Charles Voysey on John 10:33 (Makest Thyself a god)

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

From: An Examination of Canon Liddon's Bampton Lectures 1871

They answered 'for a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because thou, being a man, makest thyself a god' (QEOS; without the Article. Observe the use of the Article with QEOS in the immediate context, and compare its use in v. 18). The sense would perhaps be more accurately conveyed to an English ear, by, because thou, being human, makest thyself Superhuman or Divine. Certainly the Jews did not mean that Jesus affirmed Himself to be individually, in His own person, the Almighty One. They did not, even with their stimulated insight, detect His saying to be in effect; 'I am Jehovah, the God of Israel.' Such depth of penetration was a stage in the unfolding of Christian discernment. "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods? If he called them gods unto whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be made void), say ye of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent unto the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am a Son of God?"

Psalm Ixxxii. has in verse 1, God judgeth among gods; in verse 6, I said ye are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High (comp. Luke i. 32). The Septuagint Version, of course, marks the distinction between the God and gods, by prefixing and omitting the Article. The reasoning, such as it is, in connection with the quotation ascribed to our Lord, seemingly turns upon the fact that gods are synonymous with sons of the Most High, and that the words cited would inevitably recall to Jewish minds the more apposite words left uncited. If unjust judges could be called gods and sons of the Highest, He whom the Father had consecrated and sent, could not justly incur the imputation of blasphemy by calling Himself a son of God. The reasoning implies that Christ would not have blasphemed had He called Himself QEOS, since in official dignity and mission He was superior to those who were in Scripture called QEOI. He did not, however, employ that title, but the humbler and more customary designation, son of God, which could then only be equivalent to QEOS;, when, as in the instance quoted, the appellation was applied in some lower, relative, representative sense.

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

The Precarious Origin of the Christmas Festival

My Kindle book, The Dark History of Christmas, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only $1.99

 Visit here for a description

How Christmas Grew, article in The Christian Work and the Evangelist, Volume 81, Dec 15 1906

We are heirs of all the ages, and in no way are we more so than in our Christmas celebration. Though we celebrate it as a Christian festival, the festivities that mark it are part of the universal history of the race. In pagan Rome and Greece, in the days of Teutonic barbarians, and in the distant times of ancient Egyptian civilization, in the infancy of the race East and West, North and South, the period of the winter solstice was a time of rejoicing and festivity. It is good to think that Christmas to-day expresses the kindest and best in all the celebrations which preceded it and from which it sprang. The spirit of kindliness and good cheer, with the lapse of the ages, has been freed of the coarseness that once attended it. The strictest Puritan of to-day welcomes the "quips and cranks and wreathed smiles" of the season, and joviality and merry-making are the order of the day at Christmas banquets—a joviality sanctified and made glorious by good will to all men.

The holly and mistletoe of Christmas are a survival of ancient Druidical worship, the Christmas carol is a new birth, purified and exalted, of the hymners of the Roman saturnalia, the Christmas banquet itself is a reminiscence of the feasts in honor of ancient gods and goddesses, when, as Cato said of corresponding feasts in imperial Rome, commemorating the birth of Cybele, the prospect that drew one thither was "not so much the pleasure of eating and of drinking as that of finding oneself among his friends, and of conversing with them." Nay; the very idea of the Child God, which gives its meaning to the Feast of Nativity, was prefigured and foretold not only in the words of sybil, seer, and prophet, but in the infant gods of the Greek, the Egyptian, the Hindoo, and the Buddhist, which in various ways showed the rude attempt of the earlier races to grasp the idea of a perfect human child who is also God.

Great as Christmas is, however, nobody knows anything definite about its origin; nobody knows who first celebrated it, nor when, nor where, nor how. And no one even knows whether December 25 is, indeed, the right anniversary of Christ's nativity. This anomaly is due to the habit of the early Christians of considering the celebration of birthdays as heathenish. The birthday of Jesus himself was not excepted. But after the triumph of Christianity the prejudice died out, and the date of the birth of Christ became a matter of ecclesiastical investigation. St. John Chrysostom, writing in 386 A.D., says that St. Cyril, at the request of Julius (Bishop or Pope of Rome from 337 to 352), made a careful inquiry as to the exact date. Cyril reported that the Western churches had for a long time held it to be December 25. It is true that other Christian communities preferred other dates. In many Eastern churches the 6th of January had been fixed on as the anniversary of Christ's spiritual birth; that is, his baptism with the Holy Spirit; and this date was later held to be the anniversary of the visit of the Magi. Even to this day the Armenian church celebrates January 6, as Christmas. The Mormons believe that Christ was born in April.

Pope Julius, however, was so far satisfied with the report of Cyril that somewhere about the middle of the fourth century he established the festival at Rome on December 25. Before the end of that century that date was accepted by practically all the nations of Christendom. This acceptance was made easier by the fact that it is the date of the winter solstice—the turning point of the year, when winter, having reached its apogee, must begin to decline again towards spring, when, for unknown ages before the Christian era, pagan Europe, through all its tribes and nations, had been accustomed to celebrate its chief festival.

It was always the aim of the early church to reconcile heathen converts to the new faith by the adoption of all the more harmless features of their festivities and ceremonials. With Christmas the Church had a difficult task. Though it aimed to retain only the pagan forms, it found it could not restrain the pagan spirit. In spite of clerical protests and papal anathemas; in spite of the condemnation of the sane and the wise, Christmas in the early days often reproduced all the worst orgies, the debaucheries, and the indecencies of the Bacchanalia and the Saturnalia. Even the clergy were whirled into the vortex. A special celebration, called the Feast of Fools, was started, as learned doctors explained, with the purpose that "the folly which is natural to and born with us may exhale at least once a year." The intention of the new feast was excellent. But in practice the liberty thus granted quickly degenerated into license. The Council of Auxerre inquired into the matter. A Flemish divine rose at the council, and declared that the festival was an excellent thing and quite as acceptable to God as that of the Immaculate Conception. His like-minded brethren loudly applauded him. Then Gerson, the leading theologian of the day, made a counter-sensation by answering that "if all' the devils in hell had put their heads together to devise a feast that should utterly scandalize Christianity, they could not "have improved upon this one." If even among the clergy heathen traditions persisted in such force, what better could be expected from the laity? The wild revels, indeed, of the Christmas time in olden days almost stagger belief. Obscenity, drunkenness, blasphemy—there was pause at nothing.

But there is another side to the picture. In the coarser days of our ancestors riot and revelry did, to be sure, go hand in hand, but the revelry was of a vigorous, lusty and hearty sort unknown to these quieter times that have eliminated the riot. As we read of the great feats performed by these heroes of the tankard and the trencher, by these adepts in all out-door sports, the Gargantuan good nature of the season makes more impression on us than the cruelty, gluttony and drunkenness which often sullied it. A race of jolly giants must needs give and take hard blows. Of the glory of Merrie Christmas in Merrie Old England we have all read. Christmas in the old days began in a preliminary way on December 16, and it did not end until January 6, or Twelfth-Night. All this period was given up to holiday making. It was a democratic festival of merrymaking. The English couatry gentlemen of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries held open-house. With daybreak on Christmas morning the tenants and neighbors thronged into the hall. The nut-brown ale was broached; Blackjacks and Cheshire cheese, with the concomitants of toast and sugar and nutmeg, were plentifully distributed. The Hachin, or great sausage, had to be boiled at daybreak and, if it failed to be ready, two young men, taking the cook by the arm, ran her about the market-place until she was ashamed of her laziness. After early church the gentlemen returned to breakfast on brawn and mustard and malmsey. The boar's head was brought in, and the whole company settled down for the pleasure of the day, which the Puritan Prynne later described as "drinking, roaring, healthing, dicing, carding, dancing, masques and stage plays . . . which Turks and Infidels would abhor to practice."

Puritanism threatened the very existence of Christmas, and brought over with it in the Mayflower the anti-Christmas feeling to New England. Even so early as 1621 Governor Bradford was called upon to rebuke "certain lusty yonge men," who had just come over in the ship Fortune. "On ye day called Christmas day," William Bradford writes, "ye Gov'r. caled them out to worke (as was used), but ye most of this new company excused themselves and said it went against their consciences to worke on ye day. So ye Gov'r. tould them that if they made it mater of conscience, he would spare them till they were better informed. So he led away ye rest, and left them; but when they came home at noone from their worke, he found them in ye streete at play, openly; some pitching ye barr, and some at stoole-ball, and such like sports. So he went to them and tooke away their implements, and tould them that it was against his conscience that they should play and others worke. If they made ye keeping of it matter of devotion, let them kepe their houses, but ther should be no gameing or revelling in ye streets. Since which time nothing hath been atempted that way, at least openly."

In England the feeling against Christmas culminated in 1643, when the Roundhead Parliament abolished the observance of saints' days and "the three grand festivals" of Christmas, Easter and Whitsuntide," any law, statute, custom, constitution or canon to the contrary in any wise nothwithstanding." King Charles protested in vain. In London, however, there was an alarming disposition to observe Christmas. The mob attacked the tradesmen who, by opening their shops, flouted the holiday. In several counties disorder was threatened; but Parliament took strong measures, and in the twelve years during which the great festivals were discountenanced there was no further disturbance, and the observance of Christmas as a general holiday was discontinued.

The General Court of Massachusetts, following the example of Parliament in 1659, enacted that "anybody who is found observing, by abstinence from labor, feasting, or any other way, any such day as Christmas day, shall pay for every such offence five shillings." Christmas was restored to England with royalty; in Massachusetts the anti-Christmas statute was repealed in 1681.

Many stories are told to account for the use of the Christmas tree. One of the best is the legend of St. Boniface. About a swelling hillock, crowned with the great "Thunder Oak," sacred to the pagan god Thor, had gathered one wintry night long ago a host of white-clad heathen warriors. With their women and children they faced a pagan altar. In the light of a great fire near the altar stood a hoary High Priest, beside a kneeling child, who was doomed to die by the blow of the hammer, a sacrifice to Thor, the Hammerer. Just as the blow was falling the holy Boniface appeared, turned the hammer aside with his cross, rescued the boy, told the simple story of Jesus, who does not desire the sacrifice of human life, and felled the oak with mighty blows. Just behind the tree stood a young fir tree, pointing a green spire toward the stars. "Here," said the apostle, "is the living tree, with no stain of blood upon it, that shall be the sign of your new worship. See how it points to the sky. Let us call it the tree of the Christ-child. Take it up and carry it to the chieftain's hall, for this is the birth-night of the White Christ. You shall go no more into the shadows of the forest to keep your feasts with secret rites of shame. You shall keep them at home with laughter and song and rites of love."

As a regular institution the Christmas tree can be traced back only to the sixteenth century. During the Middle Ages it suddenly appeared at Strassburg. For two hundred years the fashion was maintained along the Rhine when, suddenly, at the beginning of the last century, it spread over all Germany, and fifty years later had conquered Christendom. It was Queen Victoria's marriage to a German prince that led to the introduction of the German custom into England. In America the German emigrant brought the tree with him and it was soon taken up by all classes.

The custom of giving gifts at Christmas came from the Roman Saturnalia. Christmas candles come from a variety of sources, among which the Hebrew Feast of Lights has been suggested. The Christmas card is a new element, originating in England some sixty years ago. Santa Claus is the good Dutch Saint Nicholas visiting children on Christmas day instead of on his own birthday.

My Kindle book, The Dark History of Christmas, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only $1.99

 Visit here for a description

The Father is Greater Than I - Meizon and Kreitton

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

Question: Jesus says, "...the Father is greater than I am." (John 14:28) This refers to the Father having a greater position when Christ was on earth. He did not say that the Father is better than Him because they are equal in essence.

Reply: But the text does not say that this only refers to Christ when he was on earth. This is a 4th century interpretation read back into this verse. Jesus showed us how to use this same Greek word right in the next chapter, "Remember the word that I said unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord." A relationship between servant and his lord is one of rank, authority and superiority.
Is this the same for Jn 14:28? In the Grimm-Thayer Lexicon, it says of John 14:28 that MEIZON "is used of those who surpass others-either in nature and power, as God"p. 395
The same word is used at John 1:50. "Jesus said...thou shalt see greater things than these."
Then Jesus continues, "And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man." Is heaven not BETTER than anything we have yet seen?

I also detest the use of the word ESSENCE. This word is not in any of the literal Bibles that I use. The use of this word is philosophical speculation...it is not Biblical.

Ron Rhodes adds: Now, it is important that you emphasize the distinction between Greek words for greater (meizon) and better (kreitton). Jesus specifically said, "The Father is greater than I" not, "The Father is better than I." The word "greater" is used to point to the Father's greater position (in heaven), not a greater nature. Had the word "better" been used, however, this would indicate that the Father has a better nature than Jesus.
This distinction is made clear in Hebrews 1:4, where "better" is used in regard to Jesus' superiority over the angels. The word "better" in this verse indicates that Jesus is not just higher than the angels positionally; rather, He is higher than the angels in His very nature. Jesus is different (better) in kind and in nature from the angels.
This distinction between "greater" and "better" can be illustrated in the president of the United States. The president is in a higher position than the rest of us. Therefore, the president is greater (meizon) than the rest of us. However, he is still just a human being-and thus he is not better (kreitton) than the rest of us.

Reply: In speaking of Heb. 1:4, Rhodes says, "He is higher than the angels in His very nature." Italics His

But what does the entire text say? "as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they". So Jesus had inherited a more excellent name (or Title/Williams), not a nature. Again, in the Grimm-Thayer Lexicon, it says of John 14:28 that MEIZON "is used of those who surpass others-either in nature and power, as God"p. 395 Italics mine
On Heb 1:4, this same lexicon tells us that KREITTON means "more excellent." p. 359 See also BAGD page 449. So, lexically speaking, Rhodes is wrong.

Additionally, almighty God does not need to inherit a more excellent name. The most powerful being in the universe already has the greatest name and title. Only underlings get promotions

The New American Standard Bible actually translates KREITTON as "greater" at Hebrews 7:7 which pretty much makes them synonyms.

As far as the president analogy goes, the President and I are two seperate persons. He holds authority over me, so he can be greater than me and may even be better than me.

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

The Anarthrous Pre-Verbal Predicate Noun in The Martyrdom of Polycarp

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

There are cases in the Greek New Testament, similar to John 1:1c, where we have predicate nouns preceding the verb that are translated with the indefinite article "a." John 8:48 (thou art a Samaritan); John 4:19 "thou art a prophet"; Acts 28:4 "this man must be a murder," etc. We also have such cases outside the New Testament, such as in Xenophon's Anabasis 1:4:6, EMPORION D' HN TO XWRION ("the place was a market") that was famously brought to light in Dana & Mantey's A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament.

Another example is in the Martyrdom of Polycarp at Chapters 10 and 12. Take a look at the Greek:

This is how CRISTIANOS EIMI is translated in Hoole's English translation:

Moving on to 12 we have:

CRISTIANON EINAI is translated thusly:

As we can see, it only makes sense to include an indefinite article in such circumstances, and the Greek provides many examples where this is necessary.

How Belief in the Trinity has Prejudiced Our Bibles, by James Stark 1861

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

How Belief in the Trinity has Prejudiced Our Bibles by James Stark 1861

The Translators of our English Bible, able men as they undoubtedly were, translated with a prejudice in favour of the Doctrine of the Trinity; and this led them to commit various grave blunders which, from being accepted as the true Word of God, have contributed to prevent free inquiry, and have also been used as arguments to prove the Truth of the doctrine in question, as if their mistranslations were indeed the Word of God itself. Fortunate it is for mankind that the original of the Inspired Word, in so far as the New Testament is concerned, is written in the Greek language—a language as concise, and in many points quite as definite, as our own. Even in this fact, trifling as to many it may seem, have we a very strong proof of the wisdom of God. Had the Scriptures of the New Testament been in Latin, the language of the then dominant nation, or in Hebrew, many of its expressions and meanings would have been obscure in the extreme. But by so arranging matters that the New Testament was written in Greek, every expression, every word used, has a meaning and a force for which we may be very thankful, and which serves to throw a flood of light on all discussions such as the present. To this Greek version of the Scriptures, then, which is the only true Word of God, in so far as the New Testament is concerned, we must resort in all our difficulties, and not to any translations, which, from their very nature, must always bear more or less the impress of the mind and prejudices of the Translator.

The first passage, then, which may be adduced as a serious mistranslation affecting the Doctrine of the Trinity, is the first verse of the first chapter of the Gospel by John. Our translation gives the passage thus: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God.” This translation makes “the Word” to be but another name for “God,” the translators having made up their minds as to the Doctrine of the Trinity. But the original Greek makes no such statement, but defines the parties spoken of in the most distinct manner. The original Greek says, EN ARCH HN O LOGOS KAI O LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON KAI QEOS HN O LOGOS OUTOS HN EN ARCH PROS TON QEON. And this when literally translated reads thus: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with The God, and a God was the Word; he was in the beginning with The God.” The word which I have translated “a God” usually means simply “divine,” or “holy,” so that it would read more properly, “and divine was the Word”—or, “holy was the Word.” This of course gives the passage a very different meaning from that put on it by our translators, whose version is quite untenable, for it will be observed that whenever God is spoken of he is strictly defined as “The God,” which epithet or title contrasts remarkably with that alone applied to the Word, which is only “a God,” or more correctly, “divine,” or “holy.” It is thus apparent that this passage, so much rested on by Trinitarians as proof of the correctness of their views, is only made to favour such views by being altered from the truth to suit their own ends.

The next mistranslated passage which it is necessary to notice is one which the Trinitarians also quote as fully corroborative of their views, but which, had they referred to the original Greek, which is alone the true Word of God, they would have found gave no countenance whatever to their dogma. The English translation of Romans ix. 5 is, “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” The original Greek, however, makes no such statement, for it says, WN OI PATERES KAI EX WN O CRISTOS TO KATA SARKA O WN EPI PANTWN QEOS EULOGHTOS EIS TOUS AIWNAS AMHN. Which, literally translated, says, “Of whom are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh; the living Supreme God be blessed for ever. Amen.” In fact, Paul in this passage blesses the living Supreme God for Christ having come in the flesh. Now any one with even a slight knowledge of Greek, if not blinded by prejudice, might at once perceive that the passage is quite incapable of being translated as it occurs in our English Bibles. The very circumstance of the definite article hO being before the word WN would have led any one to perceive that the translators' version was untenable, first because the word is not WN, the genitive plural of the relative pronoun, which if it were, it must be translated “of whom,” which would make the passage bear that the only true God proceeded from Christ; but the word is the nominative singular of the present participle of the verb EIMI, I am, or I exist; and as it has the definite article before it, it must be translated “the existing” or “the living” God. Then again, the word EULOGHTOS is not the active, but the passive voice of the verb, and therefore must be translated by the sign of the passive voice—viz., “be blessed.” The words therefore cannot be translated “the blessed God,” but must be translated “may The God be blessed.” But the fact is, that the translators of our English Bible have thrice at least translated this word correctly, and in every such instance they properly translate it “be blessed.” Thus in 2 Corinthians i. 3 it is translated “Blessed be God;” in Ephesians i. 3, and again in 1 Peter i. 3, it is translated “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The whole passage, therefore, as it stands in our English Bible, is incorrect, and teaches quite a different doctrine from what the true Word of God does; the only correct translation being that given above: or if the words be arranged as in Ephesians and in Peter, they would read, “Of whom are the Fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh; Blessed be the Living Supreme God for ever. Amen.”

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

But our Translators had the Doctrine of the Trinity so thoroughly interwoven with their sentiments, that whenever they had an opportunity to soften a passage which strongly taught an opposite doctrine, they appear to have done so. Thus, in Romans v. 6, the original Greek says, “that ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” which the translators modify into “glorify God, even the Father.” But they ventured on a greater change in 2 Corinthians i. 3. The original Greek says, “Blessed be The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” which the translators modify into “Blessed be God, and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” In the same manner they alter Ephesians v. 20. The original Greek says, “giving thanks always for all things unto The God and Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;” and this the translators make to lose all its point by altering it into “giving thanks for all things unto God, and the Father.”

But our translators, not satisfied with mistranslating passages in order to carry out their ideas of a Trinity, took the liberty of adding to the Word of God words which are not in the original, which additions cause the meaning of the passage to be quite different from what it is in the inspired writings. These altered passages are now, of course, like those commented on, the strongholds of the Trinitarian doctrine. Let us therefore look at their true meaning as it exists written in the original Greek.

In Timothy's first epistle, iii. 16, our English Bible says, “without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, etc.” The word here translated “godliness” simply means “piety,” a word which means “the discharge of a duty to God,” and has, therefore, reference in this passage to Christ alone. But our translators have altered the meaning of the whole passage by inserting the word “God”—a word not in the original Greek at all, where is only found the word OS, meaning this or he; and the translators have done more than merely insert the word, they have inserted it in such a way as to induce the belief that the word “God’ was in the original Greek by printing it in Roman type, departing from their usual plan of printing the inserted words in Italics. No one would therefore be led to suspect that they were reading other than the inspired word, when all the time they were trusting to a human alteration of the word of truth which gave to it an entirely false meaning. The passage, therefore, in the original, is clearly referrible to Christ alone, and not to God; and the only correct translation is, “Great is the mystery of piety. He was manifested in the flesh, etc.;” and the “he” is, of course, he who showed this piety, or discharge of duty to God—viz., Jesus;—a conclusion thoroughly borne out by the First Epistle of John, where we are told it was “the Son of God was manifested.”

The same causes led the translators to show in other passages their desire to prove the existence of a Trinity, or at least to confuse the Father and Son as if they were convertible titles of one God. For instance, in 1 John iii. 6 we have almost an exact reproduction of the alteration in Timothy. Our translation says: “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us.” But the Greek, which is the only true Word of God, says no such thing; for it only says, “Hereby perceive we the love, because he laid down his life for us,” clearly referring to Christ, and not to God.

Our translators, however, having adopted the Trinitarian Doctrine as true, found it necessary to get some word to be translated “Godhead,” as that was a term which the Trinitarians found it needful to apply. Two different Greek words are therefore translated “godhead” in the only three passages in which they occur in the New Testament.

The first passage occurs in Paul's celebrated defence before the Areiopagus at Athens, Acts xvii. 29, translated: “we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto Gold.” The Greek word here used is TO QEION, which is an indefinite noun, not meaning the Godhead, but only “the Divinity”—and, as used by Paul, refers to that Divinity of whom he was speaking at the time, “The Unknown God.”

The next passage where our translators use the word Godhead is in Romans i. 20, “Even his eternal power and Godhead.” Here the Greek word is QEIOTHS, which simply means “divine nature” or “divinity,” and not godhead at all.

The third and last passage where this word is used by our translators is in Colossians ii. 9. “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Here the Greek word is QEOTHTOS, the genitive of the word used in Romans; and of course the passage ought to have been translated, “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the divine nature bodily.”

But our translators, from missing out in innumerable passages the definite article before the word “God,” and by translating it by the indefinite word “God” instead of by the definite one “The God,” have contrived to render obscure hundreds of passages which would otherwise have been clear as day; and which, had they been properly translated, would have prevented much of that confusion which exists in our English Bible from not pointedly distinguishing The One only Supreme God, who is always entitled in the original Greek, “The God.” Thus Jesus in all his discourses to the Jews relative to God, when he uses that title, invariably styles him “The God,” i.e., the only one God whom the Jew was to worship. He also pointedly styles himself the son of “The God.” “I am the Son of The God.” “I proceeded forth and came from The God.” “The God so loved the world.” “The only begotten son of The God,” etc., etc. In fact, this specification and definition of Him who alone had the title of “The God,” runs through all the discourses of Jesus; and no doubt is for a moment left on the mind as to whether that God included any other, for Jesus most expressly declared the Unity of the Sovereign Ruler of whom he spoke. “Ye believe in The God, believe also in me.” “The God is a Spirit.” “This is eternal life, that they may know Thee The Only True God.”

The apostles in their writings all individualize, or particularize The true God in the same manner, though no one knows anything or sees anything of this in our translation. Thus Paul says to Timothy, “I charge thee before The God, and the Lord Jesus Christ;” and again, “I give thee charge in the sight of The God who quickeneth all things;” “For The God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ;” “Looking unto Jesus . . . who is set down at the right hand of the throne of The God;” and lastly, “Then shall the Son himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that The God may be all in all.” Innumerable passages might be quoted to the same effect from Paul's writings. All the other writers in the New Testament are equally specific, though the translators, either designedly or through ignorance, leave out the definite article, which gives the point to the sentence, in almost every case. Thus James says, “Pure religion and undefiled before The God and Father is this;” “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of The God;” “Fear The God;” “For after this manner, in the old time, the holy women also, who trusted in The God, adorned themselves.” John says, “For this purpose the Son of The God was manifested;” “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of The God, The God dwelleth in him, and he in The God;” “We know that the Son of The God is come;” “This is The True God, and eternal life.”

These few passages may suffice to prove how very much our translation has lost by leaving out the definite article, which clearly defines “The God” as a Being distinct from any other in heaven or earth.

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

Bible Difficulties & Contradictions - 130 Books to Download

Only $5.00 -  You can pay using the Cash App by sending money to $HeinzSchmitz and send me an email at theoldcdbookshop@gmail.com with your email for the download. You can also pay using Facebook Pay in Messenger

Books Scanned from the Originals into PDF format

For a list of all of my books on disk click here - Contact theoldcdbookshop@gmail.com for questions

Books are in the public domain. I will take checks or money orders as well. 

Contents:

An Examination of the Alleged discrepancies of the Bible by John Haley 1874

Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible by William Henry Bates 1903

The Scripture of Truth - its origin, its languages, its translations, its canon, its symbols, its inspiration, its alleged errors and contradictions, its plan, its science, other sacred books by Sidney Collett 1905

Self-Contradictions of the Bible by William Henry Burr 1860

Biblical Hermeneutics - The art of Scripture interpretation (has a section on Contradictions) by Georg Friedrich Seiler 1835

Bible difficulties and their alleviative interpretation by Robert S MacArthur 1899

100 Contradictions in the Bible by Maurice Gauvin 1922

A Young Man's Difficulties with his Bible by DW Faunce 1876

The Mature Man's Difficulties with his Bible by DW Faunce 1908

Answer to difficulties of the Bible by John Thein 1897

The Bible and Rationalism - Answer to Difficulties, Volunme 1 by John Thein 1900

The Bible and Rationalism - Answer to Difficulties, Volunme 3 by John Thein 1900

The Bible and Rationalism - Answer to Difficulties, Volunme 4 by John Thein 1900

Unbelief in the Nineteenth Century by Henry C Sheldon 1907

The Bible - is it The Word of God? by Thomas Strange 1871

Moral Difficulties Connected with the Bible, Volume 1 by James A Hessey 1871

Moral Difficulties Connected with the Bible, Volume 2 by James A Hessey 1871

Moral Difficulties Connected with the Bible, Volume 3 by James A Hessey 1871

A Handbook of Scientific and Literary Bible Difficulties by Robert Tuck 1891

Scripture difficulties explained by Scripture references by Thomas Spaulding 1877

The Bible defended against the objections of Infidelity, being an examination of scientific, historical, chronological and other Scripture difficulties by William Henry Brisbane 1855

A Young Man's Perils and Bible Difficulties by William Guest 1885

The Exodus of Israel: its difficulties examined and its truth confirmed by TR Birks 1863

Reconstructive Criticism - a theory to reconcile the difficulties of higher criticism by William W Martin 1871

"The Pentateuch and Bishop Colenso" - Bible inspiration - Dr. Colenso's difficulties considered by Charles Bullock 1863

The Creation & Deluge, according to a new theory; confirming the Bible account, - removing most of the difficulties heretofore suggested by sceptical philosophers by Samuel Webb 1854

Mythical Elements in the Samson Story, article in The Monist 1907

The Story of Samson and its place in the religious development of mankind by Paul Carus 1907

Essays on some of the Difficulties in the writings of the Apostle Paul and other parts of the New Testament by Richard Whateley 1830

Join my Facebook Group

Biblical Difficulties Dispelled by George Sexton 1885

The Dangers and Safeguards of Modern Theology by AC Tait 1862

A Synopsis of Criticisms upon those Passages of the Old Testament, in which modern commentators have differed from the Authorized Version together with an explanation of various difficulties in the Hebrew and English texts, Volume 1 Part 1 by Richard Barrett 1847

A Synopsis of Criticisms upon those Passages of the Old Testament, in which modern commentators have differed from the Authorized Version together with an explanation of various difficulties in the Hebrew and English texts, Volume 1 Part 2 by Richard Barrett 1847

A Synopsis of Criticisms upon those Passages of the Old Testament, in which modern commentators have differed from the Authorized Version together with an explanation of various difficulties in the Hebrew and English texts, Volume 2 Part 1 by Richard Barrett 1847

A Synopsis of Criticisms upon those Passages of the Old Testament, in which modern commentators have differed from the Authorized Version together with an explanation of various difficulties in the Hebrew and English texts, Volume 2 Part 2 by Richard Barrett 1847

A Synopsis of Criticisms upon those Passages of the Old Testament, in which modern commentators have differed from the Authorized Version together with an explanation of various difficulties in the Hebrew and English texts, Volume 3 Part 1 by Richard Barrett 1847

A Reconcilement of the Apparent Contradictions in Holy Scripture, Volume 1 by E.H. Lindo 1842

A Reconcilement of the Apparent Contradictions in Holy Scripture, Volume 2 by E.H. Lindo 1842

The Origin and Character of the Bible and its place among Sacred Books by JT Sunderland 1909

On Alleged Errors and Contradiction in the Scriptures, article in The Bible Student 1903

Faith or Fact By Henry Morehouse Taber 1897

The Bible under Trial in View of present-day assaults on Holy Scripture by James Orr 1907

The Bible, All or None, article in The Unitarian Magazine 1890

Biblical Criticism and Religious Instruction, article in The Jewish quarterly review, 1907

An Introduction to the reading and study of the English Bible By William Carpenter (Scripture Difficulties Examined) 1868

On Scripture Difficulties by C Benson 1826

The Bible and Modern Thought by TR Birks 1862 (On Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible)

The Bible a Divine Revelation, article in The Lutheran quarterly 1920

Inspiration not Invalidated by Biblical Criticism, article in The Methodist Review 1901

Is the Bible inspired? by JH Brookes 1902

Perceived Contradictions in the Bible by yhwhbible

The Bible and Criticism by W Bennett 1914

The Bible and Criticism by R Rainy 1878

Discussion of the Existence of God, and the Authenticity of the Bible
by Origen Bacheler, Robert Dale Owen - 1840 - 350 pages
The apparent contradictions, misstatements, absurdities, &c., of the Bible, which sceptics urge as objections against it, are so many evidences of its original authenticity.

The crisis: a series of pamphlets in sixteen numbers
by Thomas Paine
Bible Contradictions -Bible Prophecies Concerning Babylon.

The Divine Authority of the Bible
by George Frederick Wright - 1884 - 230 pages
 
Elements of Christian Theology: Containing Proofs of the Authenticity and Inspiration of the Scriptures by George Tomline -- 1818

The Pillar of Divine Truth Immoveably Fixed on the Foundation of the Apostles
by William Greenfield - 1831 - 265 pages

Theopneusty: Or, The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures
by Louis Gaussen - 1844 - 400 pages

The Plenary Inspiration of the Scriptures Asserted
by Samuel Noble - 1828 - 430 pages

A Refutation of Arianism: Or, A Defence of the Plenary Inspiration of the Scriptures by John Paul - 1828 - 310 pages

The Bible: Its Meaning and Supremacy
by Frederic William Farrar - 1897 - 350 pages

The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures
by Eleazar Lord - 1857 - 301 pages
 
The Evidences of Christianity: Stated in a Popular and Practical Manner
by Daniel Wilson- 1832

Systematic Theology
by Charles Hodge 1873

The Inspiration of the Scriptures
by Alexander Carson, John Dick, John Pye Smith, Daniel Wilson - 1853 - 410 pages

Analytical Investigations Concerning the Credibility of the Scriptures
by J. H. McCulloh - 1852

Holy Scripture verified; or, The divine authority of the Bible confirmed by ... - Page 196
by George Redford - Bible - 1837

The Bible of Bibles: Or, Twenty-seven "Divine Revelations"
by Kersey Graves, Lydia M. Graves -- 1879 - 430 pages
BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS-TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-SEVEN.

Conversations on the Bible: Its Statements Harmonized and Mysteries Explained by Enoch Pond - 1886 - 620 pages

The Bible and Reason Against Atheism: In a Series of Letters to a Friend
by Martin Luther Edwards - 1881 - 230 pages
... The Virgin Mary—Bible Contradictions—How They Are Made Out, and How Little They Amount to-A Delicate Task

The 'holy Scriptures' analyzed; or, Extracts from the Bible, shewing its Contradictions and Absurdities edited by Robert Cooper - 1840

A new history of the Holy Bible : from the beginning of the world to the establishment of Christianity : with answers to most of the controverted questions, dissertations upon the most remarkable passages, and a connection of profane history all along : to which are added, notes, explaining difficult texts, rectifying mistranslations, and reconciling seeming contradictions by Thomas Stackhouse 1680-1752 (incomplete and scattered over 3 volumes)

The Ancestry of our English Bible by Ira Maurice Price Ph.D 1907

The Bible Triumphant - 12 Dozen Skeptical Arguments Refuted  - A Reply to an Infidel work entitled 144 Self-contradictions of the Bible by Mrs. H. V. Reed 1882

The Underwood-Marples Debate 1877

THE UNNOTICED THINGS OF SCRIPTURE. BY THE RIGHT REV. WM. INGRAHAM KIP, D.D 1879

also

Christianity and Agnosticism: A Controversy by Henry Wace, Thomas Henry Huxley, William Connor Magee, William Hurrell Mallock, Humphry Ward 1889
"Seventy years later comes the Montpellier physician, Jean Astruc. He first notices the key to the whole enigma, the distinctive use made of the words 'Elohim' and 'Jahveh.' This leads him to the supposition of different strata in the Pentateuch, and from him descend in direct line Kuenen and Wellhausen. It is instructive, by the  way, to notice that all the time Astruc will have nothing to say to arguments against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch."

A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament
by Marvin Richardson Vincent 1899

The Problem of the Old Testament Considered with Reference to Recent Criticism by James Orr 1906

Old Testament Criticism and the Christian Church by John Edgar McFadyen 1903
"In the first place, the very words Higher Criticism are odious to many, because of what they seem to involve. To not a few, Biblical criticism of any kind is practically synonymous with impiety: what is man that he should dare to criticise the word of God ? And " higher" suggests presumption. The term is no doubt unfortunate, but fair minds should not allow the term to create an initial prejudice against the process for which the term stands. Criticism is not destruction. It is judgment."
 
History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament by Eduard Reuss 1884 (Volume 2)
"Johann Salomo Semler was the first to undertake to improve upon the common conceptions of the canon. He gave to his criticism an essentially historical basis by commending and practicing the study of the ancient ecclesiastical literature, thus leading to a recognition of the gradual and fluctuating formation of our present collection."

Reconstruction in Theology by Henry Churchill King 1901
"It is unfortunate that in the early stages of higher criticism in America, for particular reasons, it came to be associated, in the minds of many, with a rather bitter and arrogant spirit; and it is even more unfortunate that, for many more, for other special reasons, it was identified with the most extreme results of an a priori anti-supernaturalistic school."

The higher criticism and the Bible by William Binnington Boyce 1881

A Reply to Harnack on the Essence of Christianity by Hermann Cremer 1903

The Genesis of Genesis by Benjamin Wisner Bacon 1891

The Quarterly Review 1863
"Truly the higher criticism indulges in strange assertions and very absurd difficulties! With regard to the second passage, we may ask why a Redactor and an Elohist are to be called into existence to explain the alternation of names in this passage more than in Exod. iii. 4, Ps. xxxvi. 6-8, or Ps. Ixix. 13, 30-35, &c. &c. It is not the higher criticism, but plain common sense, which is needed to reject such arguments. But this is only one proof out of many that the magic wand of modern exegesis transforms that which would be esteemed worthless in the mouth of a believer into 'high criticism' in that of a sceptical commentator."

The New Appreciation of the Bible by Willard Chamberlain Selleck 1906

The Old Testament and the New Scholarship by John Punnett Peters 1902

The Bible in the Nineteenth Century: Eight Lectures by Joseph Estlin Carpenter 1903

Dr. Friedrich Bleek's Lectures on the Apocalypse by Friedrich Bleek, Samuel Davidson 1875

Evidences of Christianity by Lonsdale Ragg 1909
"THE BIBLE AND MODERN CRITICISM often attack religion with the weapon of the 'Higher Criticism.' Scientific criticism, they say, has utterly discredited the Bible ; and with the Bible falls Christianity. Any one, however, who will take the trouble to read a little book like Professor Kirkpatrick's Divine Library of the 0ld Testament, may see something of the real tendency and scope of the Higher Criticism. If anything is discredited by sound criticism, it is the mistaken theory of verbal inspiration, which allowed the Bible no kinship whatever with non-biblical literature, and refused to recognise in it a human element, as the medium through which God has spoken to man."

Six lectures on the higher criticism upon the Old Testament by William Binnington Boyce 1878

Founders of Old Testament Criticism: Biographical, Descriptive, and Critical by Thomas Kelly Cheyne 1893
 
Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts: Being a History of the Text by Frederic George Kenyon 1898

The Text of the New Testament by Kirsopp Lake 1908

The Christ of Today by George Angier Gordon 1896
"The higher criticism mutilates our Bible, if the Bible does not witness to something greater than itself. This modern method of investigation comes in the name of pure scholarship, with the authority of historical science, and destroys the letter. If one does not reach the Christ through both Testaments, if one cannot invoke him for the determination of their worth, one must have a horror of the higher criticism."

Theology at the Dawn of the Twentieth Century: Essays on the Present Status by John Vyrnwy Morgan 1900 (many dark pages)

The Higher Criticism: An Outline of Modern Biblical Study by Charles Wesley Rishell 1893

The Books of Chronicles in Relation to the Pentateuch and the "higher criticism" by Arthur Charles Hervey 1892

Kanamori's Life-story Told by Himself: How the Higher Criticism Wrecked a Japanese Christian - And How He Came Back by Paul M. Kanamori - 1921

Thought and Religion: Or, The Mutual Contributions of Philosophy and Theology by James William Lowber 1912

Is the Higher Criticism Scholarly?: Clearly Attested Facts Showing that the Destructive "assured results of modern criticism" are indefensible, by Robert Dick Wilson 1922

Results of Higher Criticism: As Applied to the Old Testament by Winfield Scott Crowe 1894

The Life of Jesus in the Light of the Higher Criticism by Alfred Wilhelm Martin 1913 (first 279 pages only)

The Authority of Holy Scripture: An Inaugural Address by Charles Augustus Briggs 1891
"It is just here that the Higher Criticism has proved such a terror in our times. Traditionalists are crying out that it is destroying the Bible, because it is exposing their fallacies and follies. It may be regarded as the certain result of the science of the Higher Criticism that Moses did not write the Pentateuch or Job; Ezra did not write the Chronicles, Ezra, or Nehemiah; Jeremiah did not write the Kings or Lamentations; David did not write the Psalter, but only a few of the Psalms; Solomon did not write the Song of Songs or Ecclesiastes, and only a portion of the Proverbs; Isaiah did not write half of the book that bears his name."
 
The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch by Charles Augustus Briggs 1893

The Crisis of the Churches by Leighton Parks 1922 (first 222 pages only)

The Essence of Christianity by Ludwig Feuerbach 1881

The Pentateuch in the Light of To-day: Being a Simple Introduction to the Pentateuch on the Lines of Higher Criticism by Alfred Holborn 1902

The Failure of the "higher Criticism" of the Bible by Emil Reich 1905
"The sad truth is that Higher Criticism is an act of retrograde, decadent science; an act, a method long condemned and laughed at in various other branches of historical and legal study."

An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament by Samuel Rolles Driver 1914

The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined by David Friedrich Strauss - 1892

Prolegomena to the History of Israel: With a Reprint of the Article Israel from the Encyclopedia Brittanica by Julius Wellhausen 1885
"Wellhausen was famous for his critical investigations into Old Testament history and the composition of the Hexateuch, the uncompromising scientific attitude he adopted in testing its problems bringing him into antagonism with the older school of biblical interpreters. He is perhaps most well-known for his Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels of 1883 (first published 1878 as Geschichte Israels), in which he advanced a definitive formulation of the Documentary hypothesis, arguing that the Torah or Pentateuch had its origins in a redaction of four originally independent texts dating from several centuries after the time of Moses, their traditional author. Wellhausen's hypothesis remained the dominant paradigm for Pentateuchal studies until the last quarter of the 20th century, when it began to be challenged by scholars who saw more and more hands at work in the Torah, ascribing them to periods even later than Wellhausen had proposed."

Visit A Tribute to my Beloved Dog Teddy

An Occultic Definition of the Word GOD

GOD, According to the Encyclopaedia of Occultism - Join my Facebook Group

God: According to the ancient magical conception of God in the scheme of the universe, evil is the inevitable contrast and complement of good. God permits the existence of the shadow in order that it may intensify the purity of the light. Indeed he has created both and they are inseparable the one being necessary to and incomprehensible without the other.

The very idea of goodness loses its meaning if considered apart from that of evil—Gabriel is a foil to Satan and Satan to Gabriel. The dual nature of the spiritual world penetrates into every department of life material and spiritual. It is typified in light and darkness, cold and heat, truth and error, in brief, the names of any two opposing forces will serve to illustrate the great primary law of nature— viz. the continual conflict between the positive or good and the negative or evil.

For a scriptural illustration of this point, let the story of Cain and Abel be taken. The moral superiority of his brother is at first irksome to Cain, finally intolerable. He murders Abel, thus bringing on his own head the wrath of God and the self-punishment of the murderer. For in killing Abel he has done himself no good, but harm. He has not done away with Abel's superiority, but has added to himself a burden of guilt that can be expiated only by much suffering.

Suffering is shewn in the Scriptures to be the only means by which evil is overcome by good. Cain re-appears in the story of the prodigal son, who after privation and suffering is restored to his father who forgives him fully and freely.

The possibility of sin and error is therefore entirely consistent with and even inseparable from life, and the great sinner a more vital being than the colourless character, because having greater capacity for evil he has also greater capacity for good, and in proportion to his faults so will his virtues be when he turns to God. "There is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over ninety and nine just persons," because more force of character, more power for good or evil is displayed by the sinner than by the feebly correct. And that power is the most precious thing in life.

This great dual law, right and wrong, two antagonistic forces, call them what we will, is designated by the term duad. It is the secret of life and the revelation of that secret means death. This secret is embodied in the myth of the Tree of Knowledge in Genesis. At death the discord will be resolved, but not till then.

From the duad is derived the triad on which is based the doctrine of the Trinity. Two forces producing equilibrium, the secret of nature, are designated by the duad, and these Three, call them life, good, evil, constitute one law. By adding the conception of unity to that of the triad we arrive at the tetrad, the perfect number of four, the source of all numerical combinations. According to theology there are three persons in God, and these three form one Deity. Three and one make four because unity is required to explain the Three. Hence, in almost all languages, the name of God consists of four letters. Again, two affirmations make two negations either possible or necessary. According to the Kabalists the name of the Evil One consisted of the same four letters spelled backward, signifying that evil is merely the reflection or shadow of good—"The last reflection or imperfect mirage of light in shadow."

All which exists in light or darkness, good or evil, exists through the tetrad. The triad or trinity, then, is explained by the duad and resolved by the tetrad.

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here