Urban

Please give me your full logical reasoning on the matter.

I have asked a similar question before but I want more answers, so I have rephrased it together with some of the previous answers.

According to the King James Version the verse reads:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

A word by word translation of the same verse from the greek original goes as follows (without capitals to simplify):

"In beginning was the word, and the word was toward the god, and god was the word."

I see two differences in the greek original between the part the King James Version translates as "the Word was with God" and the part translated "the Word was God."

First, the Word always has the definite article, so does god in the first part, but it is lacking in the second. Koine does not use an indefinite article and are loose in its use of the definite, but since it is in the same sentence, and since John uses the definite article consistently with the word, it seems to indicate a different usage of the word god.

Second, the order in which the word and god has in the parts are switched. The first part put the word first and god after, the second part places god first and the word after. This could also indicate a different use of the word god.

Since the definite article is lacking, the translation, "a god was the word", would be in order, thus not identifying the Word, Jesus, with [the] God. If the definite article is to be added, it should be well supported by words, grammar and/or context.

To use beliefs in a doctrine taken from other places in the Bible is not a good support for a translation. It would then be done with a bias, and the verse can never be used to support the doctrine itself. (Since the support in it would be only the influence from the translators, and not the text.)

There are other places in the greek text with the same constellation of words that in the King James Version are translated with the indefinite article (John 4:19; John 6:70; John 8:44). Thus giving a grammatical support for not adding a definite article in John 1:1.

About the context, especially verse 3, were it is said "All things were made by him [the Word]; and without him was not any thing made that was made." To say that the Word was "a god", this verse would not contradict that. The verse then gives that the Word was the only thing created by God alone, then all creation was done with the help of the Word. That "all things" did not include himself would be understood without saying.

So, with this in mind, are there any argument to add the definite article, giving the rendering "the Word was God", and thus giving support for the trinity?

(I know this question could be seen as an attack (because of the many details), but it is not. This is the result of my research, if you have anything to add, I want to know.)

Thank you!

According to the King James Version the verse reads:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

A word by word translation of the same verse from the greek original goes as follows (without capitols to simplify):

"In beginning was the word, and the word was toward the god, and god was the word."

I see two differences in the greek original between the part the King James Version translates as "the Word was with God" and the part translated "the Word was God."

First, the word always has the definite article, so does god in the first part, but it is lacking in the second. Koine does not use an indefinite article and are loose in its use of the definite, but since it is in the same sentence, and since John uses the definite article consistently with the word, it seems to indicate a different usage of the word god.

Second, the order in which the word and god has in the parts are switched. The first part put the word first and god after, the second part places god first and the word after. This could also indicate a different use of the word god.

If John did not mean "the God" but "a god" the use of this verse to support the trinity would fall flat on its face.

I know this is a difficult question, since it involves koine grammar, but maybe I am lucky and there is a koine scholar online.

Or, several of you may have access to reference material that could give more information on this issue.

So, what would be the arguments to translate the verse as the King James Version, or the arguments to translate it as "the Word was a god.", how would you reason.

Thank you!

John 1:1 reads:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - King James Version

John 1:18 reads:

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." - King James Version

If the Word, or the Son as it refers to, was God. How can it be that no man has ever seen God, when Jesus was on earth and a great deal of people saw him.

If your explanation is that Jesus left his godly role in heaven while on earth, do you also reason that Jesus stopped being God as long as he was on earth?

Scriptural reference is good, but please do not answer only with other scriptures, without any explanation on these verses that is.

Thank you!

Or possibly the inaccuracy, depended on your standpoint.

I use King James Version as well as others. Since I have seen some comments about the version I have become curious to find out more profoundly how others fell about it, both as a translation to be used in general and in its accuracy in translation.

Full answers, not unsubstantiated short comments, will be appreciated.

Thank you!

My question is how you by these scriptures would explain the identity of the involved.

But not only to one of the scriptures or another scripture alone. Please give an answer based on both verses.

John 8: 58 reads:

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

John 8:54 reads:

"Jesus answered , If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God"

(quotes according to King James Version)

Thank You!

John 20:27 reads:"Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing."

1 Corinthians 15:50 reads:"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

Scriptures according to King James Version

Jesus was to inherit the kingdom of God (Luke 22: 28-30) together with his disciples. But did Jesus have a body of flesh after his resurrection? If he had, how could he inherit the kingdom?

Please refrain from the answer that this is a contradiction. I have no doubt many would say so.

Thank you

I do have a dictionary, but that shows only one definition.

I would like to know your definition. Your own personally or the dictionary you use (please name the dictionary), maybe even the meaning of an equivalent word in another language and it's usage (explained in english, please).

Maybe you can give some examples of religions or organizations that fits with the meaning and/or usage.

Thank you