Help With The Greek

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Costeon,

Please forbear a bit longer.



If only one is a legitimate rendering is the Aramaic version False? Is the Latin version false? How about the German?

Were the early English versions available to the common man false?

I guess I'm not ready to let this go until I understand this.

Could it be that we as Oneness could be following rules and constructions of language that maybe were created by Trinitarians?

None of us know Aramaic, Latin, or the Luther's High German to be able to comment on those translations. It certainly is possible that they are inaccurate. I assume that we would not agree with every rendering in every English translation.

We need to be careful not to exaggerate regarding the early English translations. As shown, Tyndale changed (corrected?) his translation of John 1.1 to "the Word was God." From that site I had shared, it seemed that only the two versions connected with Myles Coverdale had "God was the Word." He may have been influenced by the Latin Vulgate and its "Deus erat Verbum."

I checked the German translations since Luther's on Biblegateway.com, and they all had the equivalent of "the Word was God."

As far as being misled by Trinitarians, I would say no. The main Greek grammars for non-Koine Greek were not written by Trinitarians and all have the same rule that I've mentioned in my first post.

Ultimately, as you are well aware, you are not limited to John 1.1 in your defense of Oneness, though I do understand why it would have been helpful if "God was the Word" was the correct translation.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Word order in Aramaic, German, and Latin are all different. I do not see any value in making comparisons between the word order between them.

I suggest abandoning the false version idea.

I agree.

Michael, I would go with Scott's suggestion. From other things I've seen you post about Oneness, it seems like you have plenty of other strong arguments to use.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Mike have you ever had to speak through a translator?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Mike have you ever had to speak through a translator?

Creole on my Haitian radio broadcast.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I agree.

Michael, I would go with Scott's suggestion. From other things I've seen you post about Oneness, it seems like you have plenty of other strong arguments to use.

But then the question is if John 1:1 does not teach Oneness what DOES it teach?

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

But then the question is if John 1:1 does not teach Oneness what DOES it teach?

Maybe I missed it but, what part of John 1:1 does not teach oneness?

[Michael The Disciple]

Costeon:

None of us know Aramaic, Latin, or the Luther's High German to be able to comment on those translations. It certainly is possible that they are inaccurate.

Is it also possible they could be ACCURATE? Maybe being closer in point of time to the original they knew something modern translators did not?

Are language rules the same today as they were hundreds of years ago? If they change what then? Does the truth change along with them?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Is it also possible they could be ACCURATE? Maybe being closer in point of time to the original they knew something modern translators did not?

Are language rules the same today as they were hundreds of years ago? If they change what then? Does the truth change along with them?

I just don't believe that you're going to convince anyone but will likely prompt your debate opponents to say your just desperately trying to find some way to support your doctrine. (I'm not saying you are; it's just how I think this line of thinking might come across to your opponents.)

The grammatical rule I've mentioned applied to the classical Greek I studied for the period of the 5th century BC and it applied to the Koine period that followed the classical. It applied to Homeric Greek which is the oldest form of Greek. So the basic rule stands: if two nouns are joined by a copulative verb ("to be"), if only one has the article, that is the subject--regardless of the word order. If both have the article, the subject comes first.

Truth will not be based on Aramaic, Latin, or old German translations.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Is it also possible they could be ACCURATE? Maybe being closer in point of time to the original they knew something modern translators did not?

Are language rules the same today as they were hundreds of years ago? If they change what then? Does the truth change along with them?

I thought I addressed this point already? Word order in both Greek and older English primarily demonstrate emphasis.

The lack of ho before theos does not mean theos is a non personal divine essence or substance. Trinitarians read the verse like this: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God the Father, and the Word was divine. They take theos without the article ho (the) to be an adjective describing the nature or essence.

The problem is theos doesnt mean divine, it is a noun and means a deity, a divine person. There are several other Scriptures that use theos without the article to mean God as a personal being.

If ho theos means the Father, then "God" is the Father, and therefore to claim anyone or anything is God is to claim that someone or something is the Father.

But trinitarian debaters dont pay attention to the actual logic of their own positions for the most part. You could show them a verse that says the Son is identified as God the Father and they still wouldnt believe.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

So what I am seeking is to know what John actually wrote IN GREEK. I understand how it looks when translated into English. If the Interlinear is showing the words as written in the actual Greek text and Scott said:



Prax said:



So forgetting the idea of translating into English does the actual Greek text read God was the word?

If translated word for word without consideration to Greek or English grammar, yes