...and the word was a God by William McGirr 1854
Inasmuch as Trinitarians lay great stress upon [John 1:1], to prove the second person in their triune God, which, for the information of my fellow citizens generally who do not understand the Greek language, I will give the original in Greek, with its various definitions in English, taken from the Rev. John Groves' Greek and English Dictionary, viz: "Logos"—a word, speech, language, eloquence, the word, divine word, Christ, an oration, discourse, a saying, proverb, fame, report, rumor, talk, thought, opinion, conception, reflection, reason, understanding, sense, proportion, analogy, account, cause, a computation, reckoning, a matter, affair, point, purpose, an appearance, show, pretence, a volume, book, treatise, a narrative, story, fable, &c.
Now, gentlemen, you may observe that this word has upwards of forty different meanings in English. Supposing I was to translate the first verse of John's Gospel: In the beginning was language, and the language was with God, and the language was God. Again: In the beginning was a [the] report, and the report was with God, and the report was God. Again: In the beginning was a [the] book, and the book was with God, and the book was God. Again: In the beginning was a [the] fable, and the fable was with God, and the fable was God. And so of all the rest of the definitions.
Now this would almost appear to make a confusion of language. I presume, for any person to translate the first verse of John's Gospel: In the beginning was a book or a fable, and the book or fable was with God, and the book or fable was God; be would be viewed by the mass of mankind as insane, commote or delirious. Notwithstanding it would be a good translation. Who would presume to say, that a book or a fable is God?
This appears to me to be a poor foundation to build upon to prove the doctrine of a Trinity. These things I have introduced in order to show the impropriety of laying too much stress upon the meaning of words, translated from a dead language. I may also observe that Dr, Campbell, though a Trinitarian, gives it as his opinion, that either speech, or reason, would be the most proper. Again: I will make one remark upon our translators, in order to show how prejudice can sway the judgment. We must bear in mind that the first definition is "a word." It would then read: In the beginning was a word, and the word was with God, and the word was a God. But mark how they leave the a out, but how carefully they attach it to Moses: "I have made thee a God to Pharaoh." And why so? Because they abhorred the idea of deifying Moses, but they wanted to deify Jesus, to make him the second person of their triune God. So much for poor human nature!
metatron3@gmail.com
Inasmuch as Trinitarians lay great stress upon [John 1:1], to prove the second person in their triune God, which, for the information of my fellow citizens generally who do not understand the Greek language, I will give the original in Greek, with its various definitions in English, taken from the Rev. John Groves' Greek and English Dictionary, viz: "Logos"—a word, speech, language, eloquence, the word, divine word, Christ, an oration, discourse, a saying, proverb, fame, report, rumor, talk, thought, opinion, conception, reflection, reason, understanding, sense, proportion, analogy, account, cause, a computation, reckoning, a matter, affair, point, purpose, an appearance, show, pretence, a volume, book, treatise, a narrative, story, fable, &c.
Now, gentlemen, you may observe that this word has upwards of forty different meanings in English. Supposing I was to translate the first verse of John's Gospel: In the beginning was language, and the language was with God, and the language was God. Again: In the beginning was a [the] report, and the report was with God, and the report was God. Again: In the beginning was a [the] book, and the book was with God, and the book was God. Again: In the beginning was a [the] fable, and the fable was with God, and the fable was God. And so of all the rest of the definitions.
Now this would almost appear to make a confusion of language. I presume, for any person to translate the first verse of John's Gospel: In the beginning was a book or a fable, and the book or fable was with God, and the book or fable was God; be would be viewed by the mass of mankind as insane, commote or delirious. Notwithstanding it would be a good translation. Who would presume to say, that a book or a fable is God?
This appears to me to be a poor foundation to build upon to prove the doctrine of a Trinity. These things I have introduced in order to show the impropriety of laying too much stress upon the meaning of words, translated from a dead language. I may also observe that Dr, Campbell, though a Trinitarian, gives it as his opinion, that either speech, or reason, would be the most proper. Again: I will make one remark upon our translators, in order to show how prejudice can sway the judgment. We must bear in mind that the first definition is "a word." It would then read: In the beginning was a word, and the word was with God, and the word was a God. But mark how they leave the a out, but how carefully they attach it to Moses: "I have made thee a God to Pharaoh." And why so? Because they abhorred the idea of deifying Moses, but they wanted to deify Jesus, to make him the second person of their triune God. So much for poor human nature!
metatron3@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment