Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. Verse Tool: show

John 1:1-18

Re: John 1:1-18

Postby backwoodsman » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:03 pm

Pierac wrote:
Michelle wrote:Well, you know how it goes when someone severely disappoints you.

That was a very poor suckup post...

No... it was a joke. Most of us here prefer to interact on friendly, lighthearted terms, even when we disagree. If you choose to stick around, you'll find that a lot more folks will interact with you a lot more if you try to fit in with that a little better (...because they won't have written you off as a self-righteous, argumentative crackpot, which is how you're coming across now).

Alternatively, it's easy to find Christian forums where the very in-your-face, confrontational style you seem to prefer is the norm. Maybe you'd find one of those more to your liking.

Paidion, next time give the Boston Terrier a little of the hamburger. Remember his teeth are somewhat larger than yours, and he looks like he may be considering bringing them into play.
User avatar
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: John 1:1-18

Postby steve7150 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:10 pm


"the truth" for you is based on your experience. Do you think it's possible that Paidion or someone else had a different experience? Yes the orthodox churches believe in the trinity but is this an etched in stone doctrine that can't be discussed with any of their Pastor's?
I don't know when you were kicked out but i think nowadays believers in general are more open minded and inquisitive then they ever have been.
Posts: 2496
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: John 1:1-18

Postby Michelle » Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:14 pm

Pierac, I apologize for making light of your post directed toward Paidion. It was not my place to insert myself onto the conversation. I thought that perhaps you were being hyperbolically humorous and thought I'd join in, therefore, I didn't think about your feelings before I posted. I was wrong.

Pierac wrote:
Do you really know how it goes…

Well, yeah, I'm a mother. I know how it goes when someone severely disappoints you.

or do you follow the traditions of men?

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to the doctrine of the Trinity?

Like sucking up to the one who teaches you the most? (Not being mean but making an observation)


So check yourself Michelle... Stop being a follower and start leading! You have the knowledge and truth on your own.

I have a couple of problems with that imperative. Want to discuss it??

That was a very poor suckup post...

That's a relief since it wasn't intended to be a suckup post.
User avatar
Posts: 845
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:16 pm

Re: John 1:1-18

Postby steve » Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:00 am


Your anger is misdirected here. You clearly feel that you have been wounded by some prior experience with Christians who did not give you what you would regard as a fair hearing. Now your bitterness spills out toward others who have done you no wrong whatsoever.

Also, you may not have noticed that no one at this thread has defended the trinity doctrine (though many of us believe it). This thread is not about that doctrine. It began with a post inquiring about the grammatical analysis of a single passage. Neither the original post, nor any of the responses, introduced a defense of the trinity. Apparently due to your obsession with condemning that doctrine, you simply derailed the thread to discuss what seems to be a theological hobbyhorse.

You tell us that we will not find trinitarian churches that tolerate people, like you, who disagree. This has not been the universal experience of all, though it apparently has been your experience. However, you might consider that what they find intolerable about you is not so much your doctrine as your spirit. It is hard to imagine any mature group of Christ-loving people finding such bitter interaction tolerable in their group for very long.

As Backwoodsman said (above) there are forums galore online that cater to contentious people who can not restrain their anger. I am guessing you are lonely in your beliefs, and crave interaction. I suggest that you set as your goal for such interaction the standard set out by Paul:

Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. Eph.4:29

Before responding to people (especially if your response is intended as a corrective) you would do well to discover what they believe. You began by attacking Paidion as a "trinitarian," which he is not. You made several reference to "your own creeds." I don't know if anyone at this forum follows any creeds, but if they do, they have kept them out of all theological discussions here, and I doubt that many (if any at all) who post here care very much about creeds.

I have not addressed you until this point because I wanted to hear you long enough to discern what it is you believe and where you are coming from. If you had followed the same cautious policy, you would have written far fewer words (and no exclamation marks)—and you would have used your keystrokes to better purpose.
User avatar
Posts: 3234
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: John 1:1-18

Postby Pierac » Tue Feb 25, 2014 4:22 pm

Why do you all assume anger on my part? I have only been offering observations not just on my part... but including over 100 plus non-Trinitarians with whom I have had the experience to post with over the last several years. To say that one of you was accepted with open arms shows me that church would considered that congregation as rogue or even labeled as an cult by orthodox Christianity. I have hundreds of stories countering your one, yet you assume bitterness on my part for being rejected... Would you accuse the other Paul in scripture for the same? I think not!

I am way past caring what men think... this should be obvious from my post! :roll: But that does not mean I have anger, rudeness or contempt in my heart. I see what I see, just like you. What... you think you have a choice in your beliefs? :shock:

Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 10:43 pm

Re: John 1:1-18

Postby darinhouston » Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:42 pm

Paidion wrote:Okay, I'll make an attempt. You may find this "traditional" in some respects (depending upon what you mean by the word). If you mean "early Christian tradition", then I suppose it is very traditional. The translation is my own.
Verse 1:
In the Beginning [of time] was the Expression [of GOD]

*** and so on... ***

I read the below excerpt from "Truth in Translation, by Jason David BeDuhn, and thought of this translation Paidion did.

Greek has only a definite article, like our the; it does not have an indefinite article, like our a or an. So, generally speaking, a Greek definite noun will have a form of the definite article (ho), which will become "the" in English. A Greek indefinite noun will appear without the definite article, and will be properly rendered in English with "a" or "an." We are not "adding a word" when we translate Greek nouns that do not have the definite article as English nouns with the indefinite article. We are simply obeying the rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but may say "Snoopy is a dog." For example, in John 1:1c, the clause we are investigating, ho logos is "the word," as all translations accurately have it. If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as "a word."

Similarly, when we have a form of ho theos, as we do in John 1:1b and 1:2, we are dealing with a definite noun that we would initially ("lexically") translate as "the god"; but if it is written simply theos, as it is in John 1:1c, it is an indefinite noun that would normally be translated as "a god." To complete our translation into English, we need to take into consideration the fact that English has both a common noun "god" and a proper noun "God." We use the proper noun "God" like a name, without either a definite or indefinite article, even though a name is a definite noun. As a definite noun, "God" corresponds to the Greek ho theos (lexically "the god"), which also is used often as the proper noun "God" in both the New Testament and other Greek literature from the same time. So in John 1:1b and 1:2 it is perfectly accurate to drop the "the" from "god" and say that the Word was "with God" (literally "with the god"). But what about the indefinite theos in John 1:1c? This does not correspond to the English definite proper noun "God," but to the indefinite noun "a god."

In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean "a god."


If John had wanted to say "the Word was God," as so many English translation have it, he could have very easily done so by simply adding the definite article "the" (ho) to the word "god" (theos), making it "the god" and therefore "God." (pp. 114-116)


This brings us back to John 1:1. [John Harner, in his article, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," 1973, pp. 85 and 87] suggests that John was not interested in definiteness or indefiniteness, but in character and quality.[*] . . . I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded a definite. . . . So if the meaning of "the Word was a god," or "the Word was a divine being" is that the Word belongs to the category of divine beings, then we could translate the phrase as "the Word was divine." The meaning is the same in either case, and is summed up well by Harner as "ho logos...had the nature of theos" (Harner, page 87). (pp. 123-124)

[*] Harner further states "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.' This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos no less than ho theos had the nature of theos." (Harner, Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns:, p. 87)


Bias has shaped most of these translations much more than has accurate attention to the wording of the Bible. The NWT translation of John 1:1 is superior to that of the other eight translation we are comparing. I do not think it is the best possible translation for a modern English reader; but at least it breaks with the KJV tradition followed by all the others, and it does so in the right direction by paying attention to how Greek grammar and syntax actually work. No translation of John 1:1 that I can imagine is going to be perfectly clear and obvious in its meaning. John is subtle, and we do him no service by reducing his subtlety to crude simplicities. All that we can ask is that a translation be an accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation. Only the NWT achieves this, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader. The other translations cut off the exploration of the verse's meaning before it has even begun. (p. 133)
User avatar
Posts: 2044
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am


Return to The Trinity

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest