A discourse on understanding John 1:1.

[by the theologian husband of Iris] This discourse will not go down into an in depth explanation of the translating challenges provided by the rather unusual construction of the Apostle John's ori ginal writing in Koine (ancient) Greek. Sufficient to say the ancient Greek lang uage had a certain amount of ambiguity as does modern English. Most English tran slations including the Authorized King James Version (AV), The New American Bibl e (Catholic) (TNAB), New world Translation (NWT), Goodspeed, Torrey, New English of 1961, Moffatt of 1972, International English Bible (IEB), International Bibl e Translators N.T. 1981 (IBT), Philip Harner of 1974, Translator's NT of 1973 (T NT), Scholar's Version of 1993, etc. have all made an effort to make the scriptu res easier to read and have tried to remove ambiguity of the original text. For example, if the literal text were to say: "The love of God". The translator may decide to translate the text: "God's love for you", or he might translate it: "Y our love for God". The reader can interpret the original text either way. when t he translator chooses one of the ways to translate a text and eliminates the amb iguity, you miss the opportunity to view the text in other ways. The reader must (if objectivity is to be maintained) keep in mind that the translators of any B ible version were believers in one of the doctrine or beliefs with regard how Go d Almighty (YHWH), Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves), and the spirit or Holy Ghost re late to each other of which there are five principle beliefs, Oneness Theology, Trinitarian Theology, Arian Theology, Unitarian Theology, and Sabellianism Theol ogy. Therefore, bias will and does exist in translation depending on the transla tor's theology. This is especially true with respect John 1:1 because of its uni que and ambiguous grammatical structure it allows for translators to translate i t at least nine different ways that all have equal validity from the language st ructure point of view, in that none of these can either A discourse on understan ding John 1:1. This discourse will not go down into an in depth explanation of the translating challenges provided by the rather unusual construction of the Apostle John's ori ginal writing in Koine (ancient) Greek. Sufficient to say the ancient Greek lang uage had a certain amount of ambiguity as does modern English. Most English tran slations including the Authorized King James Version (AV), The New American Bibl e (Catholic) (TNAB), New world Translation (NWT), Goodspeed, Torrey, New English of 1961, Moffatt of 1972, International English Bible (IEB), International Bibl e Translators N.T. 1981 (IBT), Philip Harner of 1974, Translator's NT of 1973 (T NT), Scholar's Version of 1993, etc. have all made an effort to make the scriptu res easier to read and have tried to remove ambiguity of the original text. For example, if the literal text were to say: "The love of God". The translator may decide to translate the text: "God's love for you", or he might translate it: "Y our love for God". The reader can interpret the original text either way. when t he translator chooses one of the ways to translate a text and eliminates the amb iguity, you miss the opportunity to view the text in other ways. The reader must (if objectivity is to be maintained) keep in mind that the translators of any B ible version were believers in one of the doctrine or beliefs with regard how Go d Almighty (YHWH), Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves), and the spirit or Holy Ghost re late to each other of which there are five principle beliefs, Oneness Theology, Trinitarian Theology, Arian Theology, Unitarian Theology, and Sabellianism Theol ogy. Therefore, bias will and does exist in translation depending on the transla tor's theology. This is especially true with respect John 1:1 because of its uni que and ambiguous grammatical structure it allows for translators to translate i t at least nine different ways that all have equal validity from the language st ructure point of view, in that none of these can either be proven totally correc t or incorrect, i.e., a translator's nightmare. In an unusual case like this the translator can only fall back on related text with similar structure and his ow n belief system, BIAS. Now, let's look at the original Koine Greek writing as shown in the work of West cott & Hort Interlinear (John 1:1-3):

[[The Bulletin Board can not handle Koine Greek, if you want to see it send me a n email, iris89@uymainl.com]] Now let's look at the three most common renderings of John 1:1 into modern Engli sh with a brief mention of some of the Bibles that follow each: 1. " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1 AV) This style rendering is found in most of the Bibles translations made by believe rs in the Trinitarian Theology and include the Authorized King James Version (AV ), The New American Bible (Catholic) (TNAB), etc. 2. "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (John 1:1 NWT) This style rendering is found in most of the Bible translations made by believer s in the Arian theology And many translators of no particular theology and include The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin 1883, NWT, Belsham N.T. 1809, Leicester Ambrose, 1879, Robert Young , 1885, (Concise Commentary), Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983,etc. 3. "In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God. The Messag e was deity." (John 1:1 International Bible Translators N.T. 1981). This style rendering is found in most of the Bible translations made by believer s in the Unitarian Theology and by some of Arian Theology And many translators o f no particular theology and include the International Bible Translators N.T. (I BT), Translator's NT of 1973, Goodspeed of 1939, Moffatt of 1972, Simple English Bible, etc. Now a short summary of the various beliefs of the varies theological views with respect the nature of God Almighty (YHWH), Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) and the spirit or Holy Ghost and how each views the relationships between each: five principle beliefs, Oneness Theology, Trinitarian Theology, Arian Theology, Unitarian Theology, and Sabellianism Theology. ARIAN THEOLOGY They believe that there is one God, and that God is one. That God is called the Heavenly Father (YHWH). That we have one Lord who is not God, Jesus Christ (Yesh ua or YHWH saves), who is the son of God (son of YHWH). And they believe the hol y Spirit is the influence of God's power. The Father (YHWH) and Son (Yeshua or Y HWH saves), are separate beings and the Father (YHWH) is superior in power, wisd om and authority. Jesus is God's express image and was given all power on heaven and earth. Uniqueness - They believe that there is but one God (YHWH) who is one person who is the Father.. That His son, Jesus Christ (Yeshua or YHWH saves), was his firs t creation and through His son created all of creation. ONENESS THEOLOGY They believe that the Father (YHWH), the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) and t he Holy Spirit are the same God with no distinction in person or being. That onl y one God simply manifests himself in these three ways at different times. Uniqueness - They believe that they are unique in that they conform strictly to the objective of having only one God where as others have more than one God. SABELLIANISM THEOLOGY God is three only in relation to the world, in so many "manifestations" or "mode s." The unity and identity of God are such that the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) did not exist before the incarnation; because the Father (YHWH) and

the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) are thus one, the Father (YHWH) suffered with the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) in his passion and death. Uniqueness - They believe that God is one in earthly manifestations, but not hea venly. [Branham's Bible Believers, Inc.][ to Branham's 1189 page book "Conduct, Order, Doctrine of the Church," the "First thing is to straighten out you on you r 'trinity' Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. "God is like a three-foot rule... The first twelve inches was God, the Father; the second twelve inches, God, the Son, the same God; the third twelve inches was God, the Holy Ghost, the same God," ( pp.182 & 184). Branham clarifies his position in a speech given October 2, 1957 when he exclaims, "See, there cannot be an Eternal son, because a son had to hav e a beginning. And so Jesus had a beginning, God had no beginning," (Ibid, p.273 ).] [[Note, this has much in common with Oneness Theology]] TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY They believe that there is one but God made up of three separate and distinct pe rsons of but one indivisible essence. That these three persons existed from eter nity, and are co-equal in power and substance. These individuals are known as Fa ther (YHWH), Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) and the Holy Spirit. The undivide d essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons. The Church (Catho lic, Orthodox, and most Protestants) confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyon d the comprehension of man. Uniqueness - They see a distinction in the persons of God, but hold that there i s but one God. It is a mystery, i.e., they are not able to explain it. UNITARIAN THEOLOGY They believe that there is one God, the Father (YHWH), and one Lord, Jesus Chris t (Yeshua or YHWH saves). Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) became God's son at his b irth on earth but had not exist previously. The holy Spirit is God's power. Uniqueness - They do not believe that their beliefs are similar to Arian, but be lieve that Jesus's existence began with his earthly birth. Note: for more details see: The Encyclopedia Britannica; The Great Debate Regard ing The Father, Son & Holy Spirit by Roger Wagner (on line at reslight.addr.com/ greatdebate.html ); The Two Babylons by Rev. Alexander Hilsop (on line at philol ogos.org/__eb-ttb/default.htm ); www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const1.txt (minut es of the Council of Constantinopile in 381AD); mb-soft.com/believe/txn/monarchi .htm ; www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Sabellianism ; www.sandiego.edu/~baber/r...anism.h tml ; members.aol.com/davecrnll/corrupt4.html ; www.yashanet.com/library/antisem .htm ; www.webzonecom.com/ccn/cults/sabel.txt ; etc. Now that we have considered who believes what, let's consider the meaning of Joh n 1:1. The believers in the Trinity Theology of course translate it to make it a ppear that the Almighty God Father (YHWH) and his, Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH sa ves) are one and the same, but is this reasonable when considered with other Bib le text? No it is not as Almighty God's (YHWH's) son ,Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH save s) is clearly shown to be a lesser one than his father, consider, " Ye have hear d how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye wo uld rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (John 14:28 AV) where the same writer of John 1:1 clearly shows the Father (YHWH) as being greater as he does again at " Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but wha t he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (John 5:19 AV) where the Apostle John quotes Jesus (Yeshua or YHW H saves) as saying, "The Son can do nothing of himself." These two verses both i n the same book as John 1:1 make it clear that whereas grammatically speaking Jo hn 1:1 could be rendered as in the Authorized King James Version it can not be c

orrectly rendered this way due to the contents of the remainder of the Book of J ohn. The writings of Paul even make this clearer, " And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:28 AV), " B ut I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (1 Corinthians 11:3 AV), " Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the for m of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likenes s of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." (Philippians 2:5-8 AV). All t hese scriptures show Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) was obedient to his father (YH WH) and subordinate to his father (YHWH). Clearly this shows the error of Onenes s Theology, Trinitarian Theology, and Sabellianism Theology. But let's for argument sake say that the Father and the Son are one God as these three groups claim, we are left with a gap that can not be closed in their theo ries and the way their biased Bible translators translate John 1:1. Even if we a re to accept the way these biased translators translated John 1:1, this verse ca n in no way be interpreted to justify a "triune" God. Let's do a little analysis , it is immediately obvious from reading this verse translated with a Trinitaria n/Oneness/Sabellianism bias that at most we are speaking of a "duality" and not a "triune" God. Even the most resolute Trinitarian/Oneness/Sabellianism believer will never be able to be able to find any mention in this verse of any "merging " of a Holy Ghost with God and with "the word." So even if we accept at face val ue the rendering in the Authorized King James Version, and have faith, even then , we find ourselves commanded/directed to believe in a "duality" and not a "trin ity." In the original ancient (Koine) Greek, manufscript, "the word" is describe d as "ton theos" (divine/a god) and not as being "ho theos" (the Divine/the God) . In my opinion, the writer of this discourse, this verse should be translated s omething like the following, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was wi th God, and the word was divine." You will note Word was NOT capitalized in this as no indication or grammatical structure in the original would indicates it sh ould be capitalized; of course this is NOT in accordance with any of the common Bibles such as the Authorized King James (AV), The New American Bible (Catholic) TNAB, the New World Translation (NWT), The New Testament, An American Translati on, Goodspeed's Translation, Moffatt's Translation (which uses Logas instead of Word), etc. Another point to consider, is other verses using "ho theos" in the Bible in the original Koine Greek; such as " In whom the god of this world hath blinded the m inds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (2 Corinthians 4:4 AV) We fin d the same word ("ho theos") being used in John 1:1 to describe God Almighty (YH WH) is now used to describe the Devil, then why should it be changed from simply translating it as "the god" when referring to the Devil while "divine" is trans lated as "God" when referring to "the Word"? Also, as previously dealt with, why is Word capitalized? The term god can be applied to anyone with an elevated pos ition as shown by " I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." (Psalms 82:6 AV). In fact, The Catholic New World Dictionary to the New American Bible, 1970 candidly admits, "In the New Testament, the Greek Theo s with the article (The God) means the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (see Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; etc.). Thus God is almost the name of the first pe rson of the blessed Trinity. Without the article, God designates the divinity, a nd so is applicable to the pre-existing Word (Jn. 1:3). The term God is applied to Jesus in only a few texts, and even their interpretation is under dispute (Jn . 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1)." This clearly proves the point that t he translators with a Trinitarian Theology bias have little or no support for th eir way of translating John 1:1.

Yet another point to consider is the meaning of Father and of Son, "The Doctrine of The Trinity defies the universally accepted and historically always held mea ning of the words for father and son. Not only does it defy the meaning of these words, it destroys their meaning! This fact is important to realize for God gav e us language. It was not invented by man as the evolutionist tries to say. Thus , we are not destroying man made terms, but God-given terms! These terms, as giv en to us by God, require that the father exists before the son, and for the son to be brought into existence by the father. This universally accepted and recogn ized definition is what these terms have meant from the beginning of this creati on. Therefore, who has given anyone the authority to change these God-given term s now? In fact, The Lord Jesus Christ verifies the meaning of these terms when h e says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lor d; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." John 13:16 "Ye have h eard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater t han I." John 14:28. Here, he establishes that God is his lord, that he was sent by his lord, that God is his Father, and that his Father is greater than he hims elf. How could any of these declarations be true if the Doctrine of The Trinity is true? It is clearly impossible for these declarations of The Lord Jesus Chris t to be true and the Doctrine of The Trinity to be True! It is easy to see that these words of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Doctrine of the Trinity are mutuall y exclusive and opposing views! Now notice that " And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wi sdom: and the grace of God was upon him." (Luke 2:40 AV) and " And Jesus increas ed in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." (Luke 2:52 AV) requir e that this special son has to learn the difference between good and evil. If he was God, then how could such a statement apply? Isn't God omniscient? Isn't thi s passage teaching us that this special son would have to go through a learning process like every other normal natural human being? Isn't it telling us that he at one time did not know the difference between good and evil? Isn't it teachin g us that he would have to learn to refuse the evil and choose the good? The ans wer to these questions is obviously yes! It doesn't take someone with a doctorat e degree to answer them. In fact, the only too obvious answer to all of these qu estions destroys The Trinitarian concept of this special son. Furthermore, this conclusion from this passage is verified by what is said about The Lord Jesus Ch rist in The New Testament. Consider the following passages: And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grac e of God was upon him. Luke 2:40. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. Luke 2:52. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Fa ther only. Matt. 24:36. But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in he aven, neither the Son, but the Father. Mark 13:32. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: an d he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. John 5:20. And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. Acts 1:7 The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servant s things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his an gel unto his servant John. Rev. 1:1. At this point, let us briefly look at the implications of the above listed passa ges. We will take them in the order in which we quoted them." ( an excerpt from a letter of Bro. Scaramastro). Now as can be readily seen from the foregoing, John 1:1 can definitely be transl ated at least nine different ways that all have equal validity from the language structure point of view, in that none of these can either be proven totally cor rect or incorrect; however, by reasoning and looking at other text using the sam e word, we can see even if we accept translations having a "triune" God bias the

re is only a "duality" shown, but the same word used elsewhere indicates this is not the way it should be translated. Since this discourse is meant for ordinary readers and not translators no in-depth details of translation are dealt with; however, for those wanting more detail with respect translation see: See Appendix on John 1:1: hector3000.future.easyspa...ermans.htm [probably the best in-depth translation d etail anywhere on the subject]; www.riverpower.org/John/C01v01-3.htm ; users.egg connect.net/nodd...n%2011.htm ; www.seekgod.org/bible/cha...john1.html ; wings.b uffalo.edu/sa/musl...2.2.6.html ; web.fares.net/w/.ee7f254 ; bibles.datasegment. com/we...1%20John/1 ; assemblyoftrueisrael.com/...ected.html ; reslight.addr.com /john1.html [excellent background source]; www.vocationsvancouver.co...1_1_4.htm ; www.christianeducational..../v1i3.pdf; www.christianeducational....kpromo.htm [source for interesting book with more in formation on Trinity] ; reslight.addr.com/john20-28.html (source for books and f acts on Trinity); www.tellway-publishing.com ("Jesus-God or the Son of God?" by Brian Holt - one of the best) Special Translation Appendix on John 1:1: This is a short introduction on the translation of the word 'god' in its various forms, for a much more detailed explanation go to hector3000.future.easyspa...r mans.htm. Item 1) Let's consider what the Greek Scholar Jason BeDuhn from the Northern Ari zona University has to say: "The Greek phrase is theos en ho logos, which transl ated word for word is "a god was the word." Greek has only a definite article, l ike our the, it does not have an indefeinite article, like our a or an. If a nou n is definite, it has the definite article ho. If a noun is indefinite, no artic le is used. In the phrase from John 1:1, ho logos is "the word." If it was writt en simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as "a word". So we are not really "inserting" an indefinite article when we tran slate Greek nouns without the definite article into English, we are simply obeyi ng rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but must say "Snoopy is a dog." Now in English we simply say "God"; we do not say "The God." But in Greek, when you mean to refer to the one supreme God, instead of one of the many other being s that were called "gods," you would have to say "The God": ho theos. Even a mon otheistic Christian, who beleives there is only one God and no others, would be forced to say in Greek "The God," as John and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament normally do. If you leave off the article in a phrase like John 1: 1, then you are saying "a god." (There are some exceptions to this rule: Greek h as what are called noun cases, which means the nouns change form depending on ho w they are used in a sentence. So, if you want to say "of God," which is theou, you don't need the article. But in the nominative case, which is the one in John 1:1, you have to have the article.) So what does John mean by saying "the word was a god"? He is classifying Jesus in a specific category of beings. There are plants and animals and humans and gods, and so on. By calling the Word "a god," John wants to tell his readers that the Word(which becomes Jesus when it takes f lesh) belongs to the divine class of things. Notice the word order: "a god was t he word." We can't say it like this in English, but you can in Greek. The subjec t can be after the verb and the object before the verb, the opposite of how we d o it in English (subject-verb-object). Research has shown that when ancient Gree k writers put a object-noun first in a sentence like John 1:1 (a be-verb sentenc e: x is y), without the definite article, they are telling us that the subject b elongs to the class represented by the object-noun: :"The car is a Volkswagen." In English we would accomplish the same thing by using what we call predicate ad jectives. "John is a smart person" = "John is smart." So we would tend to say "T he word was divine," rather than "The word was a god." That is how I would trans late this phrase. "The word was a god" is more literal, and an improvement over

"The word was God," but it raises more problems, since to a modern reader it imp lies polytheism. No one in John's day would have understood the phrase to mean " The word was God" - the language does not convey that sense, and conceptually it is difficult to grasp such an idea, especially since that author has just said that the word was with God. Someone is not with himself, he is with some other. John clearly differentiates between God from the Word. The latter becomes flesh and is seen; the former cannot be seen. What is the Word? John says it was the a gent through whom God made the world. He starts his gospel "In the beginning..." to remind us of Genesis 1. How does God create in Genesis? He speaks words that make things come into existence. So the Word is God's creative power and plan a nd activity. It is not God himself, but it is not really totally separate from G od either. It occupies a kind of ambiguous status. That is why a monotheist like John can get away with calling it "a god" or "divine" without becoming a polyth eist. This divine thing does not act on its own, however, does take on a kind of distinct identity, and in becoming flesh brings God's will and plan right down face to face with humans. Item 2) The fact is that THEOS (=God) is a count noun, not a mass noun or an adj ective. As a count noun it MUST BE countable, i.e. either definite or indefinite (i.e. either "a god" or "the God"). The trinitarian argument hinges on strippin g THEOS of its count-ability, so that it is purely qualitative. However, if a no un is PURELY qualitative, it is not a count noun. An adjective or a mass noun ma y fit their requirement for emphasizing qualitativness only, but a count noun MU ST BE countable, for that is what count means when describing a count noun. If h e accepts this rather elementary rule of English grammar, you can demonstrate th at, as a count noun, THEOS may be translated either "the Word was God" (="the Wo rd was The God", which is Sabellianism), or "the Word was a god". Since orthodox trinitarians reject "the Word was The God" (=Sabellianism), they are left with "the Word was a god" -- that is, if they remain true to English syntax (and Engl ish syntax is what ENGLISH translations are supposed to follow!). If one argues the point, let them provide an example of a non-countable count noun that is not used in a contrary-to-fact situation, such as a metaphor. I have yet to find an yone, trinitarian or otherwise, who is able to meet this challenge. Rolf Furuli discusses this in his book, THE ROLE OF THEOLOGY AND BIAS IN BIBLE TRANSLATION, as does Greg Stafford, in his, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES DEFENDED: AN ANSWER TO SCHOLA RS AND CRITICS. There are also some very good posts by Wes Williams on greektheo logy that discuss this issue. I suppose if you search the greektheology archives using the word "count" or the name "Wes" you will find much helpful information . [source Kats] Item 3) How some Bible translators who did not have bias translated: 1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selo n Jean, by Maurice Goguel. 1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible-An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed. 1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme. 1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek. 1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johan nes, by Siegfried Schulz. 1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johanne s Schneider. 1979: "and a god was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jurgen Becker Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person" Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god Torrey, 1961, "what God was,the Word was" Moffatt, 1972, "the Logos was divine Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature Barclay, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God" Schonfield,

1985, "the Word was divine Revised English, 1989, "what God was, the Word was Scholar's Version, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was Ma dsen, 1994, "the Word was <EM>a divine Being" Becker, 1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a God/god was the Logos/logos] Stage, 1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being]. Bhmer, 1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was stron gly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being] Thimme, 1919, "Gott von Art war das Wort" [God of Kind/kind was the Word/word] Baumgarte n et al, 1920, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] Ho lzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought] Rittenlmeye r, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word] Lyd er Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "Ordet var av guddomsart" [the Word was of divine kind] Pffflin, 1949, "war von gttlicher Wucht [was of divine Kind/kind] Albrecht, 1957, "gttlichen Wesen hatte das Wort" [godlike Being/being had the Word/word] S mit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being] Menge, 1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war das Wort"[God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word) Haenchen, 1980, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] Di e Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all like God] Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos" Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Ki nd/kind) was the Word/word] Item 4) Amplification on How Some Bible Translators Translated John 1:1 And Why: "And the word was a god" - The New Testament in An Improved Version, Upon the Ba sis of Achbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text. "and a god was the Word" - The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson. "and the Word was divine" - The Bible: An American Translation, by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed. "the Logos was divine" - The New Testament: A New Translation, by James Moffat. "what God was, the Word was" - The New English Bible. "He was the same as God" - Today's English Version. "And the Word was a god" - New World Translation We notice that these Bibles do not translate John 1:1 with the simple expression "The Word was God" like most Bibles do. Why is that? The footnote to John 1:1 i n The New American Bible states the following reason: "Was God: lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication r ather than identification." What the footnote is saying is that first time "God" appears in the verse, "was with God", there is a definite article before God so it literally reads "was wit h THE God". The second time God appears, "was God," there is no definite article (the). This signifies "God" may be used as a predicate and not as an identifica tion.

Regarding this fact, the Anchor Bible states: "To preserve in English the different nuance of theos [god] with and without the article, some (Moffat) would translate 'The Word was divine.'" Notice a literal translation of John 1:1,2: "In the beginning was the world and the word was toward the god and god was the word. This (one) was in beginning toward the god." In these two verses we see six nouns, three referring to the Greek word logos (w ord, which most recognize to be Jesus) and three referring to the Greek word the os (god). We notic each reference to logos (word) is preceded by the definite ar ticle "the", while two of the three times the word theos (god) occurs, it too is preceded by the definite article "the". For some reason, John does not provide the definite article with theos when it is associated with "The Word". We thus s ee two definite individuals mentioned in this verse. "The Word", Jesus Christ, a nd "The God", who is Almighty God Jehovah. John does not say "The Word" is "The God". (In fact, most Trinitarian scholars would argue that if John had said the word was "ho theos" (The God), it would amount to sabellianism (the belief that Jesus is both the Father and the Son). As such, it is commonly agreed upon that John was not identifying Jesus as God but rather, was describing him as deity.) But if John did not say "The Word" is "The God", then what did he mean by saying , "the word was god"? In Greek, it is possible for a noun to act as an adjective when it is not accomp anied by the definite article. Consider a Biblical example of this in John 6:70. "Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" (NIV) Here the noun (devil) is not proceeded by the efinite article (the). To reflect this most Bibles place the indefinite article (a) in front of it. Thus, Jesus wa s not identifying Judas as "THE Devil", he was saying Judas had the qualities of the devil. He was acting like the devil so he was A devil though not THE devil. This example helps us to see how the lack of the definite article can cause a n oun to act as a predication rather than an identification. Regarding this point, noted Bible scholar William Barclay writes: "When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb to be and when both have the def inite article, then the one is fully identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it become more an adjective than a noun, and descri bes rather the class of the sphere to which the other belongs... "John has no definte article before theos, God. The Logos, therefore, is not ide ntified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes t he sphere to which the logos belongs... "This passage then [John 1:1] does not identify the Logos and God; it does not s ay that Jesus was God, nor doesit call him God; but it does say that in his natu re and being he belongs to the same class as God." Mr. Barclay's observations are duly noted in the example we considered with Juda s Iscariot being "a devil". Item 4) The words at Genesis 1:26 have often been used as proof of plurality in the Godhead: "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" RSV But are there other examples of the same type of idiom in the OT? The following examples are from the RSV:

Ezr 4:17 The king sent an answer: "To Rehum the commander and Shim'shai the scri be and the rest of their associates who live in Sama'ria and in the rest of the province Beyond the River, greeting. And now Ezr 4:18 the letter which you sent to us has been plainly read before me. [[note: the use of the Apocrypha as a Historic source only and not as an approve d part of the Bible]] 1Maccabees 10:18 "King Alexander to his brother Jonathan, greeting. 1Ma 10:19 We have heard about you, that you are a mighty warrior and worthy to b e our friend. 1Ma 10:20 And so we have appointed you today to be the high priest of your natio n; you are to be called the king's friend" (and he sent him a purple robe and a golden crown) "and you are to take our side and keep friendship with us." 1Ma 10:21 So Jonathan put on the holy garments in the seventh month of the one h undred and sixtieth year, at the feast of tabernacles, and he recruited troops a nd equipped them with arms in abundance. 1Ma 10:22 When Demetrius heard of these things he was grieved and said, 1Ma 10:23 "What is this that we have done? Alexander has gotten ahead of us in f orming a friendship with the Jews to strengthen himself. 1Ma 10:24 I also will write them words of encouragement and promise them honor a nd gifts, that I may have their help." 1Ma 10:25 So he sent a message to them in the following words: "King Demetrius t o the nation of the Jews, greeting. 1Ma 10:26 Since you have kept your agreement with us and have continued your fri endship with us, and have not sided with our enemies, we have heard of it and re joiced. 1Ma 10:27 And now continue still to keep faith with us, and we will repay you wi th good for what you do for us. 1Ma 10:28 We will grant you many immunities and give you gifts. 1Ma 11:30 "King Demetrius to Jonathan his brother and to the nation of the Jews, greeting. 1Ma 11:31 This copy of the letter which we wrote concerning you to Lasthenes our kinsman we have written to you also, so that you may know what it says. 1Ma 11:32 'King Demetrius to Lasthenes his father, greeting. 1Ma 11:33 To the nation of the Jews, who are our friends and fulfil their obliga tions to us, we have determined to do good, because of the good will they show t oward us. 1Ma 15:9 When we gain control of our kingdom, we will bestow great honor upon yo u and your nation and the temple, so that your glory will become manifest in all the earth." 2Sa 24:14 Then David said to Gad, "I am in great distress; let us fall into the hand of the LORD, for his mercy is great; but let me not fall into the hand of m an." Song of Solomon 1:11 We will make you ornaments of gold, studded with silver. Item 5) Thomas Jefferson on the false doctrine: "No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity. . . .Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at the will of the Athanasius. The hocuspocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands of

martyrs. . . .In fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck." From: Jefferson, Thomas (b.1743-d.1826). "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Being His Autobiography, Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, and Other Writings, Official and Private: Published by the Order of the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library, From the Original Manuscripts, Deposited in the Department of State, with explanatory notes, by the editor, H.A. Washington." 9 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Maury, 1853-1854), part of letter to theologian James Smith - December 8, 1822, vol 7, pp. 26970. E302 .J464 / 06-007150. Appearing also at the following internet web site: Thomas Jefferson's Letters > www.barefootsworld.net/tj...html#unity <. Also, it may interest some to know that, a vast amount of the pre1800's non-Trinitarian (anti-Trinitarian) literature which exists at the Library of Congress (Washington, D.C.), the largest library in the world, is there because they once belonged to Thomas Jefferson. A great quote by Thos. Jefferson on the trinity can be found in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, edited By H.A. Washington vol. 7, p. 210 : "When we shall have done away the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, reared to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus; when, in short, we shall have unlearned everything which has been taught since his day, and got back to the pure and simple doctrines he inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily his disciples; and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from his lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian." I challenge anyone to show that my facts are in error. Now to know the truth, go to: 1) 2) 3) http://religioustruths.yuku.com/ http://www.network54.com/Forum/403209/ http://religioustruths.lefora.com/

TRYING TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM LEARNING THE TRUTH IS JUST PLAIN WICKED AND EVIL, may Almighty God (YHWH) punish him. If you wish more information and/or wish to ask a question or what ever, contact me by leaving a PM (personal message) at http://religioustruths.yuku.com/ Your Friend in Christ Iris89 Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of d

eath will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of h is prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible t oday!