Quote:
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.
Threaded Mode
