Help With The Greek

[Michael The Disciple]

Costeon,

Please forbear a bit longer.

" I would imagine that most would just first say that grammatically only one is a legitimate translation (the Word was God) and then second that theos without the article ho shows not an identity of person but an identity of divine essence, which of course, is classic Trinitarianism.

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?

[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.

[Michael The Disciple]

To support this, all they will do is point to the context of vv. 1-18 and show that the Logos is described in personal times and is distinguished from the Father, so for them, the Logos is obviously not the Father, but is with the Father and is fully divine sharing the Father's essence.

IMO they are correct to point out that the Logos is/was personal. The difference is to them the personality is a distinct person of God numerically.

The truth of the personality is that it is God himself, the Father in A PERSONAL FORM.

As in Heb. 1:3 The express image of HIS PERSON. Not another person but his OWN.

So yes the Logos is/was PERSONAL.

And yes the Logos IS disctinct from the Father in the sense of mode of being.

Distinct in that "God" is omnipresent eternal Spirit and the Logos is visible and local.

In this understanding yes, the Logos IS personal yet distinct and yet preserves the oneness of God.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

IMO they are correct to point out that the Logos is/was personal. The difference is to them the personality is a distinct person of God numerically.

The truth of the personality is that it is God himself, the Father in A PERSONAL FORM.

As in Heb. 1:3 The express image of HIS PERSON. Not another person but his OWN.

So yes the Logos is/was PERSONAL.

And yes the Logos IS disctinct from the Father in the sense of mode of being.

Distinct in that "God" is omnipresent eternal Spirit and the Logos is visible and local.

In this understanding yes, the Logos IS personal yet distinct and yet preserves the oneness of God.

For the record, John doesnt introduce Father/Son language until after the Logos becomes human in vs 14

[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.

[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?