates John 1:1 as "the Word was God".
And those English translation that follows Codex Vaticanus even translates "and God was the Word"
NETS follows the Codex Sinaiticus and translates, "the Word was fully God".
We can't blame KJV and etc, what their translation are, are confirmed by other sources that the Word (Jesus) is God.

The New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) is an English translation that follows the Codex Sinaiticus. The Codex Sinaiticus is a Greek manuscript that contains the earliest known complete copy of the Christian New Testament.
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+en ... e&ie=UTF-8

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.(New English Translation)

You apparently did not read my post above where I explained that the translators of the KJV relied on the Latin Vulgate which has no punctuation or capital and lower case letters or definite or indefinite words and reads like the "gods" in John 1:1 are all the same, which they are not even according to the Greek.

The NET takes license with the verse, adding more words than are actually there.

KJV did not follow single edition, they incorporated readings from multiple editions of the Textus Receptus, Complutension Polyglot and Latin Vulgate.
And some English translation that follows Codex Vaticanus even translates "and God was the Word"
NETS follows the Codex Sinaiticus and translates, "the Word was fully God".
We can't blame KJV and etc, what their translation are, are confirmed by other sources that the Word (Jesus) is God.


The translators of the King James Version (KJV) had utilized. The translators of the King James Version did not rely on a single edition of the Textus Receptus but instead they incorporated readings from multiple editions of the Textus Receptus, including those by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza. Additionally, they consulted the Complutensian Polyglot and the Latin Vulgate itself.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Re ... e%20itself.

Yes, they consulted the Latin Vulgate itself which had no punctuation, no upper or lower case letters, no definite or indefinite words and didn't make a distinction between "the god" of John 1:1a and b and "god" of John 1:1c. They are not the same, but they look that way if you consult the Latin Vulgate.

If you visit Wikipedia, KJV's textual basis are;
OT: Masoretic Text, Septuagint and Vulgate, while in
NT: Textus Receptus.
That would mean that they did not consult Latin Vulgate in term of John 1:1. Please find link below;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

I don't think that is true. The Latin Vulgate influenced all of the translation of the whole Bible.

I've always noticed that you reply with your opinion only. Dig a little deeper. No proof?
Mine provided with links.

I try to REASON a lot with you, as God admonished us to do. "Come and let us REASON together..." (Isaiah 1:18, KJV) Are you able to reason on your own? Can we really compare your reasoning with mine? That would be nice. (And I do not reply with "my opinion only." I most always bring attention to a particular scripture.) You must dig a little deeper and not rely so much on other peoples' opinions.

[Capbook]

What I posted are translations. When you cannot face the many translations, attack the one who post? That's ad hominem.
There are just many credentialed translators that does not conform to your opinion.
I have some resources that does not follow the KJV, the ABP, Wescott & Hort text critical Translations and others but why not one of them follow your said, grammar rules?

Excuse me, how have I "attacked" you?

There are translators who do not conform to your opinion, as well. I have posted a reasonable view of this subject above. It has been said, concerning the difficulty with the translation of John 1:1: "The culprit appears to be the King James translators. These translators were much more familiar and comfortable with the Latin Vulgate than they were with the Greek New Testament. They were used to understanding passages based on reading them in Latin, and this worked its way into their reading of the same passages in Greek. Latin has no articles, either definite or indefinite. So the definite noun 'God' and the indefinite noun 'god' look precisely the same in Latin, and in John 1:1,2 one would see three occurrences of what appeared to be the same word, rather than two distinct forms used in Greek.

"Whether a Latin noun is definite or indefinite is determined solely by context, and that means it is open to interpretation. The interpretation of John 1:1,2 that is now found in most English translations was well entrenched in the thinking of the King James translators based on a millennium of reading only in Latin, and overpowered their close attention to the more subtle wording of the Greek.

"After the fact--after the King James translation was the dominant version and etched in the minds of English-speaking Bible readers--various arguments were put forward to support the KJV translation of John 1:1c as 'the Word was God,' and to justify its repetition in more recent, and presumably more accurate translations. But none of these arguments withstands close scrutiny."

Truth in Translation by Jason BeDuhn, page 116.

Do I post ignorant things? I mostly post Bible text and translations.

Yes, KJV mostly followed Textus Receptus, that translates John 1:1 as "the Word was God".
And those English translation that follows Codex Vaticanus even translates "and God was the Word"
NETS follows the Codex Sinaiticus and translates, "the Word was fully God".
We can't blame KJV and etc, what their translation are, are confirmed by other sources that the Word (Jesus) is God.

The New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) is an English translation that follows the Codex Sinaiticus. The Codex Sinaiticus is a Greek manuscript that contains the earliest known complete copy of the Christian New Testament.
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+en ... e&ie=UTF-8

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.(New English Translation)

You apparently did not read my post above where I explained that the translators of the KJV relied on the Latin Vulgate which has no punctuation or capital and lower case letters or definite or indefinite words and reads like the "gods" in John 1:1 are all the same, which they are not even according to the Greek.

The NET takes license with the verse, adding more words than are actually there.

KJV did not follow single edition, they incorporated readings from multiple editions of the Textus Receptus, Complutension Polyglot and Latin Vulgate.
And some English translation that follows Codex Vaticanus even translates "and God was the Word"
NETS follows the Codex Sinaiticus and translates, "the Word was fully God".
We can't blame KJV and etc, what their translation are, are confirmed by other sources that the Word (Jesus) is God.


The translators of the King James Version (KJV) had utilized. The translators of the King James Version did not rely on a single edition of the Textus Receptus but instead they incorporated readings from multiple editions of the Textus Receptus, including those by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza. Additionally, they consulted the Complutensian Polyglot and the Latin Vulgate itself.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Re ... e%20itself.

Yes, they consulted the Latin Vulgate itself which had no punctuation, no upper or lower case letters, no definite or indefinite words and didn't make a distinction between "the god" of John 1:1a and b and "god" of John 1:1c. They are not the same, but they look that way if you consult the Latin Vulgate.

If you visit Wikipedia, KJV's textual basis are;
OT: Masoretic Text, Septuagint and Vulgate, while in
NT: Textus Receptus.
That would mean that they did not consult Latin Vulgate in term of John 1:1. Please find link below;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

I don't think that is true. The Latin Vulgate influenced all of the translation of the whole Bible.

I've always noticed that you reply with your opinion only. Dig a little deeper. No proof?
Mine provided with links.

I try to REASON a lot with you, as God admonished us to do. "Come and let us REASON together..." (Isaiah 1:18, KJV) Are you able to reason on your own? Can we really compare your reasoning with mine? That would be nice. (And I do not reply with "my opinion only." I most always bring attention to a particular scripture.) You must dig a little deeper and not rely so much on other peoples' opinions.

I reasoned and provide proof and link, the issue here is about KJV sources of Biblical text basis, you presumed from Latin Vulgate but Wikipedia provide list that KJV's OT is from Masoretic Text, Septuaging and Vulgate.
And NT is from Textus Receptus, which include John 1:1.