Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: wheaton!kroth@uunet.uu.net (Ken Roth) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: John 1:1 Message-ID: Date: 9 Apr 91 07:02:15 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 113 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Well, I hardly know where to start! This is a confusing argument, and I am sure that I am stepping in in the middle, but here goes. I am deleting a good part of it because it does not all apply to what I am going to discuss, which is greek. >>While I'm just learning Greek, I have done considerable homework on the >>way in which some of the key verses are translated. A verse that >>matches the stucture of the Greek grammar of John 1:1 is John 1:6. If >>you'll look in the NWT, you'll find it reads: >>"There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of God." >>Now based upon the rule that the Witnesses have been propounding as the >>way in which to come up with "... and the Word was a god" should cause >>this passage to read: >>"There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of a god." >>Doesn't make much sense, does it? The verse is talking about *the* God. While I agree with what you are trying to say, this is not a good way to do it. The structure is not similar, it just seems to be. This reason that the article is missing has nothing to do with 'reasoning' it away. Here is the text (Transliterated, I wish I had greek fonts8-): 'En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos' (Some of these are long and some are short vowels. Does anyone have any idea how to show that fact on a terminal?) A direct translation is as such (And I mean DIRECT, it makes only passable sense). In beginning was the word, and the word was with the god, and god was the word. Ok, ok, you are saying 'Huh? Why for the 'the god' in the second part? Well, it was something of a custom in the OLLLLLDEN days to say 'the' before a proper noun. Jesus is often 'the' Jesus. But then, is not the second time 'god' is used meaning something else? Well, here is a play-by-play of the text. 'En arche en ho logos' - (the first and second 'en' are really different, you know, one is long, one short - sorry8-). En = in, arche = beginning (there is only one beginning, so the 'the' is not needed, it is implied), en = was, ho = the, and logos = word (among other things). Translated = In the beginning was the word. 'kai ho logos en pros ton theon' - (this 'en' is like the second one above) kai = and (also, but, even), ho = the, logos = word, en = was, pros = with, ton = the, theon = god. Translated = and the word was with God. (see above for why the 'the' disappears). 'kai theos en ho logos' - ( the construction gets a little harder here, hold on to your hats8-), kai = and, theos = god (nominative case, this is important), en = was, ho - the, logos = word. Translated = and the word was God. Ok, I know the last part is the problem, so here is an attempt to make sense. In greek, the use of the forms of 'to be' change things a bit. The use of this verb causes the author to put nominative case nouns on BOTH sides of the verb. When you put the noun on the right side of the verb, you do not put the 'the' in. That is just the way it is constructed, no good explanations here8-) I wish I could tell you why, but it just is that way. You put it in when you specifically want to say 'THE' something, like 'the word' in the first part, whici is why we cap. it. >>Essentially, the Society says that because the Greek noun theos has the >>definite article preceding it (ho theos) it is clearly speaking of >>Jehovah God. However, in John 20:28 we have the same construction of ho >>theos in Thomas' words, which literally rendered are: "The Lord of me >>and the God [ho theos] of me!" Does this mean Jesus is Jehovah!? Ok, a bit more greek...(This is great practise for class8-). The text sez: 'ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou' (MOOOOOOOO8-) (It is a quote, the first 'ho' is cap.) Literal translation - the lord of me and the god of me Of course, we would say - 'My Lord and my God' What this all means, was that he was calling Jesus BOTH Lord and God. Oh by the way, it DOES mean that Jesus is Yahweh, just like he claimed (couldn't STAND not throwing that in somewhere8-) [Several lines deleted - WHAT where you 2 trying to say - It would have helped to be in the start of this discussion8-] Well, I jumped into a discussion between Gene and Boris. I hope I have not offended them by doing so. I just wanted to throw in a play-by-play translation of the texts in question, so as to clarify things. I am NOT a Jehovah's Witness, and you can probably tell from this post, but I try not to be stinging in my statements. Sometimes I do overstep the bounds of good discussion rules, and I am sorry if I have in this post or in others. But in this case, the NWT is just wrong. There are no ways around it. You cannot translate scripture by just picking up a greek dictionary and going at it. It is a very complex language (but not if you hear Dr. Hawthorne speak about it - 'Greek is regular and fun.' Yeah, right8-). But I do love the language. Someday I hope to be able to read it without effort, and then teach like Dr. Ericson does, from the greek. Remember, the Bible was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, NOT english, german, polish, or swahili. Oh yeah, you don't know who these people are, do you? Sorry.... Anyway, I hope this has been useful for those wrestling with the text, like I once had to. Now, for the all the other verses..... In Christ, Ken :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: kroth@wheaton.uucp | uunet!tellab5!wheaton!kroth || They call me Gryfalia "We believe, we believe, 'cause we felt it burning in our hearts"--77's "He is no fool who loses what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."