Another God in the Gospel of John? A Linguistic Analysis of John 1:1

 Watch the above video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPXEuxJutDk  - This is a visual representation of what is posted at https://brill.com/view/journals/hbth/44/2/article-p141_2.xml

See also 243 Alternative Translations of John 1:1c

See also The Pathway and the New World Translation

Buy: And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 on Amazon for only 99 cents

Jehovah as the Most Beautiful Name of God that any Language Can Employ

 

From: Twenty Speeches and Discourses on Various Subjects By Daniel Chapman 1855

"The idea of interminable or eternal existence is the radical idea of the term Jehovah, the mysterious, incommunicable name of God in the Hebrew language. The form in which it occurs in the Hebrew, is an admirable instance of the perfect simplicity, significancy, and comprehensiveness of that ancient language. It is indeed the predominance of these qualities -the simplicity of its elements, and the complexity of their combinations, which constitutes at once the easiness and the difficulty of its acquisition. It is evident from the transcendent excellence of what remains, that there is no language, ancient or modern, better adapted than the Hebrew was in its perfect state, to convey a complete revelation from God to man: an impartial comparison will justify this remark. This term, considered as a form of the Hebrew verb which signifies to be, to exist, is one that embodies the forms of both tenses, the past and the future, inclusive of the present, a threefold division of time, which, when each of its portions is expanded to infinity, and all those portions are combined with each other, affords, perhaps, as perfect an idea of absolute eternity as we can form,-infinite past, infinite future, infinite present, all blended in one infinite duration, the measure of His existence alone who eternally was, and is, and is to be. The term Jehovah is the most philosophical, as well as the most beautiful name of God that any language can employ."

Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1  and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents

This book, "The Impersonality of the Holy Spirit by John Marsom" is available on Amazon for only 99 cents. See a local listing for it here; Buy The Absurdity of the Trinity on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

Trinitarians on the Word "Trinity"

Buy The Doctrine of the Two Natures in Christ EXPOSED! for only 99 cents on Amazon by clicking here. Click here for a local listing.

From: The Concessions of Trinitarians By John Wilson 1845

The word homousion is not found in the Sacred Writings; and therefore from these alone, what the Arians deny cannot be taught or proved, except by inference. ERASMUS: Op. tom. ix. p. 1034.

We ought to believe, that there are three persons and one essence in the Deity; God the Father unbegotten, God the Son consubstantial with the Father; and God the Holy Spirit proceeding from both. But, though you attentively peruse the whole of Scripture, you will never find these sublime and remarkable words "three persons - one essence - unbegotten consubstantial — proceeding from both.” COCHLEUS; apud Sandium, pp. 4, 5.

The word Trinity is never found in the Divine Records, but is only of human invention, and therefore sounds altogether frigidly (frigide). Far better would it be to say God than Trinity. There is no reason for objecting to me, that the word homousion was made use of in opposition to the Arians. It was not received by many of the most eminent men; Jerome himself having wished to abolish the term; and on this account, they did not escape peril. .... But, though from my soul I abhor the word homousion, and am unwilling to employ it, I shall not therefore be a heretic. LUTHER: Postil. Major. fol. 282; Confut. Rat. Latom. tom. ii. fol. 240.

I dislike this vulgar prayer, "Holy Trinity, one God! have mercy on us!" as altogether savouring of barbarism. We repudiate such expressions as being not only insipid, but profane. - Abridged from CALVIN: Tractat. Theol. p. 796.

The phrase,"Holy Trinity, one God," is dangerous and improper. LAMBERT DANEAU: Resp. ad Genebrard. cap. iii.; Opusc. p. 1327. 

The words Trinity, person, homousion, and others of a similar kind, besides being ambiguous, .... never occur in the Scriptures. LIMBORCH: Theol. Christ. lib. vii. cap. 21. § 13.

The words Trinity, homousion, hypostasis, procession, &c. ... were not expressly to be found in the Holy Scriptures. BISHOP SANDERSON: Ad Clerum, p. 85; apud Tracts for the Times, vol. iv. No. 78, p. 45.

It must be allowed, that there is no such proposition as this, That one and the same God is three different persons, formally and in terms, to be found in the Sacred Writings, either of the Old or New Testament; neither is it pretended, that there is any word of the same signification or importance with the word Trinity, used in Scripture, with relation to God.- DR. SOUTH: Consid. on the Trinity, p. 38.

It were to be wished that on topics so sublime [as that of the Trinity], men had thought proper to confine themselves to the simple but majestic diction of the Sacred Scriptures [instead of using the terms homoosious, homoiousious, hypostasis, hypostatikos, &c.]. — DR. CAMPBELL: Lectures on Ecclesiastical History: Lect. xiv.

The title of Mother of God, applied to the Virgin Mary, is not perhaps so innocent as Dr. Mosheim takes it to be. The invention and use of such mysterious terms as have no place in Scripture are undoubtedly pernicious to true religion. The use of this [the word Trinity] and other unscriptural terms, to which men attach either no ideas or false ones, has wounded charity and peace, without promoting truth and knowledge. It has produced heresies of the very worst kind. DR. MACLAINE: Note to Mosheim's Ecclesiastical Hist. cent. v. part ii. chap. v. § 9; and Chron. Table, cent. ii.

The general practice of Scripture seems to indicate, that, in ordinary worship, we should address the Deity in his unity, manifested to us as, in Christ Jesus, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to men their trespasses. I confess that I have ever disliked the use of the word Trinity in prayer to God, as not being a name whereby God reveals himself to us, and as savouring of scholastic theology. — CARLILE: Jesus Christ the Great God, p. 232.

Substance, and person, and essence, as applied to the Godhead, are not to be found in Holy Scripture.-H. M'NEILE: Sermons preached in St. Jude's Church, Liverpool, on Trin. Sund. 1835; p. 10.

I need hardly make any observation on the word purgatory: the very name itself is generally made one of the topics of abuse, because it is not be found in Scripture. But, I would ask, where is the term Trinity to be discovered in Scripture? Where is the term incarnation to be found? Where are many other terms which are held most sacred and most important in the Christian religion, to be found in Scripture? DR. WISEMAN: Lect. on the Doct. of the Rom. Cath. Church, p. 270.

[It is admitted also by TILLOTSON, SWIFT, HEY, TOMLINE, the Oxford Doctors, and others, that the scholastic terms here spoken of do not occur in the Bible. But who would venture to say that they do?]

Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1  and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents

This book, "The Impersonality of the Holy Spirit by John Marsom" is available on Amazon for only 99 cents. See a local listing for it here; Buy The Absurdity of the Trinity on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

The End of Prayer in Public Schools on This Day in History

 

This Day in History: The United States Supreme Court rules 8–1 in Abington School District v. Schempp against requiring the reciting of Bible verses and the Lord's Prayer in public schools on this day in 1963.

Billy Graham said, "[i]n my opinion... the Supreme Court... is wrong.... Eighty percent of the American people want Bible reading and prayer in schools. Why should a majority be so severely penalized...?"

There was a time where I would have applauded the Supreme Court's decision and sneer at Billy Graham. There was a time where I thought that the New Atheists (Hitchens, Harris & Dawkins)  made a lot of sense. 

I've changed my mind. The secularism that the West has embraced has failed society.

Why?

In 1963 most families were intact. 

In 1963 everyone knew what a woman was. 

In 1963 there were only two genders. In fact, the word "gender" was only used in relation to language.

In 1963 profanity was not as ubiquitous as it is today. In 1963, the entertainment industry adhered to the Hays Code which prohibited profanity, suggestive nudity, graphic or realistic violence, sexual persuasions and rape.

In 1963 there was no Pride Month. People kept their peccadillos private.

In 1963 there was no Wokeism.

In 1963 people believed in freedom of speech. 

In 1963 we weren't calling each other "Racist."

In 1963 were weren't flooding our countries with people who hate us.

In 1963 promiscuity was considered a moral failure. We did not brag about a "body count."

In 1963 there were no mass school shootings. In fact, kids brought guns to school. Schools even had shooting clubs.

In 1963 a big chunk of the population were not on antidepressants and psychotropic drugs.

In 1963 there were far less people needing mental health treatment.

In 1963 our schools and universities were respected. Today, 19% of high school graduates can't read.

In 1963 we had a shared narrative in Christianity. It bound us together.

In 1963 we did not have a World Economic Forum or a Club of Rome or any other such organization whose aim is to reduce and enslave the population. 

In 1963 the media reported news instead of propaganda.

In 1963 we trusted our institutions. Now you are wise not to.

In 1963 we weren't offended by absolutely everything.

In 1963 we talked to each other. There was no Social Media.

Sure, 1963 was not all sunshine and rainbows. After all, 1963 ended with the killing of an American president by a faithless Communist.

Buy this published Kindle book on Amazon on Forgotten Bible Versions for only 99 cents  and Buy Forgotten Tales of Dogs - 60 Chapters of Dogs in Legend, Lore, Love, Loyalty and Intelligence for only 99 cents

Does God Exist? - 300 Books to Download (Philosophy, Apologetics) for only $3.99

William Hamilton Drummond on John 20:28

 

Buy The Doctrine of the Two Natures in Christ EXPOSED! for only 99 cents on Amazon by clicking here. Click here for a local listing.

From: The Doctrine of the Trinity, founded neither on Scripture, nor on Reason and Common Sense but on Tradition and the Infallible Church (1831):

"And Thomas answered and said unto him, my Lord and my God."

Thomas was a Jew - a believer in the one invisible and immortal God - a disciple of Christ-incredulous - a sceptic who required no less than ocular and palpable proof that the body of Christ had become re-animated and arisen from the dead. Our Lord condescended to give him the proof required, on which occasion he uttered the words just quoted.

Now, what do we learn from them? The Athanasians would have us believe that this incredulous Apostle who would not credit the testimony of his fellow disciples as to a plain matter of fact, passed in a moment to the belief, of which he had not the least previous hint or conception, that in the crucified Jesus, whose flesh he handled, and whose wounds he felt, he saw, touched and addressed the infinite and incomprehensible Jehovah, whom he had been taught to think no man could see and live! That he whom he had so lately beheld nailed to a cross, and mortally wounded by a Roman spear - was Jehovah of hosts - the Lord God of Israel, who liveth and reigneth for ever and ever! Verily, the credulity of the Athanasians exceeds, the incredulity of Thomas! But the Saviour's address to his disciple sufficiently proves the gross folly  and absurdity of such imaginations. "Jesus said unto Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed." Believed what? That of which he had previously doubted,-Christ's resurrection. Our Lord continues, "blessed, or happy, are they who have not seen, and yet have believed." -Not seen and yet believed what? Not seen Christ personally, as Thomas had seen him and yet believed that he was actually risen.

There is not the slightest ground for any of the Athanasian whims in the whole passage. Thomas, under the influence of excited and wonderstruck feeling, gave way to his emotion, as was perfectly natural, by apostrophizing God. All men under such impressions, express themselves in language precisely similar. Thus, when Gideon saw that one with whom he had been conversing was an angel of Jehovah - he said, “Alas, O Lord Jehovah! for because I have seen an angel of Jehovah, face to face."-Judg. vi. 22. Thus, Jonathan in the ardour of his friendship, "said unto David, O Jehovah God of Israel, when I have sounded my Father, &c." - 1 Sam. xx. 12. Had Thomas been capable of embodying all his feelings in words, he might have uttered some ejaculations like these, in addition to "my Lord and my God." It is then true! I doubt no longer! Here is proof! I yield O my God, how great is thy power, how wonderful thy deeds! Now, I see, now I believe that thou hast indeed raised from the dead, thy holy child Jesus! That our Saviour understood him thus is evident from his address to the disciple. - Milton refers the words my Lord to Christ, and my God to the Father, who had testified that Christ was his Son, by raising him from the dead. The whole comment of this great genius on the passage before us, is well entitled to the readers serious consideration. He regards the words of Thomas as an abrupt exclamation in an exstacy of wonder, and deems it incredible--

"That he should have so quickly understood the hypostatic union of that person whose resurrection he had just before disbelieved. Accordingly the faith of Peter is commended-blessed art thou, Simon-for having only said-thou art the Son of the Living God.-Matt. xvi, 16, 17. The faith of 

Thomas, although, as it is commonly explained, it asserts the divinity of Christ in a much more remarkable manner, is so far from being praised, that it is undervalued, and almost reproved.-Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And yet, though the slowness of his belief may have deserved blame, the testimony borne by him to Christ as God, which if the common interpretation be received as true, is clearer than occurs in any other passage, would undoubtedly have met with some commendation; whereas it obtains none whatever."

This book, "The Impersonality of the Holy Spirit by John Marsom" is available on Amazon for only 99 cents. See a local listing for it here; Buy The Absurdity of the Trinity on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1  and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents

Bible Translator Charles B. Williams on This Day in History

Read online

This day in history: Bible translator Charles Bray Williams died on this day in 1952. C.B. Williams should not to be confused with Bible translator Charles K. Williams.

Williams graduated from Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem NC, and was a Baptist minister. 

Williams stated, "Our aim is to make this greatest book in the world readable and understandable by the plain people."

Some have noted that there are many similarities between Williams New Testament and Goodspeed's New Testament (one of the greatest New Testament translations ever produced).

Here are some comparisons:

Revelation 5:10 "and have made them a kingdom of priests for our God, and they are to reign over the earth." Goodspeed

"and have made them a kingdom of priests for our God; and they will rule over the earth." Williams

While "over" is a better translation, most Bible use the word "on".

John 10:38  "But if I am doing so, even if you will not believe me, believe the deeds, that you may come to know and continue to know that the Father is in union with me and I am in union with the Father." Williams

"But if I am doing them, then even if you will not believe me, believe the things I do, in order that you may realize and learn that the Father is in union with me, and I am in union with the Father." Goodspeed

Both Goodspeed and Williams use the phrase "in union with" many times.

John 8:58 "Jesus said to them, 'I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born!'" Goodspeed

"Then Jesus said to them, 'I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.'" Williams

This is a better translation than the traditional "I am" as the "Greek at John 8:58 fits an idiom described by grammarian Kenneth McKay as the “Extension from Past”, which occurs when a present tense verb is “used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications.” (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach), p. 41, 42 (Source)

However, Williams was much more conservative/fundagelical in many passages.

For instance at John 1:1 where Goodspeed has "the Word was divine",  Williams goes overboard with the horrible rendering of "the Word was God Himself."

At John 1:18, where it should read, "No man hath seen God at any time; an only begotten god, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him", Williams has, "No one has ever seen God; the only son, Deity Himself, who lies upon His Father's breast, has made him known." 

Where Goodspeed would use "homage" in places like Matthew 2:2, Williams reverted back to the word "worship,"

Additionally, Williams insisted on continuous action of a Greek verb made Mark 1:5 sound like the people were being repeatedly baptized, "And people from all over Judea and everybody in Jerusalem kept on going out to him and being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins."

This Kindle book is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

The New World Translation Bible Companion, 100 Books to Download

 

David Bentley Hart's New Testament on This Day in History

 

Buy On Amazon

This day in history: David Bentley Hart's _The New Testament - A Translation_, was released on this day in 2017. 

Bing gave me this description of his New Testament: "David Bentley Hart is a theologian who has translated the New Testament into English. His translation is 'pitilessly literal' and 'not shaped by later theological and doctrinal history.'"

That's not entirely true. He capitalizes the I AM in John 8 is if it has some mystical value and relationship to the words at Exodus 3:14. This is a notion that is "shaped by later theological and doctrinal history" and any relationship between John 8 and Exodus 3 falls apart after closer examination.*

However, Hart's translation is still better than most. I have always had a singular fascination with John 1:1.

David Bentley Hart's New Testament 2017 reads at John 1:1 "In the origin there was the Logos, and the Logos was present with GOD, and the Logos was god." (Notice the word "god" in small letters in the last clause.)

However, I discovered in his earlier work, "Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies" he actually writes:

"As a general rule, the 'articular' form ho Theos—literally, 'the God'—was a title reserved for God Most High or God the Father, while only the 'inarticular' form theos was used to designate this secondary divinity. This distinction, in fact, was preserved in the prologue to John, whose first verse could justly be translated as: 'In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was a god.'"

It's unfortunate that DBH felt the need to tone it down for his New Testament translation.

However, Hart's second edition to his New Testament has some surprising updates when it comes to the anarthrous theos (god). 

His John 10:33 now reads: "We stone not on account of a good work, but rather on account of blasphemy, and you who are a man make yourself out to be a god." 

The first edition had "make yourself out to be God." Few other modern Bibles are brave enough for this rendering (The New English Bible comes immediately to mind). 

He made a similar change at Philippians 2:6 where he has: “who, subsisting in a god’s form, did not deem existing in the manner of a god a thing to be grasped.” QEOU should be taken as indefinite here, such as in “form of a god.” This would highlight a parallel that is overlooked by most, the parallel between "the form of a god" and "the form of a slave." (Verse 7)

Let me know in the comments section of any other verses you may want to share from this New Testament translation.

*See  https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-i-am-at-exodus-314-and-john-858.html

and https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/07/egw-eimi-ego-eimi-i-am-and-john-858.html

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