The Correct Translation of John 11c Was the Word ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo (By Lesriv Spencer 07272010 Updated July2014)

(Unless noted Bible citations below are from the King James Version Greek citations are from The Greek New Testament SBL Edition (ldquoSBLGNTrdquo courtesy of Society of Biblical Literature and Logos Bible Software Michael W Holmes Editor 2010)

Perhaps no other scripture of the Bible provokes as much emotional discussion Why is this so Simplybecause John 11 centers around who really is Jesus Christ Most Bible versions at John 11 tell us ldquoIn the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was Godrdquo For most ldquoChristiansrdquo Christ is the object of worship for he is said to be ldquoGodrdquo himself God ldquoAlmightyrdquo For a smaller number of ldquoChristiansrdquo Christ is seen as the ldquoSonrdquo of God only subordinate to God as a separate entity of God Almighty The majority view accepts the Trinity teaching whereas the minority group who supports that Christ is always subject to God in power and position rejects the Trinity as a pagan concept In this article I will not deal with the rightness or wrongness of the Trinity doctrine though the subject cannot be avoided entirely when considering this scripture Instead I will focus on whether Greek grammar and Bible context allows another translation at John 11c other than the traditional one such as ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo (or ldquodivinerdquo) or some other similar rendering These translations are accepted by a minority group of ldquoChristianrdquo followers such as Jehovahs Witnesses They are likewise accepted by some Catholic and Protestant scholars who understand the translation issues of John 11 similarly though perhaps with a different interpretation (For a consideration of the Trinity subject click httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense )

This information is provided for the benefit of anyone sincerely interested in expanding their scope of a much discussed scripture I have no affiliation to any religious group nor do I attend religious services of any kind I do have a keen interest in the Scriptures and their import Truth matters to me and I feel compelled to express some observations on the controversy surrounding John 11

One translation that has received an unusual amount of attention and publicity is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures published by the Watchtower Bible amp Tract Society of Jehovahs Witnesses since 1950 From the beginning of publication this Bible translation has triggered numerous discussions not only around the person of Christ but whether a translator can technically render controversial passages where Christ is said to be described as ldquoGodrdquo the way the New Word Translation does which makes a distinction throughout between God and Christ Little it matters it seems whetherthey were the first or the last (in fact they were not) to bring out this distinction in the translation

Because of its wide circulation (upwards of 200 million in 120 languages in whole or in part according to the NWT Revised Edition Sept 2013) the NWT translation is apparently seen as a threat to orthodoxy a threat that some feel must be stopped at any cost Hence the relevance to the subject The relentless attacks to this Version time and again has brought up the subject of what the Logos (Word) really is at John 11 Is it ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo Surely there has not been a more controversial Bible translation in the last half century or so than this one This may be due in part to the continuing presence of this translation worldwide with its ensuing publicity andor to the admittedly intrinsic quality of the translation that provokes much discussion Otherwise why make it the focus of attacks when other Bible versions render some of the same controversial passages dealing with the person of

Christ in a similar manner If anything the greater the controversy surrounding this translation the wider its distribution will likely be So efforts to quash this Bible version have had the opposite effect itseems For further consideration of the New World Translation controversy see httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

This turmoil reminds me of the controversy which arose when The Living Bible was first published Many pundits dismissed it as a real Bible since it was more of a paraphrase than the norm of standard versions published until then The Living Bible was a runaway success selling in the millions and further motivated scholars to take a fresh look at new Bible translation work We all have benefited from the controversies that surrounded The Living Bible whether we realize it or not

A positive result of the hectic discussions brought about by the power of the Internet is that it has led to greater scrutiny in the interpretation and translation of John 11 This in turn has led many to reconsidertheir translation choices for the text Sadly many online discussions end up distorting truth and twistingfacts A review of pertinent facts is in order

John 11 ldquoCapitalrdquo letters and the Greek ldquoarticlerdquo

The original text at John 11 literally reads ldquoin beginning was the logos [word] and the logos was toward the god (ho theos) and god (theos) was the logosrdquo In the original Greek all letters appeared inthe form of ldquoupper-caserdquo or ldquocapitalrdquo forms (uncials) In English we use lower-case more often than capital letters So it is up to the writer to use ldquocapitalrdquo letters to help guide the reader in the subject discussed However in the translation process as a consequence ldquointerpretationrdquo of the Bible text can come into play Another important matter to consider in this scripture is the presence or absence of the Greek article (commonly referred to as the ldquodefiniterdquo article somewhat corresponding to the English ldquotherdquo) Both ldquoKoinerdquo Greek (ldquocommonrdquo Bible Greek) and English use the ldquodefiniterdquo article (ldquotherdquo) as needed Greek however does not use the ldquoindefiniterdquo article (ldquoardquo) so the translator must provide one in English as needed again according to his interpretation of Bible context Some scholars due to theological issues seem to downplay the significance of the article in John 11 Admittedly there is no strict rule that can be applied in every instance where the article appears At the same time we cannot conclude that the use or non-use of the article by Bible writers was done carelessly As to the significance or function of the Greek article throughout the Greek text we read

ldquoThe Purpose of the ArticleIt defines limits points out from horiacutezo cf our horizon The Greek article is a pointer [hellip] T he Greek article points out in one of three ways a Individual from Other Individuals This is its most common use [hellip] b Classes from other Classes [hellip] c Qualities from Other Qualities [hellip]rdquo (A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament 10th Ed by AT Robertson and W Hersey Davis pp 275-276) ldquoThe basic function of the Greek article [the in English] is to identifyrdquo (Essentials of New Testament Greek p 129 by Ray Summers BA ThM ThD Baptist) ldquoThe primary function of the article is to make something definiterdquo ldquoA qualitative force is often expressed by the absence of the article [ldquotherdquo in English]rdquo (An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament pp 57 58 by Williams Douglas Chamberlain MA PhD DD Presbyterian) ldquoThe article does not so much make another term definite as it specifies or points out a given entity calling attention to it [hellip] (New Testament Greek by James Allen Hewett p 43) ldquo[The] original force [of the article] was to point out something It has largely kept the force of drawing attention to something [hellip] In terms of basic force the article conceptualizes In terms of

predominant function it identifies [hellip] The Greek article also serves a determining function at timesndash ie it definitizesrdquo (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel B Wallace pp 208-210 Italics his) ldquoIn general the presence of the article [ldquotherdquo] emphasizes particular identity while the absence of the article emphasizes quality or characteristicsrdquo (Learn To Read New Testament Greek p 30 by David Alan Black professor of NT and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest NC) Accordingly in the reading of John 11 above you will find the first instance of ldquotheosrdquo (God) with the article (ldquotherdquo called arthrous) making the reference to the Supreme God specific while the second instance of ldquogodrdquo preceding a verb has no article (ldquoanarthrousrdquo) which gives an adjectival quality to the noun Although most scholars traditionally support the translation ldquothe Word was Godrdquo as does trinitarian William D Mounce he acknowledges ldquoWhen the article is not present the emphasis is on the quality of the substantiverdquo (Biblical Greek A Compact Guide p 15) Mounce in Basics of Biblical Greek (365 368) cites Daniel B Wallace (professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary) for support of his view of John 11c where Wallace states ldquoThe most likely candidate for θεός [theos] is qualitativerdquo (Wallace op cit p 269) And with keen discernment The Translatorrsquos New Testament a Bible conceived as an aid for translators noted ldquoIt is difficult to believe that the omission [of the article at John 11c] is not significantrdquo (The British and Foreign Bible Society p 451)

Can the ldquoindefiniterdquo article (ldquoardquo) be added to John 11c

Randolph 0 Yeager is one scholar who believes it does not judging by the following deriding comment he made public ldquoOnly sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate lsquoand the Word was a Godrsquo rdquo (The Renaissance New Testament Vol 4 Renaissance Press 1980 p 4) He is not alone in claiming so Yeagers statememt do not in any way help bridge the schism between Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians More relevant to the subject at hand is whether such statements actually hold up under scrutiny or not They do not

Technically speaking the indefinite article can be included in the rendering of John 11c Modern English translations use the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) hundreds of times even though neither Hebrew or Greek used any Latin had no articles but early translations into English from Latin did use them For example Wycliffe who translated from Latin into English (c 1384) inserted both the definite (ldquotherdquo) andthe indefinite article (ldquoardquo) into the Bible text though absent in Latin Others followed suit When done correctly in translation the practice of adding the indefinite article into the rendered text is not only acceptable it becomes necessary in some contexts to convey the appropriate meaning Basically lsquothe use of the indefinite article (a) in translation is a matter of individual judgmentrsquo says scholar Alfred Marshall D Litt He adds ldquoWe have inserted lsquoarsquo or lsquoanrsquo [in our translation] as a matter of course where it seems called forrdquo (The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English 1982 p xxx of Introduction) Likewise James Allen Hewett wrote ldquoSince Greek has no indefinite article the English translation of a Greek word that does not have an article may be preceded by the indefinite article lsquoarsquo or lsquoanrsquordquo (op cit Hewett p 43) That being the case why is there so much objection when a particular translation (NWT) does so at John 11c

Obviously the use of the indefinite article in translation can cause great controversy in places where doctrine comes into play since the ldquointerpretationrdquo of the passage can change due to it The same is trueby not employing it in some cases John 11c is a clear example where using the indefinite article (ldquoardquo)

may bring passionate voices to the fore The matter is more of a ldquotheologicalrdquo than a grammatical issuethough some scholars would have you believe otherwise My aim is not to prove that John 11c cannot be rendered ldquoGodrdquo but to bring a level of fairness to the subject Grammatically speaking it is possible to translate word-for-word and come up with the basic rendering ldquoGodrdquo If so why not continue using the traditional reading which appears in many Bibles Simply because it is misleading Says a respectable source (Murray J Harris) ldquoFew will doubt that this time-honored translation [the Word was God] needs careful exegesis The rendering cannot stand without explanationrdquo Harris a Trinitarian admits that the traditional translation is troublesome since lsquoin normal English usage God is a proper noun referring to the person of the Father and not to Christrsquo As he says ldquothe Word is neither the Father nor the Trinityrdquo (Murray J Harris in Jesus as God The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus 1992 p 69 Baker Books)

A main problem with applying ldquoGodrdquo to Christ in a definite sense as if he were the Sovereign God is that it communicates a different meaning to the modern reader (from a different culture and mindset) than what John intended Gods people were accustomed to the teaching of the ldquoShemardquo the first two words in Hebrew and the words that follow at Deuteronomy 64 ldquo[Shema Yisrael (Hear Israel)] Hearo Israel Jehovah our God is one Jehovahrdquo (American Standard Version) These words epitomize the core monotheistic essence of Judaism Applying the word ldquoGodrdquo to Christ at John 11 in a trinitarian sense (a doctrine admittedly not established in Bible times) would arguably break the ldquomonotheisticrdquo imprint Others sincerely believe that the rendering ldquoa godrdquo appearing in some versions in reference to the Logos promotes ldquopolytheismrdquo These issues are discussed further ahead

Why the confusion surrounding John 11

One reason for the great confusion about whether ldquotheosrdquo (God) at John 11c is definite or not is due tothe publication of a prominent article written by Trinitarian Professor E C Colwell (University of Chicago) which appeared in 1933 ldquoA Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testamentrdquo in Journal of Biblical Literature 52 Colwellrsquos reasoning from the start was sort of convoluted because since then many scholars have misunderstood and abused his ldquoRulerdquo Daniel B Wallace mentioned earlier wrote the following of this ldquorulerdquo ldquoAlmost immediately many scholars (especially of a more conservative stripe) misunderstood Colwellrsquos rule They saw the benefit of the rule for affirming the deity of Christ in John 11rdquo (op cit Wallace p 257)

Wallace goes on to mention that scholars of the like of Turner Zerwick Bruce Metzger Walter Martin Moule C Kuehne L Morris and even Colwell himself (since the article in JBL was written) lsquohave misunderstood the rulersquo Wallace reiterates ldquoOur point is that Colwellrsquos rule has been misunderstood and abused by scholarsrdquo (op cit Wallace pp 257 258 260) To this list we can add David Alan Black (mentioned earlier who as recent as 2009 in his Grammar) commits the same error when he wrote ldquoThe result [of Colwells Rule] is that θεός is almost certainly definite in meaning lsquothe Word was Godrsquondashnot merely lsquoa godrsquo rdquo (Learn To Read New Testament Greek p 200) Professor Robert Hanna (Maracay Venezuela) was another scholar who allowed Colwells theory to influence his interpretation of John 11 when he declared ldquoThe fact that Θεός has no article does not transform the word into an adjective [such as ldquodivinerdquo as translated by Dr Moffatt] It is a predicate noun of which the subject is λoacuteγος [loacutegos] and it is a fairly universal rule in New Testament Greek [really Colwells] that when a predicate noun precedes a verb it lacks the definite articlerdquo (A Grammatical Aid to the Greek New Testament p 147) On this Max Zerwick (SJ) wrote ldquoThe

theory [Colwells] has its appeal but it is not easy to admit that the reason for the use of the article is to be found in a circumstance (order of words) which seems to belong to an altogether different categoryrdquo (Biblical Greek p 56 Rome) Regrettably ever since Colwells article was published many individuals have placed far more weight on Colwellrsquos theory than is warranted Big mistake

It bears mentioning that although Professor Hanna seeking to affirm Christs deity zealously applied Colwells theory at John 11 we find that he did not follow such ldquorulerdquo at John 844 which has similar syntax to John 11c but where Christs deity is not in focus At John 844 we have a couple of instances where a predicate noun precedes a verb which lacks the definite article just as we have in John 11c He quotes Turners Grammatical Insights into the NT and says ldquoThe second segment of this verse should be translated lsquoyour father the Devil was a murderer from the beginningrsquo rdquo And ldquoThe latter part of this verse should be translated lsquohe is a liarrdquo Note the use of ldquoardquo here This suggests that lsquoa godrsquo translation which he labels ldquoutterly unsuitable translationrdquo is not only feasible but arguably lsquoacceptablersquo as well In English sometimes as is the case in John 844 the only way to communicate the qualitative state of a noun well is by using the indefinite article as Hanna himself did This suggeststhat a predicate noun before the verb serves the role of an adjective as Moffatt did in his translation contrary to Hannas assertion at John 11c

The question then is Does Colwells rule prove in any way that an anarthrous predicate noun before the verb is ldquodefiniterdquo Scholar Paul S Dixon answers ldquoColwellrsquos rule cannot be applied to [John 11] as an argument for definitenessThe rule says nothing about definitenessrdquo (ThM ldquoThe significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in Johnrdquo 1975)

And Wallace wrote ldquoOn the one hand Colwellrsquos rule as applied to John 11 has been played as a trump card by Trinitarians in many christological debates even though the rule really says nothing about the definiteness of θεόςrdquo (Wallace op cit p 290) Wallace himself a Trinitarian concludes ldquoIndeed an examination both of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives and of the Christology of the FourthGospel strongly suggests a qualitative force to θεός (a view which affirms the deity of Christ just as strongly but for different reasons)rdquo (Ibid p 290 Italics his) And Philip B Harner stated in his noteworthy article ldquoIn John 11 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definiterdquo (ldquoQualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 1539 and John 11rdquo p 87 published in Journal of Biblical Literature Vol 92 1973)

Professor David BeDuhn went further ldquolsquoColwells rulersquo is not a valid rule of Greek grammarrdquo (Truthin Translation ndash Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament p 118 Univ Press)

Some are convinced that the reading ldquoGodrdquo is appropriate in John 11c and condemn the use of any other rendering and paint it as inconsequential in the academic sphere It goes without saying that anyone who translates the Bible in a way that goes against mainstream usage will quickly become the target of heavy criticism even when they are right The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge mentions that when a prominent Protestant Bible translation by Marc J H Oltramare first rendered John 11c back in 1872 as ldquodieurdquo with a small ldquodrdquo he received a lot of flak for it It said ldquoHis rendering of John i1 ldquoLa Parole eacutetait dieurdquo was very sharply criticized by the orthodox on account of the small d rdquo (Vol 8 p 239)

There is hardly anything more disquieting to Catholics and Protestants than the thought of having a prominent Bible translation in John 11 describing Jesus Christ as ldquoa godrdquo instead of ldquoGodrdquo We have an

example of this when a reputable scholar from the University of Glasgow Scotland Dr William Barclay publicly accused the publishers of the New World Translation of lsquointellectual dishonestyrsquo for translating John 11 as they have ldquoThe deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations John 11 is translated lsquothe Word was a godrsquo a translation which is grammatically impossible hellip It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonestrdquo (The Expository Times vol 65 October 1953 Edinburg T amp T Clark)

However two decades later Barclay himself in a private letter (dated ldquo20 May 1974rdquo and later made public) to a Mr David Burnett from Australia conceded ldquoYou could translate [John 11c] so far as the Greek goes lsquothe Word was a Godrsquo but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrongrdquo (Ever yours A Selection from the Letters of William Barclay edited by C L Rawlins Labarum Publ 1985 page 205) Thus the NW translators went from being ldquointellectually dishonestrdquo to being theologically unfavored As far as I know Dr Barclay never issued a public apology to the NW translators for previously and publicly denouncing their translation effort as lsquointellectual dishonestyrsquo when he admitted later that the rendering ldquothe Word was a Godrdquo ldquoso far as the Greek goesrdquo was grammatically possible Where was the lsquointellectual dishonestyrsquo here A snapshot of the letter is available at the end

Doctor Jason BeDuhns (Northern Arizona Univ Flagstaff) response to Barclays accusation of the NW translation of John 11 could not be more direct ldquoThis statement is false the NWT translation of John 11 is not lsquogrammatically impossiblersquo and someone who says that it is either is ignorant of Greek grammar or themselves lsquointellectually dishonestrsquo rdquo (Statement made to Mr Joseph-Stephen Bonanno ina private letter dated August 18 2001 in answer to one of his questions Bonanno kindly requested permission from BeDuhn to publish its content and permission was granted I acknowledge their contributions)

Another scholar (from a Trinitarian Institution) Dr Thomas L Constable chimed in on the controversy of John 11 ldquoThey [the JWs] translate it lsquothe Word was a godrsquo rdquo ldquoJesus was not a god Jesus is Godrdquo Nevertheless he acknowledged ldquoGrammatically this is a possible translation since it is legitimate to supply the indefinite article (lsquoarsquo) when no article is present in the Greek text as here However that translation here is definitely incorrect because it reduces Jesus to less than Godrdquo (Dr Constables Expository Bible Study Notes Notes on John 2012 E d i t i o n Dr Constable ThM ThD Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition Dallas Theological Seminary Dallas Texas)

There are a growing number of scholars who acknowledge that the translation ldquoa godrdquo at John 11 is grammatically possible Those who recognize the viability of such rendering and still oppose it do so with the understanding that context is on their side Others still insist that grammar is in their favor

What then is the most fitting translation to bring out the qualitative force of the anarthrous noun θεός [theos] There is no agreement In fact some scholars make it sound that John 11 is extremely complex to translate It is but only if one seeks to avoid by all means one logical translation (albeit controversial) of the last clause (ie the Word was a god) Having said that the correct translation of John 11 is not that difficult to determine There is enough information available on the subject from which we can establish a firm conclusion As noted above having a singular anarthrous noun theos preceding a verb is indicative of a quality about the subject in discussion In such construction according to the NABRE Bible theos is not used to identify the Word with the God he was with It is used to describe something about the Logos ldquoWas God lack of a definite article with ldquoGodrdquo in Greek

signifies predication rather than identificationrdquo (New American Bible Revised Edition 2011)

Dr Ray Summers explains ldquoAt this point an important differentiation should be observed When the article is used with a construction the thing emphasized is lsquoidentityrsquo when the article is not used the thing emphasized is quality of character ὁ νόμος [ho nomos] means lsquothe lawrsquo It points out a particularlaw and gives specific identity νόμος [nomos] means lsquolawrsquo in generalThe difference is clearly seen in the use of oacute Θεός [ho theos] and Θεός [theos] Thus lsquoin the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God (τὸν Θεoacuteν) and the Word was divine (Θεός) gives the senserdquo (Essentials of New Testament Greek pp 129-130) The Translatorrsquos New Testament agrees ldquoThere is a distinction in the Greek here between lsquowith Godrsquo and lsquoGodrsquo In effect [the absence of the definite article in the second instance of Theos] gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means lsquoThe Wordwas divinersquo rdquo (Page 451) Some object to the use of ldquodivinerdquo for ldquotheosrdquo stating that if John wanted to communicate ldquodivinerdquo he would have used the available Greek word ldquotheiosrdquo instead of ldquotheosrdquo However one scholar has pointed out that ldquotheiosrdquo was more common with literary Greek hence foreign to the Gospel of John See Ernst HaenchenFunk A Commentary on the Gospel of John 111)

These divergent views indicate the need for caution at the time of taking scholars interpretations as facts without analyzing the matter further Another danger we would do well to avoid is becoming overly reliant on the inconclusive testimony of the ldquoearly church fathersrdquo ndash although they certainly have a deserved place in the historical analysis The Bible is ultimately our best guide in this matter There are certain syntactical patterns in Scripture that when analyzed can help us determine (not ldquoproverdquo) whois right and who is wrong There are numerous cases in the Greek text similar to John 11c where singular anarthrous predicate nouns precede the verb and translators regularly insert the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) within the translated text to bring out the indefiniteness of such nouns or to emphasize a quality or characteristic of the subject in discussion while others employ an initial lower-case letter where the subject is clearly not being identified or made definite Here is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John See Mark 649 1132 John 419 424 660 670 844 twice 848 917 924 101 1013 1033 126 1835 1837 twice Some of the selections were chosen from documentation on the subject by Dr Philip B Harner ldquoQualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 1539 and John 11rdquo Journal of Biblical Literature Vol 92 Philadelphia 1973 75-87

To illustrate I will provide the reader with seven (7) examples which show singular anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb five from the New Testament one from Xenophon and one from the Septuagint an important Greek translation from the Hebrew OT text used by NT Christian writers to determine how Bible scholars deal with this syntactical structure (For other examples see httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings )

1st Example (John 660)

Greek Σκληρός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος οὗτος hard is the word this

Jesus said many things which some listeners found shocking In this scripture even many of Jesus disciples found his sayings about his followers having to eat (munch) his flesh and drink his blood in order to have life hard or difficult to bear

may bring passionate voices to the fore The matter is more of a ldquotheologicalrdquo than a grammatical issuethough some scholars would have you believe otherwise My aim is not to prove that John 11c cannot be rendered ldquoGodrdquo but to bring a level of fairness to the subject Grammatically speaking it is possible to translate word-for-word and come up with the basic rendering ldquoGodrdquo If so why not continue using the traditional reading which appears in many Bibles Simply because it is misleading Says a respectable source (Murray J Harris) ldquoFew will doubt that this time-honored translation [the Word was God] needs careful exegesis The rendering cannot stand without explanationrdquo Harris a Trinitarian admits that the traditional translation is troublesome since lsquoin normal English usage God is a proper noun referring to the person of the Father and not to Christrsquo As he says ldquothe Word is neither the Father nor the Trinityrdquo (Murray J Harris in Jesus as God The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus 1992 p 69 Baker Books)

A main problem with applying ldquoGodrdquo to Christ in a definite sense as if he were the Sovereign God is that it communicates a different meaning to the modern reader (from a different culture and mindset) than what John intended Gods people were accustomed to the teaching of the ldquoShemardquo the first two words in Hebrew and the words that follow at Deuteronomy 64 ldquo[Shema Yisrael (Hear Israel)] Hearo Israel Jehovah our God is one Jehovahrdquo (American Standard Version) These words epitomize the core monotheistic essence of Judaism Applying the word ldquoGodrdquo to Christ at John 11 in a trinitarian sense (a doctrine admittedly not established in Bible times) would arguably break the ldquomonotheisticrdquo imprint Others sincerely believe that the rendering ldquoa godrdquo appearing in some versions in reference to the Logos promotes ldquopolytheismrdquo These issues are discussed further ahead

Why the confusion surrounding John 11

One reason for the great confusion about whether ldquotheosrdquo (God) at John 11c is definite or not is due tothe publication of a prominent article written by Trinitarian Professor E C Colwell (University of Chicago) which appeared in 1933 ldquoA Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testamentrdquo in Journal of Biblical Literature 52 Colwellrsquos reasoning from the start was sort of convoluted because since then many scholars have misunderstood and abused his ldquoRulerdquo Daniel B Wallace mentioned earlier wrote the following of this ldquorulerdquo ldquoAlmost immediately many scholars (especially of a more conservative stripe) misunderstood Colwellrsquos rule They saw the benefit of the rule for affirming the deity of Christ in John 11rdquo (op cit Wallace p 257)

Wallace goes on to mention that scholars of the like of Turner Zerwick Bruce Metzger Walter Martin Moule C Kuehne L Morris and even Colwell himself (since the article in JBL was written) lsquohave misunderstood the rulersquo Wallace reiterates ldquoOur point is that Colwellrsquos rule has been misunderstood and abused by scholarsrdquo (op cit Wallace pp 257 258 260) To this list we can add David Alan Black (mentioned earlier who as recent as 2009 in his Grammar) commits the same error when he wrote ldquoThe result [of Colwells Rule] is that θεός is almost certainly definite in meaning lsquothe Word was Godrsquondashnot merely lsquoa godrsquo rdquo (Learn To Read New Testament Greek p 200) Professor Robert Hanna (Maracay Venezuela) was another scholar who allowed Colwells theory to influence his interpretation of John 11 when he declared ldquoThe fact that Θεός has no article does not transform the word into an adjective [such as ldquodivinerdquo as translated by Dr Moffatt] It is a predicate noun of which the subject is λoacuteγος [loacutegos] and it is a fairly universal rule in New Testament Greek [really Colwells] that when a predicate noun precedes a verb it lacks the definite articlerdquo (A Grammatical Aid to the Greek New Testament p 147) On this Max Zerwick (SJ) wrote ldquoThe

theory [Colwells] has its appeal but it is not easy to admit that the reason for the use of the article is to be found in a circumstance (order of words) which seems to belong to an altogether different categoryrdquo (Biblical Greek p 56 Rome) Regrettably ever since Colwells article was published many individuals have placed far more weight on Colwellrsquos theory than is warranted Big mistake

It bears mentioning that although Professor Hanna seeking to affirm Christs deity zealously applied Colwells theory at John 11 we find that he did not follow such ldquorulerdquo at John 844 which has similar syntax to John 11c but where Christs deity is not in focus At John 844 we have a couple of instances where a predicate noun precedes a verb which lacks the definite article just as we have in John 11c He quotes Turners Grammatical Insights into the NT and says ldquoThe second segment of this verse should be translated lsquoyour father the Devil was a murderer from the beginningrsquo rdquo And ldquoThe latter part of this verse should be translated lsquohe is a liarrdquo Note the use of ldquoardquo here This suggests that lsquoa godrsquo translation which he labels ldquoutterly unsuitable translationrdquo is not only feasible but arguably lsquoacceptablersquo as well In English sometimes as is the case in John 844 the only way to communicate the qualitative state of a noun well is by using the indefinite article as Hanna himself did This suggeststhat a predicate noun before the verb serves the role of an adjective as Moffatt did in his translation contrary to Hannas assertion at John 11c

The question then is Does Colwells rule prove in any way that an anarthrous predicate noun before the verb is ldquodefiniterdquo Scholar Paul S Dixon answers ldquoColwellrsquos rule cannot be applied to [John 11] as an argument for definitenessThe rule says nothing about definitenessrdquo (ThM ldquoThe significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in Johnrdquo 1975)

And Wallace wrote ldquoOn the one hand Colwellrsquos rule as applied to John 11 has been played as a trump card by Trinitarians in many christological debates even though the rule really says nothing about the definiteness of θεόςrdquo (Wallace op cit p 290) Wallace himself a Trinitarian concludes ldquoIndeed an examination both of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives and of the Christology of the FourthGospel strongly suggests a qualitative force to θεός (a view which affirms the deity of Christ just as strongly but for different reasons)rdquo (Ibid p 290 Italics his) And Philip B Harner stated in his noteworthy article ldquoIn John 11 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definiterdquo (ldquoQualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 1539 and John 11rdquo p 87 published in Journal of Biblical Literature Vol 92 1973)

Professor David BeDuhn went further ldquolsquoColwells rulersquo is not a valid rule of Greek grammarrdquo (Truthin Translation ndash Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament p 118 Univ Press)

Some are convinced that the reading ldquoGodrdquo is appropriate in John 11c and condemn the use of any other rendering and paint it as inconsequential in the academic sphere It goes without saying that anyone who translates the Bible in a way that goes against mainstream usage will quickly become the target of heavy criticism even when they are right The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge mentions that when a prominent Protestant Bible translation by Marc J H Oltramare first rendered John 11c back in 1872 as ldquodieurdquo with a small ldquodrdquo he received a lot of flak for it It said ldquoHis rendering of John i1 ldquoLa Parole eacutetait dieurdquo was very sharply criticized by the orthodox on account of the small d rdquo (Vol 8 p 239)

There is hardly anything more disquieting to Catholics and Protestants than the thought of having a prominent Bible translation in John 11 describing Jesus Christ as ldquoa godrdquo instead of ldquoGodrdquo We have an

example of this when a reputable scholar from the University of Glasgow Scotland Dr William Barclay publicly accused the publishers of the New World Translation of lsquointellectual dishonestyrsquo for translating John 11 as they have ldquoThe deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations John 11 is translated lsquothe Word was a godrsquo a translation which is grammatically impossible hellip It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonestrdquo (The Expository Times vol 65 October 1953 Edinburg T amp T Clark)

However two decades later Barclay himself in a private letter (dated ldquo20 May 1974rdquo and later made public) to a Mr David Burnett from Australia conceded ldquoYou could translate [John 11c] so far as the Greek goes lsquothe Word was a Godrsquo but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrongrdquo (Ever yours A Selection from the Letters of William Barclay edited by C L Rawlins Labarum Publ 1985 page 205) Thus the NW translators went from being ldquointellectually dishonestrdquo to being theologically unfavored As far as I know Dr Barclay never issued a public apology to the NW translators for previously and publicly denouncing their translation effort as lsquointellectual dishonestyrsquo when he admitted later that the rendering ldquothe Word was a Godrdquo ldquoso far as the Greek goesrdquo was grammatically possible Where was the lsquointellectual dishonestyrsquo here A snapshot of the letter is available at the end

Doctor Jason BeDuhns (Northern Arizona Univ Flagstaff) response to Barclays accusation of the NW translation of John 11 could not be more direct ldquoThis statement is false the NWT translation of John 11 is not lsquogrammatically impossiblersquo and someone who says that it is either is ignorant of Greek grammar or themselves lsquointellectually dishonestrsquo rdquo (Statement made to Mr Joseph-Stephen Bonanno ina private letter dated August 18 2001 in answer to one of his questions Bonanno kindly requested permission from BeDuhn to publish its content and permission was granted I acknowledge their contributions)

Another scholar (from a Trinitarian Institution) Dr Thomas L Constable chimed in on the controversy of John 11 ldquoThey [the JWs] translate it lsquothe Word was a godrsquo rdquo ldquoJesus was not a god Jesus is Godrdquo Nevertheless he acknowledged ldquoGrammatically this is a possible translation since it is legitimate to supply the indefinite article (lsquoarsquo) when no article is present in the Greek text as here However that translation here is definitely incorrect because it reduces Jesus to less than Godrdquo (Dr Constables Expository Bible Study Notes Notes on John 2012 E d i t i o n Dr Constable ThM ThD Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition Dallas Theological Seminary Dallas Texas)

There are a growing number of scholars who acknowledge that the translation ldquoa godrdquo at John 11 is grammatically possible Those who recognize the viability of such rendering and still oppose it do so with the understanding that context is on their side Others still insist that grammar is in their favor

What then is the most fitting translation to bring out the qualitative force of the anarthrous noun θεός [theos] There is no agreement In fact some scholars make it sound that John 11 is extremely complex to translate It is but only if one seeks to avoid by all means one logical translation (albeit controversial) of the last clause (ie the Word was a god) Having said that the correct translation of John 11 is not that difficult to determine There is enough information available on the subject from which we can establish a firm conclusion As noted above having a singular anarthrous noun theos preceding a verb is indicative of a quality about the subject in discussion In such construction according to the NABRE Bible theos is not used to identify the Word with the God he was with It is used to describe something about the Logos ldquoWas God lack of a definite article with ldquoGodrdquo in Greek

signifies predication rather than identificationrdquo (New American Bible Revised Edition 2011)

Dr Ray Summers explains ldquoAt this point an important differentiation should be observed When the article is used with a construction the thing emphasized is lsquoidentityrsquo when the article is not used the thing emphasized is quality of character ὁ νόμος [ho nomos] means lsquothe lawrsquo It points out a particularlaw and gives specific identity νόμος [nomos] means lsquolawrsquo in generalThe difference is clearly seen in the use of oacute Θεός [ho theos] and Θεός [theos] Thus lsquoin the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God (τὸν Θεoacuteν) and the Word was divine (Θεός) gives the senserdquo (Essentials of New Testament Greek pp 129-130) The Translatorrsquos New Testament agrees ldquoThere is a distinction in the Greek here between lsquowith Godrsquo and lsquoGodrsquo In effect [the absence of the definite article in the second instance of Theos] gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means lsquoThe Wordwas divinersquo rdquo (Page 451) Some object to the use of ldquodivinerdquo for ldquotheosrdquo stating that if John wanted to communicate ldquodivinerdquo he would have used the available Greek word ldquotheiosrdquo instead of ldquotheosrdquo However one scholar has pointed out that ldquotheiosrdquo was more common with literary Greek hence foreign to the Gospel of John See Ernst HaenchenFunk A Commentary on the Gospel of John 111)

These divergent views indicate the need for caution at the time of taking scholars interpretations as facts without analyzing the matter further Another danger we would do well to avoid is becoming overly reliant on the inconclusive testimony of the ldquoearly church fathersrdquo ndash although they certainly have a deserved place in the historical analysis The Bible is ultimately our best guide in this matter There are certain syntactical patterns in Scripture that when analyzed can help us determine (not ldquoproverdquo) whois right and who is wrong There are numerous cases in the Greek text similar to John 11c where singular anarthrous predicate nouns precede the verb and translators regularly insert the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) within the translated text to bring out the indefiniteness of such nouns or to emphasize a quality or characteristic of the subject in discussion while others employ an initial lower-case letter where the subject is clearly not being identified or made definite Here is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John See Mark 649 1132 John 419 424 660 670 844 twice 848 917 924 101 1013 1033 126 1835 1837 twice Some of the selections were chosen from documentation on the subject by Dr Philip B Harner ldquoQualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 1539 and John 11rdquo Journal of Biblical Literature Vol 92 Philadelphia 1973 75-87

To illustrate I will provide the reader with seven (7) examples which show singular anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb five from the New Testament one from Xenophon and one from the Septuagint an important Greek translation from the Hebrew OT text used by NT Christian writers to determine how Bible scholars deal with this syntactical structure (For other examples see httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings )

1st Example (John 660)

Greek Σκληρός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος οὗτος hard is the word this

Jesus said many things which some listeners found shocking In this scripture even many of Jesus disciples found his sayings about his followers having to eat (munch) his flesh and drink his blood in order to have life hard or difficult to bear

theory [Colwells] has its appeal but it is not easy to admit that the reason for the use of the article is to be found in a circumstance (order of words) which seems to belong to an altogether different categoryrdquo (Biblical Greek p 56 Rome) Regrettably ever since Colwells article was published many individuals have placed far more weight on Colwellrsquos theory than is warranted Big mistake

It bears mentioning that although Professor Hanna seeking to affirm Christs deity zealously applied Colwells theory at John 11 we find that he did not follow such ldquorulerdquo at John 844 which has similar syntax to John 11c but where Christs deity is not in focus At John 844 we have a couple of instances where a predicate noun precedes a verb which lacks the definite article just as we have in John 11c He quotes Turners Grammatical Insights into the NT and says ldquoThe second segment of this verse should be translated lsquoyour father the Devil was a murderer from the beginningrsquo rdquo And ldquoThe latter part of this verse should be translated lsquohe is a liarrdquo Note the use of ldquoardquo here This suggests that lsquoa godrsquo translation which he labels ldquoutterly unsuitable translationrdquo is not only feasible but arguably lsquoacceptablersquo as well In English sometimes as is the case in John 844 the only way to communicate the qualitative state of a noun well is by using the indefinite article as Hanna himself did This suggeststhat a predicate noun before the verb serves the role of an adjective as Moffatt did in his translation contrary to Hannas assertion at John 11c

The question then is Does Colwells rule prove in any way that an anarthrous predicate noun before the verb is ldquodefiniterdquo Scholar Paul S Dixon answers ldquoColwellrsquos rule cannot be applied to [John 11] as an argument for definitenessThe rule says nothing about definitenessrdquo (ThM ldquoThe significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in Johnrdquo 1975)

And Wallace wrote ldquoOn the one hand Colwellrsquos rule as applied to John 11 has been played as a trump card by Trinitarians in many christological debates even though the rule really says nothing about the definiteness of θεόςrdquo (Wallace op cit p 290) Wallace himself a Trinitarian concludes ldquoIndeed an examination both of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives and of the Christology of the FourthGospel strongly suggests a qualitative force to θεός (a view which affirms the deity of Christ just as strongly but for different reasons)rdquo (Ibid p 290 Italics his) And Philip B Harner stated in his noteworthy article ldquoIn John 11 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definiterdquo (ldquoQualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 1539 and John 11rdquo p 87 published in Journal of Biblical Literature Vol 92 1973)

Professor David BeDuhn went further ldquolsquoColwells rulersquo is not a valid rule of Greek grammarrdquo (Truthin Translation ndash Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament p 118 Univ Press)

Some are convinced that the reading ldquoGodrdquo is appropriate in John 11c and condemn the use of any other rendering and paint it as inconsequential in the academic sphere It goes without saying that anyone who translates the Bible in a way that goes against mainstream usage will quickly become the target of heavy criticism even when they are right The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge mentions that when a prominent Protestant Bible translation by Marc J H Oltramare first rendered John 11c back in 1872 as ldquodieurdquo with a small ldquodrdquo he received a lot of flak for it It said ldquoHis rendering of John i1 ldquoLa Parole eacutetait dieurdquo was very sharply criticized by the orthodox on account of the small d rdquo (Vol 8 p 239)

There is hardly anything more disquieting to Catholics and Protestants than the thought of having a prominent Bible translation in John 11 describing Jesus Christ as ldquoa godrdquo instead of ldquoGodrdquo We have an

example of this when a reputable scholar from the University of Glasgow Scotland Dr William Barclay publicly accused the publishers of the New World Translation of lsquointellectual dishonestyrsquo for translating John 11 as they have ldquoThe deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations John 11 is translated lsquothe Word was a godrsquo a translation which is grammatically impossible hellip It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonestrdquo (The Expository Times vol 65 October 1953 Edinburg T amp T Clark)

However two decades later Barclay himself in a private letter (dated ldquo20 May 1974rdquo and later made public) to a Mr David Burnett from Australia conceded ldquoYou could translate [John 11c] so far as the Greek goes lsquothe Word was a Godrsquo but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrongrdquo (Ever yours A Selection from the Letters of William Barclay edited by C L Rawlins Labarum Publ 1985 page 205) Thus the NW translators went from being ldquointellectually dishonestrdquo to being theologically unfavored As far as I know Dr Barclay never issued a public apology to the NW translators for previously and publicly denouncing their translation effort as lsquointellectual dishonestyrsquo when he admitted later that the rendering ldquothe Word was a Godrdquo ldquoso far as the Greek goesrdquo was grammatically possible Where was the lsquointellectual dishonestyrsquo here A snapshot of the letter is available at the end

Doctor Jason BeDuhns (Northern Arizona Univ Flagstaff) response to Barclays accusation of the NW translation of John 11 could not be more direct ldquoThis statement is false the NWT translation of John 11 is not lsquogrammatically impossiblersquo and someone who says that it is either is ignorant of Greek grammar or themselves lsquointellectually dishonestrsquo rdquo (Statement made to Mr Joseph-Stephen Bonanno ina private letter dated August 18 2001 in answer to one of his questions Bonanno kindly requested permission from BeDuhn to publish its content and permission was granted I acknowledge their contributions)

Another scholar (from a Trinitarian Institution) Dr Thomas L Constable chimed in on the controversy of John 11 ldquoThey [the JWs] translate it lsquothe Word was a godrsquo rdquo ldquoJesus was not a god Jesus is Godrdquo Nevertheless he acknowledged ldquoGrammatically this is a possible translation since it is legitimate to supply the indefinite article (lsquoarsquo) when no article is present in the Greek text as here However that translation here is definitely incorrect because it reduces Jesus to less than Godrdquo (Dr Constables Expository Bible Study Notes Notes on John 2012 E d i t i o n Dr Constable ThM ThD Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition Dallas Theological Seminary Dallas Texas)

There are a growing number of scholars who acknowledge that the translation ldquoa godrdquo at John 11 is grammatically possible Those who recognize the viability of such rendering and still oppose it do so with the understanding that context is on their side Others still insist that grammar is in their favor

What then is the most fitting translation to bring out the qualitative force of the anarthrous noun θεός [theos] There is no agreement In fact some scholars make it sound that John 11 is extremely complex to translate It is but only if one seeks to avoid by all means one logical translation (albeit controversial) of the last clause (ie the Word was a god) Having said that the correct translation of John 11 is not that difficult to determine There is enough information available on the subject from which we can establish a firm conclusion As noted above having a singular anarthrous noun theos preceding a verb is indicative of a quality about the subject in discussion In such construction according to the NABRE Bible theos is not used to identify the Word with the God he was with It is used to describe something about the Logos ldquoWas God lack of a definite article with ldquoGodrdquo in Greek

signifies predication rather than identificationrdquo (New American Bible Revised Edition 2011)

Dr Ray Summers explains ldquoAt this point an important differentiation should be observed When the article is used with a construction the thing emphasized is lsquoidentityrsquo when the article is not used the thing emphasized is quality of character ὁ νόμος [ho nomos] means lsquothe lawrsquo It points out a particularlaw and gives specific identity νόμος [nomos] means lsquolawrsquo in generalThe difference is clearly seen in the use of oacute Θεός [ho theos] and Θεός [theos] Thus lsquoin the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God (τὸν Θεoacuteν) and the Word was divine (Θεός) gives the senserdquo (Essentials of New Testament Greek pp 129-130) The Translatorrsquos New Testament agrees ldquoThere is a distinction in the Greek here between lsquowith Godrsquo and lsquoGodrsquo In effect [the absence of the definite article in the second instance of Theos] gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means lsquoThe Wordwas divinersquo rdquo (Page 451) Some object to the use of ldquodivinerdquo for ldquotheosrdquo stating that if John wanted to communicate ldquodivinerdquo he would have used the available Greek word ldquotheiosrdquo instead of ldquotheosrdquo However one scholar has pointed out that ldquotheiosrdquo was more common with literary Greek hence foreign to the Gospel of John See Ernst HaenchenFunk A Commentary on the Gospel of John 111)

These divergent views indicate the need for caution at the time of taking scholars interpretations as facts without analyzing the matter further Another danger we would do well to avoid is becoming overly reliant on the inconclusive testimony of the ldquoearly church fathersrdquo ndash although they certainly have a deserved place in the historical analysis The Bible is ultimately our best guide in this matter There are certain syntactical patterns in Scripture that when analyzed can help us determine (not ldquoproverdquo) whois right and who is wrong There are numerous cases in the Greek text similar to John 11c where singular anarthrous predicate nouns precede the verb and translators regularly insert the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) within the translated text to bring out the indefiniteness of such nouns or to emphasize a quality or characteristic of the subject in discussion while others employ an initial lower-case letter where the subject is clearly not being identified or made definite Here is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John See Mark 649 1132 John 419 424 660 670 844 twice 848 917 924 101 1013 1033 126 1835 1837 twice Some of the selections were chosen from documentation on the subject by Dr Philip B Harner ldquoQualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 1539 and John 11rdquo Journal of Biblical Literature Vol 92 Philadelphia 1973 75-87

To illustrate I will provide the reader with seven (7) examples which show singular anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb five from the New Testament one from Xenophon and one from the Septuagint an important Greek translation from the Hebrew OT text used by NT Christian writers to determine how Bible scholars deal with this syntactical structure (For other examples see httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings )

1st Example (John 660)

Greek Σκληρός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος οὗτος hard is the word this

Jesus said many things which some listeners found shocking In this scripture even many of Jesus disciples found his sayings about his followers having to eat (munch) his flesh and drink his blood in order to have life hard or difficult to bear

example of this when a reputable scholar from the University of Glasgow Scotland Dr William Barclay publicly accused the publishers of the New World Translation of lsquointellectual dishonestyrsquo for translating John 11 as they have ldquoThe deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations John 11 is translated lsquothe Word was a godrsquo a translation which is grammatically impossible hellip It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonestrdquo (The Expository Times vol 65 October 1953 Edinburg T amp T Clark)

However two decades later Barclay himself in a private letter (dated ldquo20 May 1974rdquo and later made public) to a Mr David Burnett from Australia conceded ldquoYou could translate [John 11c] so far as the Greek goes lsquothe Word was a Godrsquo but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrongrdquo (Ever yours A Selection from the Letters of William Barclay edited by C L Rawlins Labarum Publ 1985 page 205) Thus the NW translators went from being ldquointellectually dishonestrdquo to being theologically unfavored As far as I know Dr Barclay never issued a public apology to the NW translators for previously and publicly denouncing their translation effort as lsquointellectual dishonestyrsquo when he admitted later that the rendering ldquothe Word was a Godrdquo ldquoso far as the Greek goesrdquo was grammatically possible Where was the lsquointellectual dishonestyrsquo here A snapshot of the letter is available at the end

Doctor Jason BeDuhns (Northern Arizona Univ Flagstaff) response to Barclays accusation of the NW translation of John 11 could not be more direct ldquoThis statement is false the NWT translation of John 11 is not lsquogrammatically impossiblersquo and someone who says that it is either is ignorant of Greek grammar or themselves lsquointellectually dishonestrsquo rdquo (Statement made to Mr Joseph-Stephen Bonanno ina private letter dated August 18 2001 in answer to one of his questions Bonanno kindly requested permission from BeDuhn to publish its content and permission was granted I acknowledge their contributions)

Another scholar (from a Trinitarian Institution) Dr Thomas L Constable chimed in on the controversy of John 11 ldquoThey [the JWs] translate it lsquothe Word was a godrsquo rdquo ldquoJesus was not a god Jesus is Godrdquo Nevertheless he acknowledged ldquoGrammatically this is a possible translation since it is legitimate to supply the indefinite article (lsquoarsquo) when no article is present in the Greek text as here However that translation here is definitely incorrect because it reduces Jesus to less than Godrdquo (Dr Constables Expository Bible Study Notes Notes on John 2012 E d i t i o n Dr Constable ThM ThD Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition Dallas Theological Seminary Dallas Texas)

There are a growing number of scholars who acknowledge that the translation ldquoa godrdquo at John 11 is grammatically possible Those who recognize the viability of such rendering and still oppose it do so with the understanding that context is on their side Others still insist that grammar is in their favor

What then is the most fitting translation to bring out the qualitative force of the anarthrous noun θεός [theos] There is no agreement In fact some scholars make it sound that John 11 is extremely complex to translate It is but only if one seeks to avoid by all means one logical translation (albeit controversial) of the last clause (ie the Word was a god) Having said that the correct translation of John 11 is not that difficult to determine There is enough information available on the subject from which we can establish a firm conclusion As noted above having a singular anarthrous noun theos preceding a verb is indicative of a quality about the subject in discussion In such construction according to the NABRE Bible theos is not used to identify the Word with the God he was with It is used to describe something about the Logos ldquoWas God lack of a definite article with ldquoGodrdquo in Greek

signifies predication rather than identificationrdquo (New American Bible Revised Edition 2011)

Dr Ray Summers explains ldquoAt this point an important differentiation should be observed When the article is used with a construction the thing emphasized is lsquoidentityrsquo when the article is not used the thing emphasized is quality of character ὁ νόμος [ho nomos] means lsquothe lawrsquo It points out a particularlaw and gives specific identity νόμος [nomos] means lsquolawrsquo in generalThe difference is clearly seen in the use of oacute Θεός [ho theos] and Θεός [theos] Thus lsquoin the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God (τὸν Θεoacuteν) and the Word was divine (Θεός) gives the senserdquo (Essentials of New Testament Greek pp 129-130) The Translatorrsquos New Testament agrees ldquoThere is a distinction in the Greek here between lsquowith Godrsquo and lsquoGodrsquo In effect [the absence of the definite article in the second instance of Theos] gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means lsquoThe Wordwas divinersquo rdquo (Page 451) Some object to the use of ldquodivinerdquo for ldquotheosrdquo stating that if John wanted to communicate ldquodivinerdquo he would have used the available Greek word ldquotheiosrdquo instead of ldquotheosrdquo However one scholar has pointed out that ldquotheiosrdquo was more common with literary Greek hence foreign to the Gospel of John See Ernst HaenchenFunk A Commentary on the Gospel of John 111)

These divergent views indicate the need for caution at the time of taking scholars interpretations as facts without analyzing the matter further Another danger we would do well to avoid is becoming overly reliant on the inconclusive testimony of the ldquoearly church fathersrdquo ndash although they certainly have a deserved place in the historical analysis The Bible is ultimately our best guide in this matter There are certain syntactical patterns in Scripture that when analyzed can help us determine (not ldquoproverdquo) whois right and who is wrong There are numerous cases in the Greek text similar to John 11c where singular anarthrous predicate nouns precede the verb and translators regularly insert the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) within the translated text to bring out the indefiniteness of such nouns or to emphasize a quality or characteristic of the subject in discussion while others employ an initial lower-case letter where the subject is clearly not being identified or made definite Here is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John See Mark 649 1132 John 419 424 660 670 844 twice 848 917 924 101 1013 1033 126 1835 1837 twice Some of the selections were chosen from documentation on the subject by Dr Philip B Harner ldquoQualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 1539 and John 11rdquo Journal of Biblical Literature Vol 92 Philadelphia 1973 75-87

To illustrate I will provide the reader with seven (7) examples which show singular anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb five from the New Testament one from Xenophon and one from the Septuagint an important Greek translation from the Hebrew OT text used by NT Christian writers to determine how Bible scholars deal with this syntactical structure (For other examples see httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings )

1st Example (John 660)

Greek Σκληρός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος οὗτος hard is the word this

Jesus said many things which some listeners found shocking In this scripture even many of Jesus disciples found his sayings about his followers having to eat (munch) his flesh and drink his blood in order to have life hard or difficult to bear

signifies predication rather than identificationrdquo (New American Bible Revised Edition 2011)

Dr Ray Summers explains ldquoAt this point an important differentiation should be observed When the article is used with a construction the thing emphasized is lsquoidentityrsquo when the article is not used the thing emphasized is quality of character ὁ νόμος [ho nomos] means lsquothe lawrsquo It points out a particularlaw and gives specific identity νόμος [nomos] means lsquolawrsquo in generalThe difference is clearly seen in the use of oacute Θεός [ho theos] and Θεός [theos] Thus lsquoin the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God (τὸν Θεoacuteν) and the Word was divine (Θεός) gives the senserdquo (Essentials of New Testament Greek pp 129-130) The Translatorrsquos New Testament agrees ldquoThere is a distinction in the Greek here between lsquowith Godrsquo and lsquoGodrsquo In effect [the absence of the definite article in the second instance of Theos] gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means lsquoThe Wordwas divinersquo rdquo (Page 451) Some object to the use of ldquodivinerdquo for ldquotheosrdquo stating that if John wanted to communicate ldquodivinerdquo he would have used the available Greek word ldquotheiosrdquo instead of ldquotheosrdquo However one scholar has pointed out that ldquotheiosrdquo was more common with literary Greek hence foreign to the Gospel of John See Ernst HaenchenFunk A Commentary on the Gospel of John 111)

These divergent views indicate the need for caution at the time of taking scholars interpretations as facts without analyzing the matter further Another danger we would do well to avoid is becoming overly reliant on the inconclusive testimony of the ldquoearly church fathersrdquo ndash although they certainly have a deserved place in the historical analysis The Bible is ultimately our best guide in this matter There are certain syntactical patterns in Scripture that when analyzed can help us determine (not ldquoproverdquo) whois right and who is wrong There are numerous cases in the Greek text similar to John 11c where singular anarthrous predicate nouns precede the verb and translators regularly insert the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) within the translated text to bring out the indefiniteness of such nouns or to emphasize a quality or characteristic of the subject in discussion while others employ an initial lower-case letter where the subject is clearly not being identified or made definite Here is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John See Mark 649 1132 John 419 424 660 670 844 twice 848 917 924 101 1013 1033 126 1835 1837 twice Some of the selections were chosen from documentation on the subject by Dr Philip B Harner ldquoQualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 1539 and John 11rdquo Journal of Biblical Literature Vol 92 Philadelphia 1973 75-87

To illustrate I will provide the reader with seven (7) examples which show singular anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb five from the New Testament one from Xenophon and one from the Septuagint an important Greek translation from the Hebrew OT text used by NT Christian writers to determine how Bible scholars deal with this syntactical structure (For other examples see httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings )

1st Example (John 660)

Greek Σκληρός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος οὗτος hard is the word this

Jesus said many things which some listeners found shocking In this scripture even many of Jesus disciples found his sayings about his followers having to eat (munch) his flesh and drink his blood in order to have life hard or difficult to bear

ldquoThis saying is hardrdquo (DouayndashRheims Bible) ldquoThis message is harshrdquo (Common English Bible) ldquoThis saying is hardrdquo (New American Bible) ldquoThis teaching is too hardrdquo (Good News Translation) ldquoThis word is harshrdquo (Analytical Literal Translation) ldquoThis speech is shockingrdquo (New World Translation)

ldquoThis is a hard sayingrdquo (NT James L Tomanek) ldquoThis is a hard sayingrdquo (The Bible in Basic English) ldquoThis is a hard wordrdquo (Julia Smith Translation) ldquoThis is a hard sayingrdquo (The Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible NT) ldquoThis is a hard teachingrdquo (The Simple English Bible) ldquoThis is a harsh teachingrdquo (Edgar J Goodspeed New Testament) ldquoThis is a hard teachingrdquo (New International Version) ldquoIt is a hard teachingrdquo (The Voice New Testament) ldquoThis is a hard sayingrdquo (New King James Version) ldquoThis is a hard speechrdquo (James Murdock Translation from the Syriac Peshitta NT) ldquoThis is a hard sayingrdquo (Revised Standard Version) ldquoThis is a difficult statementrdquo (New American Standard Bible) ldquoThis is a hard doctrinerdquo (Riverside New Testament) ldquoThis is a hard sayingrdquo (English Standard Version) ldquoThis is a hard sayingrdquo (World English Bible) ldquoThis is a difficult statementrdquo (International Standard Version)

This scripture is similar to John 11 Lets see how they compare one below the other

Σκληρός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος οὗτος (John 660) hard is the word this

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 11c) and god was the word

This text clearly shows that grammatically it is possible to translate John 11c as ldquoThe Word was god [divine]rdquo Or ldquoThe Word was a godrdquo Both are equally correct as long as we interpret both readings in an indefinite or qualitative sense (as an adjective as divine) The rendering ldquoa godrdquo in an indefinitesense makes the distinction (of theos without the article) clear There is one big difference between thetwo scriptures In the context of John 660 the focus is on one speech of Christ while in John 11 the writer is speaking of two entities The Logos and the God with whom the Logos was with In John 11the author differentiates between the two entities by placing the article before the first instance of theos and deliberately dropping it in the second instance

Further John 118 declares that lsquono one has seen God but the only begotten godson who is close to theFather is the only one able to explain the Father Godrsquo Verse 14 tells us that lsquothe Word became fleshrsquo not God Verse 2 accentuates the fact that the Logos was in a beginning with Godrsquo Yes twice we are told in the first two verses in Johns Prologue that ldquothe Word was with Godrdquo As Count Leo Tolstoy the famous Russian novelist and religious philosopher correctly observed ldquoIf it says that in the

beginning was the Word and that the Word was with God it is impossible to go on and say that it was God If it was God it could stand in no relation to Godrdquo (The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated p 30) Truly when someone speaks of lsquoa person being with anotherrsquo listeners normally do not reach the conclusion that both individuals are identical persons Then why insist on a different conclusion here in John 112 Since the rest of the Gospel of John does not contradict chapter one it isthe responsibility of the translator to transmit this differentiation between the articular (with the article the) and the anarthrous theos into the target language in this case English

(John 114 In Greek lsquothe Word became fleshrsquo appears in this order ldquoAnd the Word flesh becamerdquo The Greek word for ldquofleshrdquo (sarx) has no article before it just as we have with the predicate nouns in John 11c and John 660 although in 114 the subject (the Word) precedes the predicate noun and verb whereas in the other two scriptures it follows it The meaning is not altered by such structure Translators do not render the Greek word at John 114 as ldquoFleshrdquo or ldquothe Fleshrdquo Some Bible translators do however render it with an indefinite article ldquoAnd the Word became ldquoa humanrdquo New Century Version or ldquoa human beingrdquo (Contemporary English Version) And some others render it ldquothe Word became human [qualitative]rdquo which is acceptable as well The idea is not that the Word became the-one-and-only-Human on earth but that he became human or a human being a description of his new role)

At John 660 there is no doctrinal controversy no doubt of message import whether you say ldquoThis word (saying) is hardrdquo Or ldquoThis is a hard word (saying)rdquo It would be improper to translate John 660as ldquoThis is the Hard sayingrdquo or ldquoThis saying is the Shocking Onerdquo (as if it were the Only difficult statement spoken by Jesus) or in the case of John 11 ldquoThe Word was Godrdquo as if Jesus were the only divine being In English capitalizing ldquoGodrdquo has the effect of making the noun definite or mistakingly lead Bible readers to the conclusion that the Word was being identified as one-and-the-same God However the grammatical construction and context of both Scriptures make no intent on identification Rather the focus is on the indefinite or qualitative aspect of the noun The hard saying of John 660 was not the only difficult statement issued by Christ but is one of them it is a hard saying Jesus being lsquoa reflection of Gods gloryrsquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo is not the only divine being for he himself spoke of his Father God as ldquothe only true Godrdquo (Hebrews 13 John 2017 173) As C K Barrett himself noted ldquoThe absence of the article indicates that the Word is God but is not the only being of whom this is truerdquo (The Gospel According to St John SPCK 1955 p 76) Christ also stated that his Father was ldquogreaterrdquo than he was and this subordinate status did not change after his ascension to heaven (John 1428 Acts 75556 1 Corinthians 113)

Thus Bible translators who bring out the qualitative or indefinite force of the anarthrous predicate nouns are in the correct and those making the noun definite by capitalizing the noun as some have donein John 11 are clearly going against what Jesus and John themselves stated lsquoThat Christ is the Son of Godrsquo not lsquothe one-and-only Godrsquo (John 2017 31) The rendering that is not definite also agrees with the statement found in verse two of John chapter 1 ldquoThis one was in the beginning with Godrdquo

2nd Example (Acts 284)

Greek Πάντως φονεύς ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος By all means murderer is the man this The next example is taken from Acts chapter 28 which deals with the apostle Paul and his companions

being shipwrecked near Malta during a rainy and cold day a small island 58 miles south of Sicily The islanders were very kind to them and built a bonfire to warm them up Paul willing to contribute proceeded to gather some wood and as he placed them on the fire a poisonous snake fastened itself on his hand When the islanders saw what happened they pronounced the words above And how do Bibleversions translate this clause which is similar to John 11 in construction

ldquoThis man must be a murderer [Dieser Mensch muszlig ein Moumlrder sein]rdquo (M Luther Bible 1545) ldquoThis man surely is a murthererrdquo (Geneva Bible 1560) ldquoNo doubt this man is a murthererrdquo (Bishops Bible 1568) ldquoThis man is certainly a murdererrdquo (John Worsley New Testament) ldquoCertainly a murderer is the man thisrdquo (The Emphatic Diaglott Interlinear) ldquoThat man must be a murdererrdquo (New Jerusalem Bible) ldquoThere is no doubt that this man is a murdererrdquo (The Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible NT) ldquoThis must be some murdererrdquo (Ronald A Knox) ldquoThis man must be a murdererrdquo (James Moffatt New Testament) ldquoCertainly this man is a murdererrdquo (Greek and English Interlinear NT Mounce) ldquoNo doubt this man is a murdererrdquo (Kenneth S Wuest) ldquoBeyond a doubt this man is a murdererrdquo (Charles B Williams New Testament) ldquoThis man is probably a murdererrdquo (Holman Christian Standard Bible) ldquoThis man must be a murdererrdquo (Common English Bible) ldquoThe man must be a murdererrdquo (New English Bible) ldquoThis man is certainly a murdererrdquo (Living Oracles New Testament) ldquoThis man must certainly be a murdererrdquo (New American Bible)

As seen above none of these translations render this part of the verse in a definite sense as if Paul were being identified as ldquoThe Murdererrdquo they all been warned about Rather the superstitious islanders presumed this was ldquoardquo murderer or ldquosomerdquo murderer (Knox) who got the snake bite he deserved Thusthe emphasis is on the indefiniteness or qualitative aspect of the anarthrous noun not on identification In this verse you have a singular anarthrous predicate noun ldquomurdererrdquo preceding the verb ldquoisrdquo just as in John 11 there is an anarthrous noun ldquogodrdquo preceding the verb ldquowasrdquo Does John 11 demand a definite translation for the article-less noun ldquogodrdquo to make it read ldquoThe Godrdquo (or ldquoGodrdquo) Neither grammar nor the context of John chapter one make such demand To insist that John 11c must be rendered in English ldquothe Word was Godrdquo would be just as improper as insisting that Acts 284 must be translated ldquoThis man must certainly be [The] Murdererrdquo And who does that in Acts 284

3rd Example (John 670)

Greek καὶ ἐξ ὑμῶν εἷς διάβολός ἐστιν and out of you [plural] one devil is

In this text Jesus is addressing his twelve closest disciples when he anticipates that Judas Iscariot wouldlater betray him Jesus referred to Judas as ldquodiabolosrdquo (devil) or slanderer Like other verses under consideration the word ldquodiabolosrdquo lacks the Greek article (ldquotherdquo in English) and precedes the verb ldquoestinrdquo (is) Surprisingly a few scholars (read Holman Christian Standard Bible and the NET Bible) mistakingly add the English the before ldquodevilrdquo under the premise that this is one of those nomadic (one-of-a-kind) nouns indicating definiteness This (one-of-a-kind) view for this scripture has no solid foundation Jesus here is not identifying Judas as the Satan the arch-opposer of God but expressing a

leaning spirit of defection on Judas part He could discern an inclination of satanic qualities such as envy and malice and hence could rightly call him a devil a betrayer a slanderer The qualitative force is so prominent here that adding the article the before ldquodevilrdquo has no justification whatsoever (The explanation by grammarian Daniel Wallace senior editor of the NET Bible is not convincing hereOther translators clearly understand this differently as seen below)

ldquoAnd yet from among you one is an adversaryrdquo (Rotherham)ldquoand one of you is an accuserrdquo (NT James L Tomanek)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (Common English Bible)ldquoand one of you is a devilrdquo (Douay-Rheims Bible)ldquoYet one of you is an adversaryrdquo (The Gospel of John FF Bruce)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (International Standard Version)ldquoand one of you is a devilrdquo (American Standard Version)ldquoYet one of you is a slandererrdquo (New World Translation)ldquoAnd even of you one is an informerrdquo (Edgar G Goodspeed)ldquoand of you -- one is a devilrdquo (Youngs Literal Translation)ldquoand of you one an accuser isrdquo (The Emphatic Diaglott)ldquoYet is not one of you a devilrdquo (New American Bible)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (New International Version)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (Greek-English Interlinear NT William and Robert Mounce)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (New Jerusalem Bible)ldquoYet one of you is an adversaryrdquo (Jewish New Testament David H Stern)ldquobut out of you one is a slanderer rdquo (21st Century New Testament Left column)ldquoYet one of you is a betrayerrdquo (21st Century New Testament Right column)ldquoand of you one a devil isrdquo (Alfred Marshalls Greek-English Interlinear)ldquoAnd of you one is a devilrdquo (Kenneth S Wuests New Testament)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (The Translators New Testament)

FF Bruce says that ldquoOne of them [of the twelve] was diabolos ndash the Greek word means a lsquoslandererrsquo or lsquocalumniatorrsquo or lsquofalse accuserrsquo but it is probably used here as the counterpart to Heb [satan] lsquoadversaryrsquo [ldquoYet one of you is an adversaryrdquo Bruce]rdquo I side with the translators above and with grammarians P B Harner and P S Dixon who argue that the qualitative force of diabolos (devil) is more prominent than its definiteness Dixon says ldquoIt is best therefore to take διάβολος qualitatively A good rendering might be one of you is a devilrdquo (The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John 50 Dallas Theological Seminary 1975) (Harner Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 1539 and John 11 JBL 92 1973 75-87)

4th Example (John 419)

Greek θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ I am beholding that prophet are you These words were pronounced by a Samaritan woman after hearing Jesus divinely perceive personal things about her life even though they had never met

ldquoI perceive that thou art a prophetrdquo (William Tyndales New Testament 1534 Daniell edition) ldquoI perceive that thou art a prophetrdquo (DouayndashRheims Bible)

ldquoI perceive that thou art a prophetrdquo (King James Version) ldquoI view that a prophet you arerdquo (Charles Van der Pool 2006) ldquoI perceive that a prophet art thourdquo (Alfred Marshall D Litt The Interlinear Greek-English NT) ldquoI see that thou art a prophetrdquo (Confraternity Version) ldquoI see that you are a prophetrdquo (New Revised Standard Version) ldquoOh so youre a prophetrdquo (The Message) ldquoI perceive that a prophet are Yourdquo (Interlinear Farstad Hodges Moss Picirilli Pickering) ldquoAre You a prophetrdquo (The Clear Word) ldquoI can see that you are a prophetrdquo (NIV) ldquoI see you are a prophetrdquo (Christian Community Bible) ldquoI perceive that You are a prophetrdquo (NASB) ldquoI see you are a prophetrdquo (The Authentic New Testament Hugh J Schonfield) ldquoI can see that you are a prophetrdquo (Jewish New Testament David H Stern)

Here most English translations have no problem adding the indefinite article (a) before the anarthrous (article-less) noun ldquoprophetrdquo It is appropriate to do so Take notice of the initial lowercase letter in ldquoprophetrdquo not ldquoProphetrdquo In English the a is required before the noun ldquoprophetrdquo used above in an indefinite-qualitative sense It is describing an attribute about the Master as a prophet not identifying him as ldquotheir Prophetrdquo This Samaritan woman of another religion who accepted no more than the Pentateuch did not have sufficient knowledge about the male stranger she just met (Jesus) as the account shows to conclude that he was lsquothe Prophetrsquo or the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo Nevertheless she discovered he had special insight and could describe him as ldquopropheticrdquo or ldquoa prophetrdquo of some kind Jesus was able to have this prophetic ability because God had empowered him with his spirit (Acts 1038)

By the way those of you who know a Romance (or Latin derived) language such as French Italian Portuguese or Spanish may find it a tad easier to follow this discussion regarding the use or absence of the indefinite article The reason for that is that in everyday speech those who speak one of the Latin languages do not have to use the indefinite article as frequently as opposed to those who only speak English which requires using it more often to make a noun indefinite or qualitative Consequently it may be easier to see the connection of the qualitative force of singular anarthrous nouns between Greek and one of the Latin languages A comparison of modern translations of such nouns between English and one of the Latin based languages will bear this out

For instance in Spanish you can either employ or not the indefinite article and still retain the qualitative force of singular anarthrous nouns (See El Griego Biacuteblico Al Alcance De Todos by J A Septieacuten p 122 Editorial CLIE Barcelona) At John 419 you can have the woman say to Jesus ldquoMe parece que tuacute eres profeta [I perceive that you are prophet]rdquo as the Protestant Reina-Valera does or have her say ldquoVeo que tuacute eres un profeta [I can see that your are a prophet]rdquo as the Catholic Torres Amat does Actually it is common in Spanish Bibles to use ldquoprofetardquo without the ldquounrdquo while some translators do add the (un the equivalent of a) to make it more specific ldquoun profetardquo Not only is this an acceptable translation from Greek to Spanish it sounds natural either way unlike English

Similarly in French you can say ldquoje vois que tu es prophegraveterdquo (I see that you are prophet Segond) or you can say ldquoje vois que tu es un prophegraveterdquo (I see that you are a prophet Darby French) The first French reading does not use the indefinite article while the second one does In Italian ldquoio veggoche tu sei profetardquo (I see that you are prophet Diodati) or ldquotu sei un profetardquo (you are a prophet

La Parola egrave Vita) The first Italian version lacks the indefinite article and the second one adds it Both renderings are acceptable One stresses the qualitative aspect and the other the indefinite status of the predicate noun Even Wallace acknowledged ldquoIt is nevertheless difficult to distinguish indefinite from qualitative nouns at times (just as at other times it is difficult to distinguish qualitative from definite nouns) The very fact that any member of a class is mentioned highlights to some degree that particular classndashhence making some kind of qualitative statementrdquo (op cit Wallace p 266 footnote)Wallace adds ldquoAlthough the translation [of John 419] is most naturally lsquoSir I perceive that you are a prophetrsquo the sense may be better characterized as indefinite-qualitativerdquo The same can be said of John 11c (Ibid page 266)

At John 419 natural spoken English requires the use of the ldquoardquo before prophet to bring out the Greek sense in our language and most English Bibles do so To be consistent Bible versions which render John 419 in an indefinite sense (a prophet) or with a lowercase letter ldquoprophetrdquo could do the very same thing in John 11c with its similar grammatical construction One really has to wonder why some individuals who claim to have competence in the Greek fail to understand or acknowledge publicly that in translation work there is often more than one way to render some biblical passages They let religious feelings get in the way clouding their judgment This is made obvious when they seek to convey to others that those who render a certain passage differently from the norm are being ldquoignorantrdquoin the Greek department

5th Example (John 101)

Greek ἐκεῖνος κλέπτης ἐστὶν καὶ λῃστής that (one) thief is and robber

Here Jesus initiates dissertation about how he as a fine shepherd protects his sheep from dangerous individuals that resemble wolves The man who does not enter the sheepfold through the door but climbs in by some other way is a

ldquothe same is a thief and a robberrdquo (William Tyndales NT 1534 Daniell edition) ldquothe same is a thief and a robberrdquo (DouayndashRheims Bible) ldquothe same is a thief and a robberrdquo (New King James Version) ldquois a thief and a banditrdquo (New Jerusalem Bible) ldquois a thief and an outlawrdquo (Common English Bible) ldquothat one is a thief and robberrdquo (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot) ldquothat man is a thief and a robberrdquo (English Standard Version) ldquois a thief and a robberrdquo (New American Bible) ldquothat one is a thief and a robberrdquo (Greek and English Interlinear NT Mounce) ldquothat man is a thief and a robberrdquo (Revised Standard Bible) ldquois a thief and a roguerdquo (Phillips Modern English) ldquohe is a thief and a brigandrdquo (A New Translation by William Barclay) ldquois nothing but a thief or a robberrdquo (New English Bible) ldquohe is either a robber or a banditrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English) ldquois a thief and a robberrdquo (William F Beck-NT) ldquothat one is a thief and a robberrdquo (Literal Translation Version)

Smooth English requires the use of the indefinite article (a) before either thief and robber or both

Most English translations do this Again to be consistent with this syntactical construction these translations could have used the indefinite article (a) at John 11c and have it read ldquothe Word was a godrdquo And if Bible translators are reluctant to use the indefinite article at John 11c they could have at least rendered the anarthrous noun ldquoGodrdquo in such way that brings out the descriptive nature (as an adjective) of such nouns by rendering it ldquoand the Word was god (or divine)rdquo to be consistent with theirother renderings which follow this pattern By the way some translations render it this way

ldquoand the Word was godrdquo (Professor Charles C Torrey Yale University 1947) ldquoand the Logos was god [eacutetait dieu]rdquo (Herbert Pernot 1925 Paris) ldquoand the Word was divinerdquo (E J Goodspeed) ldquoand the Word was god [eacutetait dieu]rdquo (Traduction du monde nouveau 1987) ldquoThe Word was god [eacutetait dieu]rdquo (Marc J H Oltramare 1872 University Professor Geneva) ldquoSo the Word was divinerdquo (Hugh J Schonfield) ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo (Reijnier Rooleeuw MD) ldquoand god was the Word [y dios era la Palabra]rdquo (J J Bartolomeacute Madrid 2002)

6th Example (1 Kings 1827 Septuagint LXX)

Greek ὅτι θεός ἐστιν Hebrew ההו א ההה םים א אל כהכ םי ־ for god is (he) he god for lt ldquoFor he is a godrdquo (Sir Lancelot C L Brentons translation from the Greek LXX) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Septuagint LXX Charles Thomson) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (The Apostles Bible A Modern English Translation of the Greek Septuagint by Paul W Esposito 2004) ldquoFor he is a godrdquo (New English Translation of the Septuagint [NETS] 2007) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (The Orthodox Study Bible St Athanasius Academy Septuagint 2008 LXX) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Orthodox England Michael Asser 2001-2010 based on the Greek text [LXX] of the version published by the Greek Orthodox Church Apostoliki Diakonia) ldquofor a god herdquo (Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament) ldquofor god herdquo (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Jewish Publication Society 1917 Translated from the Hebrew) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts [tr Syriac] George M Lamsa) ldquofor he is godrdquo [pues eacutel es dios] (La Biblia Peshitta en Espantildeol translated from the AramaicSyriac)

ldquobecause god (he) is [porque dios es]rdquo (La Sagrada Biblia G Juumlnemann B 1992 Greek LXX) ldquofor Baal is youre god [for Baal is your god]rdquo (John Wycliffes Translation transl f Latin c 1384) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Douay-Rheims Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate ldquodeus enim estrdquo)

In this account we read of Elijah mocking Baal a false god The Greek construction is similar to that ofJohn 11c Just as in the other instances of theos without the article (ldquotherdquo) and preceding the verb translators find it necessary in English to add the indefinite article (a) to complete the sense in our language Had the speaker used the article before theos it could be taken then as a reference to Baal being ldquoGodrdquo not ldquoa godrdquo Would it not Observe that John Wycliffes Translation from Latin did not capitalize the ldquogrdquo in ldquogodrdquo Also the two Spanish translations above one from the Greek LXX by

Juumlnemann and the other a Peshitta from the Aramaic do not capitalize the ldquogrdquo in ldquogodrdquo Actually in Spanish it is not required to use the indefinite article (a) in this construction to obtain nearly the same effect as the English statement ldquofor he is a godrdquo Surely the translators of this Spanish version were not suggesting that Elijah was calling Baal ldquoGodrdquo In Hebrew we find the reading ההו א ההה םים א אל כהכ םי־ (ki-elohim hu Literally because god [is] he) likewise translated in our English versions as ldquoFor he isa godrdquo Thus Bible translations from both the Hebrew and Greek (LXX ) texts here and from the Latin and Syriac versions as well all reflect indefinite or qualitative renderings ndash good indicators which show how John 11c with similar syntax should be translated

If you have carefully followed this discussion to this point you may have observed that the indefinite translation of anarthrous predicate nouns (using ldquoardquo) similar in construction to John 11c is a valid option to consider Why is this significant to mention Because Trinitarian scholars try so hard to disengage the likelihood of the indefinite notion in the discussion of John 11c They keep saying that a grammatical construction such as we find in John 11 should be rendered qualitatively usually ignoring or denying the possible indefinite nuance of anarthrous nouns before the verb However in these samples we see a pattern where translators freely use one of those two aspects (indefinite or qualitative)in the translations sometimes alternating between the two It appears then that theology is a factor in their denial of this fact

7th Example (Xenophons Anabasis 146)

Greek εμπoacuteριον δrsquo ην το χωρiacuteον market and was the place

(A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey had this to say (under the heading ldquoWith the Subject in a Copulative Sentencerdquo) ldquoThe article sometimes distinguishes the subjectfrom the predicate in a copulative sentence In Xenophons Anabasis 146 εμπoacuteριον δrsquo ην το χωρiacuteον and the place was a market we have a parallel case to what we have in John 11 καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος and the word was deity The article points out the subject in these examples Neither was the place the only market nor was the word all of God as it would mean if the article were also used with θεός As it stands the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo (Page 148 paragraph laquo3raquo Italics theirs) I agree with the above comment However I feel that the last statement about ldquothe other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo is superfluous This is clearly a case of two Baptist grammarians reading far more into the text than is warranted John chapter 1 is not speaking of three persons in the Godhead Actually the whole Gospel of John makes no mention whatsoever of three persons in one God This language is totally foreign to the New Testament

To run more parallel with Xenophons statement and the place was a market this Grammar could have translated John 11c and the word was a god I am aware that Dr Julius R Mantey has been openly opposed (to put it mildly) to the NW translation ldquothe Word was a godrdquo Nevertheless the example theyset forth seems to contradict Manteys statements Compare the literal Greek reading of Xenophons statement with the suggested translation by Dana and Mantey of which Mantey says is ldquoa parallel caserdquo to John 11c and see for yourself

ldquoand the place was market rdquo (Literal reading in English order Anabasis 146) ldquoand the word was god rdquo (Literal reading in English order John 11c)

ldquoand the place was a market rdquo (Suggested translation by Dana and Mantey) ldquoand the Word was a god rdquo (Controversial translation criticized by Mantey)

The translation offered by Dr Dana and Dr Mantey ldquoand the place was a marketrdquo as indicated above is an unintended admission that ldquothe Word was a godrdquo is a proper translation even though as Trinitarians they prefer another and the word was deity Note too that their suggested translation of John 11c and the word was deity is not the same thing as saying that the word was entirely God for they said ldquonor was the word all of Godrdquo Additionally the use of the word ldquomayrdquo in the statement ldquothe three persons may be impliedrdquo reveals a theological speculation not a fact The truth is that Jesus himself spoke of his Father God as ldquothe only Godrdquo (NIV New King James Version John 544) If Jesus is not ldquothe only Godrdquo who is he then Christ is time and again described as ldquoGods Sonrdquo hence a reflection of Gods glory ldquogodlikerdquo ldquodivinerdquo The Bible itself says ldquoThe Son reflects Gods own gloryand everything about him represents God exactlyrdquo (Hebrews 13 New Living Translation) This focus on Christ by Christian Writers throughout the New Testament led William Barclay to caution ldquoTo say that the Word was God is too much to say that the Word was Divine is too littlerdquo (ldquoGreat Themes of the New Testament II John 11-14rdquo Expository Times 70 (1958-59) 114)

Much has been made of the publication of a letter Mantey wrote to the publishers of the NWT (WT Society) where Mantey asked the WTS to stop quoting him by name since he felt they were misquotingtheir Grammar Many have seized this incident to lash out slanderous statements at the WTS for alleged ldquoscholastic dishonestyrdquo I feel this attack has not much merit It is in the main a theological objection For the benefit of those who do not have these two publications I will reproduce here what the NWT said right before and after quoting the Grammar of Dana and Mantey ldquoCareful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity a personality whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about someone That is what A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey remarks on page 140 paragraph vii [ldquoThe articular construction emphasizes identity the anarthrous construction emphasizes characterrdquo] Accordingly on page 148 paragraph (3) this same publication says about the subject of a copulative sentence [hellip quoted above at beginning of this section] Instead of translating John 11 and the word was deity thisGrammar could have translated it and the word was a god to run more parallel with Xenophons statement and the place was a marketrdquo (NWT Appendix page 774)

In my opinion the NWT quote of the Grammar was accurate enough with one exception The NWT Committee omitted this sentence ldquoAs it stands the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo And it is this omission which Dr Mantey most likely objected to I too believe this sentence was not critical in the context of the grammar being considered to prove the authors point but whether they were ldquodishonestrdquo or not by omitting this one sentence in their quote I leave it for the reader to decide Apparently the NW translators intended to avoid the dogmatic Trinity subject in their Appendix at that point When quoting Dana and Mantey the NWT Committee could certainly have been more explicit by implying for example that in their opinion the authors used an argument that in effect allowed the reading ldquothe word was a godrdquo as a ldquoparallel caserdquo to Xenophons statement ldquothe place was a marketrdquo instead of insinuating by mode of silence that the trinitarian authors approved of such reading (To readmore about the practice of WTS ldquoquoting sourcesrdquo see Note 1 at the end of the article)

Interestingly Dana and Manteys Grammar says on pages 138 139 140 ldquoWhen identity is prominent we find the article and when quality or character is stressed the construction is anarthrous [without thearticle]rdquo And ldquoThe use of the articular and anarthrous constructions of θεός is highly instructive A

study of the uses of the term as given in Moulton and Gedens Concordance convinces one that without the article θεός signifies divine essence while with the article divine personality is chiefly in viewrdquo Furthermore on page 140 on the use of the article in the Greek text it says ldquoThe articular constructionemphasizes identity the anarthrous construction emphasizes characterrdquo

Dr Julius R Mantey did include this statement in his letter of repudiation to the WTS mentioned earlierldquoProf Harner Vol 921 in JBL has gone beyond Colwells research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subjectrdquo (July 11 1974) Instead of advocating a trinity this statement of Mantey quoting Professor Harner oddlysupports some of the arguments published in the 1950 and the 1984 NWT Editions

Going by grammar alone one could say that the renderings ldquothe place was a marketrdquo ldquothe Word was agod [divine]rdquo and ldquothe word was deityrdquo all three potentially agree with the grammar principles expounded by Dana amp Mantey on the articular and the anarthrous constructions of θεός on pages 138-140 and on page 148 though they may not admit to it Again let us not forget their clear message ldquoNeither was the place the only market [the place was a market] nor was the word all of Godrdquo

Coming back to translation issues we can see that generally modern translations do make an effort to convey a difference in translation between predicate nouns with and without the article preceding the verb If we take a look at John 151 where John uses the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the verb ldquo(ho georgoacutes estin) the farmer isrdquo we will find that translators generally reflect that fact in translation However here in John 11 they are reluctant to produce a translation which shows the fact that the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo in this verse lacks the article Why Is it because Greek grammar demands the rendering ldquoGodrdquo Not at all The seven (7) submitted samples clearly indicate that it is not grammar but ldquotheologyrdquo for the reluctance Even Greek scholars teach that ldquowhen a Greek noun lacksthe definite article it normally will be translated as indefiniterdquo (A Primer of Biblical Greek by N Clayton Croy assistant professor of NT at Trinity Luther Seminary Columbus Ohio p 15) At John 11 translators in their drive to make Jesus appear identical to God will use a capital G when Jesus is spoken of Patterns of Greek grammar as seen in the above examples and elsewhere are ignored to sustain their theology (Note the use of ldquonormallyrdquo here because the author is aware that there is lsquono hard rulersquo that can be applied at all times in regards to the use of the article or lack of But his statement holds generally true as in here)

John 12 would be pointless tautology if John meant that the Logos was identical to God as some translations suggest It is also misleading to translate John 11 ldquothe Word was fully Godrdquo as the NET Bible does If we were to use the NET Bibles reasoning which appears in their note of John 11 and apply it to samples discussed above with similar syntax we would get the following translations ldquoThis man [Paul] must be fully Murdererrdquo ldquoThat one [climbing over the fence] is fully Thief and fully Robberrdquo ldquofor he (Baal) is fully Godrdquo ldquoand the place was fully Marketrdquo

Does that make sense Baal a pagan god was certainly not lsquofully Godrsquo in the sense of him being the Supreme God But Elijah could depict Baal as ldquoa godrdquo for he was not lsquothe only godrsquo among the heathens And to say ldquothe place was fully Marketrdquo is meaningless In fact Dana and Mantey argued against the place being The Market the only market They conclude that the Greek construction demands ldquothe place was a marketrdquo And Dana and Mantey pointed out that the Greek construction of John 11 tells us that lsquothe word was deity [ldquodivinerdquo but] not all of Godrsquo

In Marks gospel (649) where Jesus appeared walking over the waters next to the disciples boat duringa storm in which they became terrified after seeing an ldquoapparitionrdquo or ldquophantomrdquo of some sort (since they were unaware it was Jesus) they screamed ldquoIts a ghostrdquo according to some Bible versions (Or ldquoa spiritrdquo KJV) The grammatical structure of Mark 649 and John 11 are similar so how do Bible translations deal with this Do they have the disciples crying out ldquoHe is fully Ghost Or would they scream instead ldquoHe is Phantomrdquo No Most Bibles have the disciples believing or saying it was ldquoa ghostrdquoor ldquoa phantomrdquo or ldquoan apparitionrdquo of some sort At no time do translators argue that it should be translated as they do at John 11c by capitalizing the predicate noun and omitting the indefinite article ldquoardquo John 11 is no exception to the norm Bible translators follow the pattern described by Professor Clayton Croy ldquoWhen a Greek noun lacks the definite article it normally will be translated as indefiniterdquo (op cit A Primer) In the examples above Bible translators have shown us how they really deal with syntax similar to John 11c We have ldquoa hard saying a murderer a devil a prophet a thief a robber a god a market a ghost etc At John 1837 we have ldquoa kingrdquo twice English Bibles do not have Pilate asking Jesus if he was the ldquoKingrdquo Instead English translations followthe pattern described above and render Pilates question as ldquoArt thou a king thenrdquo

In all these cases a predicate noun without the Greek article precedes a verb just as we have in John 11c Accordingly then why not reflect this pattern at John 11 especially so when two entities are being spoken of in the verse and the second occurrence of θεός lacks the article Let us not miss the previous statement by a distinguished grammarian A ldquomost common userdquo of the Greek article is to point out hellip ldquoIndividual from Other Individualsrdquo (op cit Short Grammar p 275)

Although grammarian David Alan Black a Trinitarian objects to the ldquoa Godrdquo rendering at John 11 he takes a page from Dana and Manteys Grammar when he writes ldquoIf the article were also used with θεός the statement would mean that all of God was expressed in the Word As it is the Word is neither lsquoa Godrsquo nor equal with the sum total of Godrdquo (Its Still Greek to Me p 79) This statement by Black appears to contradict the NET Bibles translation of John 11c Blacks conclusion is similar to Danas and Manteys that is ldquothe Word was Deity [θεός]rdquo (Brackets his) In similar vein The New Testament in Plain English translates John 11c as ldquothe Word was Godrdquo However a footnote says ldquoOr Deity Divine (which is actually a better translation because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word)rdquo (Underline added 2003) Now this footnote begs the question If the rendering ldquothe Word was Deity Divinerdquo is actually a ldquobetter translationrdquo why not use that in the main text It seems that trinitarian translators have difficulty in displaying a rendering other than ldquothe Word was Godrdquo even when they acknowledge there are lsquobetter translationsrsquo for the anarthrous θεός in John 11c

In English using a capital letter in ldquofully Godrdquo is misleading to someone brought up in trinitarian teaching A trinitarian believer would likely take that rendering as conveying that Christ is Almighty God himself a concept in conflict with what Christ himself stated at John 173 and John 2017 Daniel Wallace previously quoted and author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics wrote a most interesting comment which reveals how theology plays a big role at the time of translating John 11 ldquoAlthough I believe that θεός in 11c is qualitative I think the simplest and most straightforward translation is lsquoand the Word was Godrsquo It may be better to clearly affirm the NT teaching of the deity of Christ and then explain that he is not the Father than to sound ambiguous on his deity and explain that he is God but is not the Fatherrdquo (Ibid p 269 italics his) What Is he serious

Whats the point of claiming that θεός in 11c is ldquoqualitativerdquo in John 11c as Wallace does emphatically in his Grammar and then suggest to use the rendering lsquothe Word was Godrsquo which implies ldquoidentityrdquo a

ldquopersonalityrdquo the opposite of ldquocharacterrdquo or ldquoqualityrdquo) and be forced to explain that it does not mean what it actually says The end result would then be no less ldquoambiguousrdquo than the alternatives he is obviously trying to avoid Would you not rather have a ldquobetter translationrdquo such as ldquothe Word was divinerdquo which requires no additional explanation The NET Bible (Wallace senior editor) prefers a rendering other than ldquodivinerdquo because he states that ldquodivinerdquo ldquoas a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of Godrdquo However on the word ldquodivinerdquo Murray J Harris responds ldquoBut if θεὸς bears a qualitative sense the rendering lsquodivinersquo should not be dismissed as altogether inappropriate Only if lsquodivinersquo is taken to mean lsquohaving the very nature of Godrsquo does the word accurately convey Johns meaningrdquo (op cit Jesus as God p 68) The argument that ldquodivinerdquo is too generic is weak because really the same argument could be made of the term ldquogodrdquo Jesus applied the term ldquogodsrdquo to humans (John 1034-36) and Paul acknowledged that ldquothere are many gods and many lordsrdquo (1 Corinthians 85) So Wallaces objection is more likely an effort to equate Christ with God at John 11

Truly the Greek Text does not say that Christ wasis the one-and-only God What the Greek does say is that ldquothe Word was with the [True] God and the Word [himself] was a divine beingrdquo thus able to perfectly represent the character of God (Hebrews 13) The only way one could justify the rendering ldquoGodrdquo with a big ldquoGrdquo at John 11c is if the original text had the article before the second instance of theos as well Why Because John is talking about two individuals and deliberately differentiates between the two instances of ldquotheosrdquo by placing the article before the first instance of ldquotheosrdquo and not with the second Max Zerwick (SJ) wrote in this regard ldquoὁ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος [if John would have written ldquothe God was the Logosrdquo] at least in NT usage would signify personal identity of the Word with the Father since the latter [the Father] is ὁ Θεὸς [the God]rdquo (Biblical Greek p 55 Rome)

John wrote the words appearing in verse two to clear any potential misunderstanding that could arise from his bold statement in verse one Marinus de Jonge remarks ldquoThe author of this Prologue clearly wants to identify lsquothe Wordrsquo and God as closely as possible without infringing the belief in the One Godrdquo (Christology in Context The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus Philadelphia Westminster 1988 p 198 Jonge is Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands) So in effect John was saying that the Logos was like God in every imaginable way Hence the New English Bible rendering lsquoWhat God was the Word wasrsquo

Dr Jason BeDuhn explains ldquoIn John 11 the Word is not the one-and-only God but it is a god or divine being I know that sounds strange and even seems impossible coming from the pen of a Christian writer But the fact remains that that is what John wrote His purpose in doing so was at least in part to avoid the notion that God the Father himself incarnated as Christ The one who incarnated was somehow distinct from lsquoGodrsquo while still being lsquoa godrsquo rdquo (op cit Truth in Translation pp 122 123)

Why then are translators unwilling to render John 11c ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo A few reasons could be given Translators mention grammar as one problem an issue addressed throughout this article Others view the rendering ldquoa godrdquo as polytheistic I will further mention two others First is the domino effect of the Trinity doctrine developed centuries after Christ as a means to clamp down raging Christological debates to the point that the doctrine has been taken for granted as ldquotruthrdquo by most ldquoChristianrdquo people since Secondly the role in tradition played by the Latin Vulgate must be mentioned This Latin translation has greatly influenced many translators since its inception from c 405 CE It is well known that the Vulgate heavily influenced early translations of the 16th and 17th Century In fact back then translators were more likely to be familiar with the Latin Vulgate than with the Greek

The Latin Vulgate used no articles (as seen below) and that in conjunction with the Greek lacking the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) and we can see why so many have misunderstood John 11 The Christological debates of past centuries did not improve this state of confusion it made it worse I kindly ask the reader to consider the following Latin and Greek readings as helpful pointers in our discussion Notice in particular the bold letters relevant to our discussion

ndash LATIN (John 11)ldquoIn principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbumrdquo In beginning was Verb and Verb was with God and God was Verb

ndash GREEK (John 11)

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος In beginning was the logos and the logos was toward the god and god was the logos

First of all please notice that Latin makes no distinction between the two occurrences of ldquoGodrdquo in the text (ie both without the article) However Greek being a more specific descriptive language does And it does so by using the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the first occurrence and omitting it before the second Keep in mind what The Translatorrsquos New Testament previously quoted said ldquoIt is difficult to believe that the omission [of the Greek article before the second theos in John 11] is not significantrdquo (p 451) As A T Robertson pointed out ldquoThe article is never meaningless in Greek though it often fails to correspond with the English idiom [hellip] Its free use leads to exactness and finesserdquo (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research p 756) And Buttmann The use of the article [ho ldquotherdquo] has everywhere its positive reasonrdquo (Buttmanns Grammar of NewTestament Greek Bt 88) And another ldquoFor the present the presence or absence of the Greek article should always be carefully indicated in the English translationrdquo (New Testament Greek For Beginners by J Gresham Machen DD LITTD p 35 67) It is the responsibility of the translator to transmit whenever possible this existing difference in the Greek text into the English translation

Which reading of the two languages above (Latin and Greek) shows the greater similarity with the traditional rendering of John 11c Its Latin is it not In fact some Bible translations in other languages have even borrowed the latin word ldquoVerbumrdquo from the Latin Vulgate at John 11 such as the ubiquitous Spanish Reina-Valera which uses ldquoVerbordquo (Verb) instead of ldquoWordrdquo used in English versionsAlso using ldquoVerbordquo Sciacuteo de San Miguel Versioacuten Moderna Goacutemez 2010 Nueva Biblia Latinoamericana de Hoy and the Nueva Versioacuten Internacional Other international versions following the Latin Vulgate at John 11c French Darby Crampon German Luther Bible Italian Diodati and the Portuguese Almeida

It is evident that most English Bibles at John 11 are translating in the spirit of the Latin Vulgate rather than the Greek text regardless of what they claim Surprisingly as you will see in the submitted list of alternate readings at the end of this paper there are some translations though not as popular that are actually closer to the Greek above than the best-selling versions which end up following the Latin Vulgate instead Although John 11 has long been a favorite text by traditionalists to quote in the English world it may be surprise many that a modern Greek Bible reader will not likely appeal to such scripture in support of the traditional view Notwithstanding some Bible translators either disagree with the traditional viewpoint of the Logos as

ldquoGodrdquo or may simply feel that the message conveyed by the original Greek language (as demonstrated by the 7 samples above) demands a different translation at John 11c Some would have you believe that only a few insane unschooled translators with diabolical intentions would ever attempt to deviate from the traditionalist reading That is not simply true I believe most translators offering a different version of John 11 are most sincere in their effort to get to the core of the Greek meaning and to adequately transmit the intended message of the biblical author The submitted list of alternate readings at the end is not intended to be a complete list but to show a variety of renderings and viewpoints Keep in mind too that because of its theological significance other Scriptures do not have as many variant translation renderings as this one does

________________________________________

A careful review of the alternate readings list of John 11 and other related material at the end of the article would lead to this question Could anyone legitimately exclude as a valid option the rendering ldquoagodrdquo found in some Bible versions We have seen that grammar alone cannot condemn the use of such translation though many will keep trying Seven examples were provided which clearly show how translators render predicate nouns without the article occurring before the verb In addition note that these seven examples make reference to one person or one thing while John 11 is speaking of ldquotwordquo entities With greater reason then translators should render this grammatical structure in John 11c in away that brings out the indefinite-qualitative aspect rather than convey identification with the Supreme God

A Grammar states ldquoJohn was not saying that lsquothe word was the Fatherrsquo but that lsquothe word was God (divine)rsquordquo (Gramaacutetica Griega-Sintaxis del Nuevo Testamento [Greek Grammar-Syntax of the NT] by Daniel B Wallace amp Daniel S Steffen Parentheses theirs p 182) Consequently if the translation ldquothe word was Godrdquo must be understood in the adjectival sense as ldquodivinerdquo why not translate it that way Itis therefore reasonable to make a distinction between the term ldquotheosrdquo with and without the article here

In all the more accurate Bible translations do make a distinction between ldquotheosrdquo (God) with and without the article in John 11 Does yours Some argue that John did not have to employ the article before the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo to imply that the Word was ldquoGodrdquo Do you believe that If so why then was the Greek article used with the nominal predicate before the verb in John 151 which literally says ldquoThe father of me the farmer isrdquo And in John 651 ldquoThe bread but which I shall give the flesh of me isrdquo It is evident that Bible writers usually employed the article with specific intention and when they omitted it it was equally significant as well

Is it not better to just follow along with the majority view and thus free oneself from religious tension that may accompany those who sustain a minority view First of all it is dangerous to adopt a majority view if this one is in error A majority view held by ldquoscholarsrdquo of itself does not automatically make a matter ldquotruerdquo Why Because scholars are not infallible nor immune to human tradition Were they in Jesus day They were not Scholars today may find themselves in error just as many scribes were in Jesus day as Matthew chapter 23 clearly demonstrate (Matthew 159) We are warned that ldquothe whole world lies under the power of the evil onerdquo (1 John 519 New Revised Standard Bible) We should not dismiss ldquoreligionrdquo as being beyond the reach or interest of Satan We all need to be in guard of evil influence at all times being careful of not becoming ldquostone-blindrdquo by ldquothe god of this worldrdquo (2 Cor 44 The Message) Again a majority view does not always represent the truth Thus the doctrinal foundation for Christians should be based not on what the majority believe but rather on what the Bible

itself teaches

What does the Bible really say about Jesus Christ

Simply put Jesus is ldquoSon of Godrdquo not ldquoGod the Sonrdquo (Luke 135 NRSV) There is a vast difference in meaning between those two expressions There are more than two hundred references (200x) in the New Testament that explicitly declare that Jesus Christ is the ldquoSon of Godrdquo or that lsquoGod is the Father of Jesus Christrsquo (For a list of instances see The Preachers Outline and Sermon Bible ldquoJohnrdquo p 27) Yet Christendom prefers to dwell on a handful of texts which are said to describe Jesus as God None of those texts are explicit in declaring Jesus equality with God In Scripture Jesus place in the broad picture is one of sonship that is as Son of God not God Furthermore the word ldquosonrdquo is never used to describe God or the ldquoholy spiritrdquo

Christ is also described as ldquothe image of the invisible God [not God] the firstborn of all creationrdquo (Colossians 115) the ldquomediator between God and menrdquo (1 Timothy 25) Yes it is possible to spin these clear statements to make them say something else but is this what we seek One who plays the role of ldquomediatorrdquo cannot in the name of justice be one and the same person as one of the two parts that he is said to represent Otherwise such individual could not be truly impartial in his judgment Moses as a separate entity was able to really serve as ldquomediatorrdquo between God and Israel Now if Jesus the greater Moses was really one-and-the-same ldquoGodrdquo what ldquojusticerdquo could he convey acting as ldquomediatorrdquo between himself and mankind But no Jesus spoke of his Father as ldquomy Godrdquo and as lsquothe God of everyone elsersquo (John 2017) It was this God (ldquothe only Godrdquo John 544 NKJV NIV) according to Jesus himself who lsquorevealedrsquo things to Christ (Mark 1332 Revelation 11) Any statementwhich says that lsquoGod gave Jesus Christ a revelationrsquo would sound very odd to anyone taught to believe that Christ is the equal of God in every sense Scripture calls Christ ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 1913) And the record shows that it was this Word who was ldquowith God in the beginning not that he was ldquoGodrdquo but like God (Others render ldquoa Godrdquo ldquodivinerdquo - Tomanek Schonfield Heb 13)

Bible writers always speak of Jesus Christ in a subordinate role as in Ephesians 13 ldquoBlessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christrdquo 1 Corinthians 1528 ldquoThe Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him [God] who put all things in subjection to him that God may be all in allrdquo (Darby) In Colossians 31 we read ldquoKeep on seeking the things above where Christ is seated at the right hand of Godrdquo (Williams) Jesus himself made it clear to others ldquoI seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which hath sent merdquo (John 530)

Do Scriptures allow for a secondary sense of the words ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo

In the Scriptures the term lsquogodrsquo has various connotations and cannot be narrowed to one single meaning as some try to do A few scholars sustain that the notion of Jesus Christ as ldquoa godrdquo as if there were other gods beside God is incompatible with Jewish ldquomonotheismrdquo which is the belief in only one God and that it implies polytheism Nevertheless the concept itself that God as an entity is composed of three coequal persons runs counter with Jewish monotheism ldquoThe Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheismrdquo so states the Jewish Encyclopedia (ldquoTrinityrdquo) The teaching of the ldquoShemardquo consisted as has been noted in that ldquoJehovah our God is one Jehovahrdquo (Deuteronomy 64 ASV) What purpose would there be for the ldquoShemardquo to stress that Jehovah is ldquoonerdquo and then confound the matter by stating that that

must mean the Divine One is ldquothree personsrdquo in ldquoonerdquo It is explained frequently that the teaching of theTrinity is a ldquomysteryrdquo The problem with such reasoning is that nowhere does Scripture gives us reason to believe in such a concept It is possible that a person who has been exposed to this doctrine for a long time may see ldquoinsinuationsrdquo of it in the Bible However those individuals must in sincerity ask themselves whether their belief is based on ldquofactsrdquo or instead on emotional ldquofancyrdquo

Certain Scriptures are frequently cited as proof by supporters of the Trinity doctrine that Christ is God Isaiah 446 and Hosea 134 are two such Scriptures which have God Jehovah saying ldquoI am the first and I am the last and beside me there is no Godrdquo ldquoAnd thou shalt know no god but me for there is nosavior [Hebrew עע שהש םי beside merdquo These words are strictly taken literally out of their [(u˙moshia) וומוsetting to mean that there can be no ldquogodrdquo or ldquosaviorrdquo but God almighty In the context in which these words were pronounced Israel Gods people were inclined to worship vain hand-made idols (Isaiah 4217) Hence Gods warning in Isaiah and Hosea People brought up in trinitarian dogma tend to restrict the meaning of the term ldquoGodrdquo to those statements found within the context of Isaiah and Hosea leading them to the conclusion that anyone other than the True God must be a ldquofalserdquo god They define the word God within the context of modern trinitarian mentality instead of ancient Scriptural doctrine Trinitarians reason that if the appellative ldquoGodrdquo is applied to Jesus Christ then reasonably Jesus could be no other than the Lord God himself

However such trinitarian reasonings are missing an important element It has to do with the fact that the word ldquogodrdquo can be applied to others since the term itself seems to be related to someone with power and authority The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explains ldquoThis word [rsquoelōhicircm] can in fact be used for other gods (Gen 3130) and even for men (cf Ex 416 71 cf BDB p43)The derivation [of rsquoelōhicircm] is obscure but the implied sense seems to be that of strength or authorityrdquo (Vol II pg 497 italics added) The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words says ldquoThe word itself [אא ל (rsquoēl) Hebrew word for God] derives from a root term meaning lsquopowerrsquo lsquostrengthrsquo orlsquomightrsquo (Stephen D Renn p 439) And the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible states ldquoCommon to these four suggested root meanings [of El God] is the idea of strength power and of supreme excellence and greatnessrdquo (Vol 1 p 881) This may explain why various Bible versions at John 11c describe the Logos as ldquoa powerful divine beingrdquo or the like instead of saying ldquoGodrdquo When the whole context of Scripture is considered it is evident that the words spoken by God found in Isaiah and Hosea are very true in a specific sense namely that there is but one Supreme God and one Main Savior This truth does not rule out the existence of lsquogodlike onesrsquo under God (Job 387 Psalms 291 896)

Is it possible to speak of divine beings (ldquogodsrdquo) existing alongside God

Scholar John Macquarrie in Jesus Christ in Modern Thought claims that the Jewish monotheistic culturewould never tolerate the idea of the Logos belonging to a class of divine beings (P 110) Not quite Other scholars have a different view Ernst Haenchen for example claims the opposite in accord with Scripture ldquoIn the period in which the hymn [at John 11] took its rise it was quite possible in Jewishand Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him Phil 26-10 proves thatrdquo (A Commentary on the Gospel of John John 1Transl by Robert W Funk from Das Johannesevangelium Ein Kommentar p 109)

Another source has this to say ldquoOn the other hand it was a matter of general knowledge and one which the Bible itself shares and does not attempt to conceal that recognition and worship have often been extended to others than the Jewish-Christian God and the term lsquogodrsquo or lsquogodsrsquo is used for them

also as are the respective Greek and Hebrew words It is the custom to use a capital letter G for the God of the Jewish- Christian tradition and a small letter for the othersrdquo (Dictionary of the Bible JamesHastings Revised Edition 1963 Page 333 Grant amp Rowley Charles Scribners Sons New York)

Lets briefly look at how the Bible itself employs the words for ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture At Exodus 71 we read that God made a man Moses ldquoa godrdquo (Hebrew elohim) before Pharaoh God said to Moses ldquoSee I have made thee a god [Others ldquoa Godrdquo ldquoGodrdquo] to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophetrdquo Would this mean then that Moses himself did become an intrinsic part of the Great Divinity by the mere fact of him being called ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo by the Lord Jehovah himself Of coursenot Other translations clarify the meaning of ldquoGodrdquo used here by the LORD The English Standard Version expresses it this way ldquoSee I have made you like God to Pharaohrdquo And the International Standard Version has the LORD saying ldquoListen Ive put you in the role of God to Pharaohrdquo

And in Exodus 416 God making reference to Aaron tells Moses ldquoYou shall be as God to himrdquo (ESV NAB Hebrew lelohim ldquoas Godrdquo Darby ldquoGodrdquo Leeser ldquoa Godrdquo LXX theon ldquoGodrdquo Vulgate Deum)rdquo Moses was simply given a powerful role as Gods emissary who represented his will In Psalm 456 a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) when he became lsquoking of Israelrsquo was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo Obviously this human king was not in fact the One True God Neither was he a false God as trinitarian reasonings would lead one to believe Simply put Solomons throne was ldquodivinerdquo in the sense that he represented God in a position of authority over others

In the Scriptures we find that Jesus is described in Isaiah 96 as ldquoMighty Godrdquo and as ldquoSon of Godrdquo in other places (John 134) What about angels What do we call them Humans Not Angels are in nature heavenly beings closer to God than to men They are powerful divine spirits that reflect Gods glory and Godship They are ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 16) They are ldquogodsrdquo themselves What do we call aldquosonrdquo of a ldquohumanrdquo This ldquosonrdquo is himself a ldquohumanrdquo is he not Just as there is a family of human beings sharing ldquohumanityrdquo there is also a family of celestial beings yes ldquodivine beingsrdquo or ldquogodsrdquo sharing ldquodivinityrdquo A ldquosonrdquo of ldquoGodrdquo is ldquoa godrdquo or a lsquoreflectionrsquo of God Or it could simply refer to ldquoOne who shares a close relationship with Godrdquo (The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary) Notwithstanding the expression ldquoson of Godrdquo is never synonymous with God ( Some argue that the expression ldquoAlmightyrdquo in Revelation 18 applies to Christ but there is no concrete evidence for the claim)

Psalm 821 tells us that ldquoGod standeth in the congregation of the mighty [Brenton ldquogodsrdquo] he judgeth among the godsrdquo The Syriac Peshitta here has ldquoangelsrdquo instead of ldquogodsrdquo while Tanakh has ldquodivine beingsrdquo The Targums offer the alternate reading of ldquojudgesrdquo Whether we apply the term ldquogodsrdquo in verse one of this psalm (Psalm 821) to angels or human judges as Gods representatives (as in verse 6) as the Targums do it still proves that in the Bible other living beings other than God Almighty are spoken of as ldquogodsrdquo or ldquosons of Godrdquo with no hint of polytheism by such use The Andrews Study Bible explains under Psalm 821 ldquogods Term designates earthly rulers leaders mighty ones judges andor princes (v 7) who were Gods representatives and whose work was divinely appointed (Ex 2228 Deut 117 1618 2 Chr 196 compare with Heb 137)rdquo And The NIV Study Bible has this footnote on Psalm 821 ldquogods See v 6 In the language of the OTmdashand in accordance with the conceptual world of the ancient Near Eastmdashrulers and judges as deputies of the heavenly King could be given the honorific title lsquogodrsquo [hellip] or be called lsquoson of Godrsquo []rdquo See also the Psalm 821 footnotes of The Believers Study Bible The Wesley Bible and the HCSB Study Bible

Mighty angels and powerful human rulers or judges called ldquogodsrdquo in Scripture were considered ldquodivinerdquo or ldquogodlikerdquo when they acted on behalf of God As the Lord told Moses ldquoI will make you seem like God to Pharaohrdquo (Exodus 71 NLT) Even people of biblical times used the term ldquoGodrdquo freely in reference to powerful human leaders or people who displayed ldquosupernaturalrdquo feats Acts 1222informs us that when king Herod gave a public speech in royal robes the crowd cheered him on shouting ldquoIt is the voice of a god and not of a manrdquo On another occasion the people of a small island called Paul theos that is ldquoa godrdquo when they witnessed his superhuman powers (Acts 286 Compare with Acts 1411) With this information at hand Robert Young a master of various ancient languages concluded ldquoGodmdashis used of any one (professedly) mighty whether truly so or not and is applied not only to the true God but to false gods Magistratesjudges angels prophets etc eg Ex 71 John 11 1033 34 35 2028 rdquo ndash Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible Eerdmans Publ 1978

Then why do religious writers out there act like no one but God can be referred to as ldquodivinerdquo or ldquoa godrdquo For them anyone else but the true God is a false god They are confining themselves within a box with the Scriptural context of Isaiah chapter 43 44 and 45 discussed above where they refuse to seethe term ldquogodrdquo being used elsewhere in Scripture in a more broadly manner than their biased narrowed definition allows them to In fact even Satan is called ldquothe god [Gr ὁ θεὸς] of this worldrdquo because he actually lsquorulesrsquo this wicked world by the power he exerts over mankind (2 Cor 44 John 1231 1 John 519) Was calling Satan ldquothe god of this worldrdquo meant to promote polytheism Thus the original words for ldquogodrdquo of themselves do not signal whether a god is true or false With some exceptions the Inspired Scriptures commonly affixes the definite article (ldquotherdquo) before the word ldquoGodrdquo to distinguish the Supreme God from other gods This holds true for both the Hebrew and Greek Bible portions

It is clear from the biblical record that in ancient Jewish culture people saw no problem speaking of ldquodivine beingsrdquo under the Supreme God To them it was not exclusively a matter of whether they were true or false ldquogodsrdquo In their cultural mindset the term ldquogodsrdquo when applied positively to others beside the Most High God meant that they were powerful representatives of God whether it was Christ spokenof angels or human judges When speaking of powerful heavenly beings in glory the term ldquosons of Godrdquo was fully acceptable There is no record of Jesus displaying any feelings of disgust when claiming he was ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 1036 NIV) Why should we then

Hence anyone else other than God labeled ldquogodrdquo in Scripture in a positive light are simply divine beings created in the image of the True God belonging to the heavenly family of ldquogodlikerdquo ones The term ldquogodrdquo may also be Scripturally used to describe human beings holding a position of power and authority when appointed by God When the term is used this way polytheism is not an issue

What about the Christ

At John 1033-36 Christ himself appealed to Psalm 82 where the term ldquogodsrdquo was applied to persons other than God Jesus was refuting the charge of blasphemy that he was making himself ldquoGgodrdquo as invalid because he was only claiming to be not God but ldquoGods Sonrdquo which is totally different Jesus had an excellent opportunity here to claim once and for all that he was ldquoGodrdquo but once again he did not do so Jesus Christ holds a much higher position than any angel or man but is still subordinate to his Father God (1 Corinthians 113 Hebrews 32 Colossians 13)

Angels were made subject to Christ after he himself was placed at Gods right hand (1 Peter 322) Although both angels and Christ are described as lsquosons of Godrsquo only Jesus Christ is distinctively called

ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo according to some manuscripts (John 118 Murdock Noyes Concordant Literal Version) Or ldquothe one-begotten Godrdquo (Etheridge) The Word Study Greek-English New Testament describes the Logos as the ldquoonly born Godrdquo (John 118 Paul R McReynolds) Only Christ is called ldquothe firstborn of all creationrdquo a term never used for the lsquoSuperiorityrsquo of God or the holy spirit (Colossians 115) Could Trinitarians ever answer the following question If Christ was not created as some claim who then was the first creation by God Also who is ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo Surely someone lsquocreated firstrsquo in the universe would be honored with the title lsquothe firstborn of all creationrsquo Is there any other way to express such event The Bible simply points to Christ as such of which is said ldquoThese things saith the Amen the faithful and true witness the beginning of the creation of Godrdquo Whatdoes lsquothe beginning of Gods creationrsquo really mean Another Bible translation puts it this way ldquoThe one who is in the origin of things created by God [El que estaacute en el origen de las cosas creadas por Dios]rdquo (Biblia de Ameacuterica approved by various Episcopalian dioceses in Central and South America Casa de la Biblia Madrid) No ldquomysteryrdquo here Its that simple

Could there be any ldquosaviorrdquo other than God

The Sovereign Lord God is the main Savior but he may allow others to act as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo on his behalf in certain situations We find that the term is applied to Christ as the prime agent of salvation (2 Peter 220 1 John 414 Titus 14) We are told that men too like Othniel and Ehud were used as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo of their people (Judges 216 3915 Hebrew moshia same word used for God at Isaiah Compare with Isaiah 452 Hebrew u˙moshia Nehemiah 927 Hebrew moshiim plural of moshia) Would this mean then that those men called ldquosaviorsrdquo in Scripture form a part of the Supreme Divinity No there is a better explanation as found in the NIV

The NIV Study Bible has this to say of Israels leaders or judges ldquoTheir principal purpose is best expressed in [Judges] 216 lsquoThen the LORD raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of hellip raidersrsquo Since it was God who permitted the oppressions and raised up deliverers [saviors] he himself was Israels ultimate Judge and Deliverer [Savior] (1127 see 823 where Gideon a judge insists that the Lord is Israels true rulerrdquo (p 325) The Bible uses the same original words (ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo) for God Christ and men Does it mean they all are the same person or co-equal The context then iswhat determines the correct application for each occurrence of those terms

Who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo

In contrast to others who were called ldquosaviorsrdquo of the people of Israel Jesus is called ldquoSavior of the worldrdquo Jesus can potentially save not only Israel but all of mankind from bondage to sin and from death itself (John 316 1 John 414) Although Christ is undoubtedly a greater Savior than any man heis still subject to the Grandest Savior of all (Isaiah 4311 Acts 412 1 Corinthians 1528) Christ himself came to be in a situation where he had to cry out with a loud voice for salvation Right before his death he implored ldquoMy God my God why hast thou forsaken merdquo He had to be saved by God (Matthew 2746 Hebrews 57 Psalm 288)

Acts 531 tells us who was the One who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquoGod exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israelrdquo (NRSV) According to this scripture whatever capacity Jesus had as ldquosaviorrdquo was due to God To insist that Jesus is ldquoGodrdquo because of his description as ldquosaviorrdquo then we could reason all the same that men such as Othniel and Ehud were alsoldquoGodrdquo because they too were called saviors Overall ldquocontextrdquo should be the guiding principle for the

right comprehension of biblical terms

Jesus as ldquoSon of manrdquo

Jesus made reference to himself in the Gospels nearly 80 times as ldquothe Son of manrdquo an expression indicating he was truly a ldquomanrdquo while on earth not a God-man (Matthew 820 etc) According to Hebrews 29 Jesus ldquowas made a little lower than the angelsrdquo so he could taste death for everyone God cannot ever become ldquolower than the angelsrdquo he created John 114 tells us that it was lsquothe Word who became fleshrsquo not God The doctrine of the ldquoincarnationrdquo as commonly taught actually twists the meaning of John 114 because the text does not say at all that lsquoGod became fleshrsquo Instead it says ldquothe Wordrdquo did Plain and simple 2 John 7 only confirms this In other words the Logos Jesus Christ became ldquohumanrdquo or ldquoa human beingrdquo One scripture often misused to prove that God was made flesh is 1 Timothy 316 but this text did not originally say ldquoGod was manifest in the fleshrdquo as it reads in a few Bible versions since such reading is defective Other translations of the Bible have corrected this error in translation saying instead ldquoHe [or ldquoWhordquo] was manifested in the fleshrdquo allowing for lsquoChrist as the One being manifested in the fleshrsquo For a consideration of 1 Tim 316 see httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

In an effort to simplify the meaning of the expression ldquoSon of manrdquo in reference to Christ in our culture a modern Bible version used the expression ldquothe Human Onerdquo repeatedly (Common English Bible) ldquoThe general use of lsquoson of manrsquo occurs in poetic texts in which the phrase functions as a synonym for lsquomanrsquo or lsquohuman beingrsquo rdquo (The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary) The NIV at Daniel 713 confirms the meaning of the expression ldquoson of manrdquo in a footnote ldquoThe Aramaic phrase bar enash [son of man]means human being The phrase son of man is retained here because of its use in the New Testament as a title of Jesus probably based largely on this verserdquo (2011 Edition) The apostle was very familiar withthis much used expression of Jesus If ldquoSon of manrdquo meant he was a ldquohuman beingrdquo on earth then John would use the similar expression a son of God (or Gods Son) in a way humans would naturally understand it That is lsquoof divine originrsquo (ldquoa godrdquo) without any foreign trinitarian speculation of a later era which Jesus disciples were unaware of (John 1033-36) Jesus divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship As noted the expression may also refer to lsquoone who shares a close relationship with Godrsquo As future co-heirs in the kingdom of Christ human creatures too are designated as ldquosons of Godrdquo but never become identical to the Sovereign God Again polytheism is not an issue here No need to make this into a ldquomysteryrdquo

Why does the Bible speak sometimes as if Jesus Christ himself was ldquoGodrdquo

The Jewish nation already believed and sought lsquoto honorrsquo the Father of Abraham Isaac and Jacob This monotheistic culture adhered to the Mosaic Law as they worshiped the true God But many prophecies which appeared in the Hebrew code identified the Messiah as lsquoemancipatorrsquo of their bondage to sin Themajority of the Jews where hoping the foretold Messiah would rescue them from the Roman yoke Instead of getting involved in earthly politics Jesus repeatedly spoke of lsquoGods kingdomrsquo hence comparatively few exercised faith in him In contrast to the few who believed in Jesus as being ldquosentrdquo by God the majority of Jews could look no further from the man they considered their Father AbrahamThey were blind in their self-sufficiency

There was thus an urgent need to communicate to the Jewish people that exercising faith in Christ was essential to their salvation But how would one do that To start by making them see that Jesus Christ

beginning was the Word and that the Word was with God it is impossible to go on and say that it was God If it was God it could stand in no relation to Godrdquo (The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated p 30) Truly when someone speaks of lsquoa person being with anotherrsquo listeners normally do not reach the conclusion that both individuals are identical persons Then why insist on a different conclusion here in John 112 Since the rest of the Gospel of John does not contradict chapter one it isthe responsibility of the translator to transmit this differentiation between the articular (with the article the) and the anarthrous theos into the target language in this case English

(John 114 In Greek lsquothe Word became fleshrsquo appears in this order ldquoAnd the Word flesh becamerdquo The Greek word for ldquofleshrdquo (sarx) has no article before it just as we have with the predicate nouns in John 11c and John 660 although in 114 the subject (the Word) precedes the predicate noun and verb whereas in the other two scriptures it follows it The meaning is not altered by such structure Translators do not render the Greek word at John 114 as ldquoFleshrdquo or ldquothe Fleshrdquo Some Bible translators do however render it with an indefinite article ldquoAnd the Word became ldquoa humanrdquo New Century Version or ldquoa human beingrdquo (Contemporary English Version) And some others render it ldquothe Word became human [qualitative]rdquo which is acceptable as well The idea is not that the Word became the-one-and-only-Human on earth but that he became human or a human being a description of his new role)

At John 660 there is no doctrinal controversy no doubt of message import whether you say ldquoThis word (saying) is hardrdquo Or ldquoThis is a hard word (saying)rdquo It would be improper to translate John 660as ldquoThis is the Hard sayingrdquo or ldquoThis saying is the Shocking Onerdquo (as if it were the Only difficult statement spoken by Jesus) or in the case of John 11 ldquoThe Word was Godrdquo as if Jesus were the only divine being In English capitalizing ldquoGodrdquo has the effect of making the noun definite or mistakingly lead Bible readers to the conclusion that the Word was being identified as one-and-the-same God However the grammatical construction and context of both Scriptures make no intent on identification Rather the focus is on the indefinite or qualitative aspect of the noun The hard saying of John 660 was not the only difficult statement issued by Christ but is one of them it is a hard saying Jesus being lsquoa reflection of Gods gloryrsquo and ldquoSon of Godrdquo is not the only divine being for he himself spoke of his Father God as ldquothe only true Godrdquo (Hebrews 13 John 2017 173) As C K Barrett himself noted ldquoThe absence of the article indicates that the Word is God but is not the only being of whom this is truerdquo (The Gospel According to St John SPCK 1955 p 76) Christ also stated that his Father was ldquogreaterrdquo than he was and this subordinate status did not change after his ascension to heaven (John 1428 Acts 75556 1 Corinthians 113)

Thus Bible translators who bring out the qualitative or indefinite force of the anarthrous predicate nouns are in the correct and those making the noun definite by capitalizing the noun as some have donein John 11 are clearly going against what Jesus and John themselves stated lsquoThat Christ is the Son of Godrsquo not lsquothe one-and-only Godrsquo (John 2017 31) The rendering that is not definite also agrees with the statement found in verse two of John chapter 1 ldquoThis one was in the beginning with Godrdquo

2nd Example (Acts 284)

Greek Πάντως φονεύς ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος By all means murderer is the man this The next example is taken from Acts chapter 28 which deals with the apostle Paul and his companions

being shipwrecked near Malta during a rainy and cold day a small island 58 miles south of Sicily The islanders were very kind to them and built a bonfire to warm them up Paul willing to contribute proceeded to gather some wood and as he placed them on the fire a poisonous snake fastened itself on his hand When the islanders saw what happened they pronounced the words above And how do Bibleversions translate this clause which is similar to John 11 in construction

ldquoThis man must be a murderer [Dieser Mensch muszlig ein Moumlrder sein]rdquo (M Luther Bible 1545) ldquoThis man surely is a murthererrdquo (Geneva Bible 1560) ldquoNo doubt this man is a murthererrdquo (Bishops Bible 1568) ldquoThis man is certainly a murdererrdquo (John Worsley New Testament) ldquoCertainly a murderer is the man thisrdquo (The Emphatic Diaglott Interlinear) ldquoThat man must be a murdererrdquo (New Jerusalem Bible) ldquoThere is no doubt that this man is a murdererrdquo (The Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible NT) ldquoThis must be some murdererrdquo (Ronald A Knox) ldquoThis man must be a murdererrdquo (James Moffatt New Testament) ldquoCertainly this man is a murdererrdquo (Greek and English Interlinear NT Mounce) ldquoNo doubt this man is a murdererrdquo (Kenneth S Wuest) ldquoBeyond a doubt this man is a murdererrdquo (Charles B Williams New Testament) ldquoThis man is probably a murdererrdquo (Holman Christian Standard Bible) ldquoThis man must be a murdererrdquo (Common English Bible) ldquoThe man must be a murdererrdquo (New English Bible) ldquoThis man is certainly a murdererrdquo (Living Oracles New Testament) ldquoThis man must certainly be a murdererrdquo (New American Bible)

As seen above none of these translations render this part of the verse in a definite sense as if Paul were being identified as ldquoThe Murdererrdquo they all been warned about Rather the superstitious islanders presumed this was ldquoardquo murderer or ldquosomerdquo murderer (Knox) who got the snake bite he deserved Thusthe emphasis is on the indefiniteness or qualitative aspect of the anarthrous noun not on identification In this verse you have a singular anarthrous predicate noun ldquomurdererrdquo preceding the verb ldquoisrdquo just as in John 11 there is an anarthrous noun ldquogodrdquo preceding the verb ldquowasrdquo Does John 11 demand a definite translation for the article-less noun ldquogodrdquo to make it read ldquoThe Godrdquo (or ldquoGodrdquo) Neither grammar nor the context of John chapter one make such demand To insist that John 11c must be rendered in English ldquothe Word was Godrdquo would be just as improper as insisting that Acts 284 must be translated ldquoThis man must certainly be [The] Murdererrdquo And who does that in Acts 284

3rd Example (John 670)

Greek καὶ ἐξ ὑμῶν εἷς διάβολός ἐστιν and out of you [plural] one devil is

In this text Jesus is addressing his twelve closest disciples when he anticipates that Judas Iscariot wouldlater betray him Jesus referred to Judas as ldquodiabolosrdquo (devil) or slanderer Like other verses under consideration the word ldquodiabolosrdquo lacks the Greek article (ldquotherdquo in English) and precedes the verb ldquoestinrdquo (is) Surprisingly a few scholars (read Holman Christian Standard Bible and the NET Bible) mistakingly add the English the before ldquodevilrdquo under the premise that this is one of those nomadic (one-of-a-kind) nouns indicating definiteness This (one-of-a-kind) view for this scripture has no solid foundation Jesus here is not identifying Judas as the Satan the arch-opposer of God but expressing a

leaning spirit of defection on Judas part He could discern an inclination of satanic qualities such as envy and malice and hence could rightly call him a devil a betrayer a slanderer The qualitative force is so prominent here that adding the article the before ldquodevilrdquo has no justification whatsoever (The explanation by grammarian Daniel Wallace senior editor of the NET Bible is not convincing hereOther translators clearly understand this differently as seen below)

ldquoAnd yet from among you one is an adversaryrdquo (Rotherham)ldquoand one of you is an accuserrdquo (NT James L Tomanek)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (Common English Bible)ldquoand one of you is a devilrdquo (Douay-Rheims Bible)ldquoYet one of you is an adversaryrdquo (The Gospel of John FF Bruce)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (International Standard Version)ldquoand one of you is a devilrdquo (American Standard Version)ldquoYet one of you is a slandererrdquo (New World Translation)ldquoAnd even of you one is an informerrdquo (Edgar G Goodspeed)ldquoand of you -- one is a devilrdquo (Youngs Literal Translation)ldquoand of you one an accuser isrdquo (The Emphatic Diaglott)ldquoYet is not one of you a devilrdquo (New American Bible)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (New International Version)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (Greek-English Interlinear NT William and Robert Mounce)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (New Jerusalem Bible)ldquoYet one of you is an adversaryrdquo (Jewish New Testament David H Stern)ldquobut out of you one is a slanderer rdquo (21st Century New Testament Left column)ldquoYet one of you is a betrayerrdquo (21st Century New Testament Right column)ldquoand of you one a devil isrdquo (Alfred Marshalls Greek-English Interlinear)ldquoAnd of you one is a devilrdquo (Kenneth S Wuests New Testament)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (The Translators New Testament)

FF Bruce says that ldquoOne of them [of the twelve] was diabolos ndash the Greek word means a lsquoslandererrsquo or lsquocalumniatorrsquo or lsquofalse accuserrsquo but it is probably used here as the counterpart to Heb [satan] lsquoadversaryrsquo [ldquoYet one of you is an adversaryrdquo Bruce]rdquo I side with the translators above and with grammarians P B Harner and P S Dixon who argue that the qualitative force of diabolos (devil) is more prominent than its definiteness Dixon says ldquoIt is best therefore to take διάβολος qualitatively A good rendering might be one of you is a devilrdquo (The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John 50 Dallas Theological Seminary 1975) (Harner Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 1539 and John 11 JBL 92 1973 75-87)

4th Example (John 419)

Greek θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ I am beholding that prophet are you These words were pronounced by a Samaritan woman after hearing Jesus divinely perceive personal things about her life even though they had never met

ldquoI perceive that thou art a prophetrdquo (William Tyndales New Testament 1534 Daniell edition) ldquoI perceive that thou art a prophetrdquo (DouayndashRheims Bible)

ldquoI perceive that thou art a prophetrdquo (King James Version) ldquoI view that a prophet you arerdquo (Charles Van der Pool 2006) ldquoI perceive that a prophet art thourdquo (Alfred Marshall D Litt The Interlinear Greek-English NT) ldquoI see that thou art a prophetrdquo (Confraternity Version) ldquoI see that you are a prophetrdquo (New Revised Standard Version) ldquoOh so youre a prophetrdquo (The Message) ldquoI perceive that a prophet are Yourdquo (Interlinear Farstad Hodges Moss Picirilli Pickering) ldquoAre You a prophetrdquo (The Clear Word) ldquoI can see that you are a prophetrdquo (NIV) ldquoI see you are a prophetrdquo (Christian Community Bible) ldquoI perceive that You are a prophetrdquo (NASB) ldquoI see you are a prophetrdquo (The Authentic New Testament Hugh J Schonfield) ldquoI can see that you are a prophetrdquo (Jewish New Testament David H Stern)

Here most English translations have no problem adding the indefinite article (a) before the anarthrous (article-less) noun ldquoprophetrdquo It is appropriate to do so Take notice of the initial lowercase letter in ldquoprophetrdquo not ldquoProphetrdquo In English the a is required before the noun ldquoprophetrdquo used above in an indefinite-qualitative sense It is describing an attribute about the Master as a prophet not identifying him as ldquotheir Prophetrdquo This Samaritan woman of another religion who accepted no more than the Pentateuch did not have sufficient knowledge about the male stranger she just met (Jesus) as the account shows to conclude that he was lsquothe Prophetrsquo or the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo Nevertheless she discovered he had special insight and could describe him as ldquopropheticrdquo or ldquoa prophetrdquo of some kind Jesus was able to have this prophetic ability because God had empowered him with his spirit (Acts 1038)

By the way those of you who know a Romance (or Latin derived) language such as French Italian Portuguese or Spanish may find it a tad easier to follow this discussion regarding the use or absence of the indefinite article The reason for that is that in everyday speech those who speak one of the Latin languages do not have to use the indefinite article as frequently as opposed to those who only speak English which requires using it more often to make a noun indefinite or qualitative Consequently it may be easier to see the connection of the qualitative force of singular anarthrous nouns between Greek and one of the Latin languages A comparison of modern translations of such nouns between English and one of the Latin based languages will bear this out

For instance in Spanish you can either employ or not the indefinite article and still retain the qualitative force of singular anarthrous nouns (See El Griego Biacuteblico Al Alcance De Todos by J A Septieacuten p 122 Editorial CLIE Barcelona) At John 419 you can have the woman say to Jesus ldquoMe parece que tuacute eres profeta [I perceive that you are prophet]rdquo as the Protestant Reina-Valera does or have her say ldquoVeo que tuacute eres un profeta [I can see that your are a prophet]rdquo as the Catholic Torres Amat does Actually it is common in Spanish Bibles to use ldquoprofetardquo without the ldquounrdquo while some translators do add the (un the equivalent of a) to make it more specific ldquoun profetardquo Not only is this an acceptable translation from Greek to Spanish it sounds natural either way unlike English

Similarly in French you can say ldquoje vois que tu es prophegraveterdquo (I see that you are prophet Segond) or you can say ldquoje vois que tu es un prophegraveterdquo (I see that you are a prophet Darby French) The first French reading does not use the indefinite article while the second one does In Italian ldquoio veggoche tu sei profetardquo (I see that you are prophet Diodati) or ldquotu sei un profetardquo (you are a prophet

La Parola egrave Vita) The first Italian version lacks the indefinite article and the second one adds it Both renderings are acceptable One stresses the qualitative aspect and the other the indefinite status of the predicate noun Even Wallace acknowledged ldquoIt is nevertheless difficult to distinguish indefinite from qualitative nouns at times (just as at other times it is difficult to distinguish qualitative from definite nouns) The very fact that any member of a class is mentioned highlights to some degree that particular classndashhence making some kind of qualitative statementrdquo (op cit Wallace p 266 footnote)Wallace adds ldquoAlthough the translation [of John 419] is most naturally lsquoSir I perceive that you are a prophetrsquo the sense may be better characterized as indefinite-qualitativerdquo The same can be said of John 11c (Ibid page 266)

At John 419 natural spoken English requires the use of the ldquoardquo before prophet to bring out the Greek sense in our language and most English Bibles do so To be consistent Bible versions which render John 419 in an indefinite sense (a prophet) or with a lowercase letter ldquoprophetrdquo could do the very same thing in John 11c with its similar grammatical construction One really has to wonder why some individuals who claim to have competence in the Greek fail to understand or acknowledge publicly that in translation work there is often more than one way to render some biblical passages They let religious feelings get in the way clouding their judgment This is made obvious when they seek to convey to others that those who render a certain passage differently from the norm are being ldquoignorantrdquoin the Greek department

5th Example (John 101)

Greek ἐκεῖνος κλέπτης ἐστὶν καὶ λῃστής that (one) thief is and robber

Here Jesus initiates dissertation about how he as a fine shepherd protects his sheep from dangerous individuals that resemble wolves The man who does not enter the sheepfold through the door but climbs in by some other way is a

ldquothe same is a thief and a robberrdquo (William Tyndales NT 1534 Daniell edition) ldquothe same is a thief and a robberrdquo (DouayndashRheims Bible) ldquothe same is a thief and a robberrdquo (New King James Version) ldquois a thief and a banditrdquo (New Jerusalem Bible) ldquois a thief and an outlawrdquo (Common English Bible) ldquothat one is a thief and robberrdquo (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot) ldquothat man is a thief and a robberrdquo (English Standard Version) ldquois a thief and a robberrdquo (New American Bible) ldquothat one is a thief and a robberrdquo (Greek and English Interlinear NT Mounce) ldquothat man is a thief and a robberrdquo (Revised Standard Bible) ldquois a thief and a roguerdquo (Phillips Modern English) ldquohe is a thief and a brigandrdquo (A New Translation by William Barclay) ldquois nothing but a thief or a robberrdquo (New English Bible) ldquohe is either a robber or a banditrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English) ldquois a thief and a robberrdquo (William F Beck-NT) ldquothat one is a thief and a robberrdquo (Literal Translation Version)

Smooth English requires the use of the indefinite article (a) before either thief and robber or both

Most English translations do this Again to be consistent with this syntactical construction these translations could have used the indefinite article (a) at John 11c and have it read ldquothe Word was a godrdquo And if Bible translators are reluctant to use the indefinite article at John 11c they could have at least rendered the anarthrous noun ldquoGodrdquo in such way that brings out the descriptive nature (as an adjective) of such nouns by rendering it ldquoand the Word was god (or divine)rdquo to be consistent with theirother renderings which follow this pattern By the way some translations render it this way

ldquoand the Word was godrdquo (Professor Charles C Torrey Yale University 1947) ldquoand the Logos was god [eacutetait dieu]rdquo (Herbert Pernot 1925 Paris) ldquoand the Word was divinerdquo (E J Goodspeed) ldquoand the Word was god [eacutetait dieu]rdquo (Traduction du monde nouveau 1987) ldquoThe Word was god [eacutetait dieu]rdquo (Marc J H Oltramare 1872 University Professor Geneva) ldquoSo the Word was divinerdquo (Hugh J Schonfield) ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo (Reijnier Rooleeuw MD) ldquoand god was the Word [y dios era la Palabra]rdquo (J J Bartolomeacute Madrid 2002)

6th Example (1 Kings 1827 Septuagint LXX)

Greek ὅτι θεός ἐστιν Hebrew ההו א ההה םים א אל כהכ םי ־ for god is (he) he god for lt ldquoFor he is a godrdquo (Sir Lancelot C L Brentons translation from the Greek LXX) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Septuagint LXX Charles Thomson) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (The Apostles Bible A Modern English Translation of the Greek Septuagint by Paul W Esposito 2004) ldquoFor he is a godrdquo (New English Translation of the Septuagint [NETS] 2007) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (The Orthodox Study Bible St Athanasius Academy Septuagint 2008 LXX) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Orthodox England Michael Asser 2001-2010 based on the Greek text [LXX] of the version published by the Greek Orthodox Church Apostoliki Diakonia) ldquofor a god herdquo (Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament) ldquofor god herdquo (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Jewish Publication Society 1917 Translated from the Hebrew) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts [tr Syriac] George M Lamsa) ldquofor he is godrdquo [pues eacutel es dios] (La Biblia Peshitta en Espantildeol translated from the AramaicSyriac)

ldquobecause god (he) is [porque dios es]rdquo (La Sagrada Biblia G Juumlnemann B 1992 Greek LXX) ldquofor Baal is youre god [for Baal is your god]rdquo (John Wycliffes Translation transl f Latin c 1384) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Douay-Rheims Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate ldquodeus enim estrdquo)

In this account we read of Elijah mocking Baal a false god The Greek construction is similar to that ofJohn 11c Just as in the other instances of theos without the article (ldquotherdquo) and preceding the verb translators find it necessary in English to add the indefinite article (a) to complete the sense in our language Had the speaker used the article before theos it could be taken then as a reference to Baal being ldquoGodrdquo not ldquoa godrdquo Would it not Observe that John Wycliffes Translation from Latin did not capitalize the ldquogrdquo in ldquogodrdquo Also the two Spanish translations above one from the Greek LXX by

Juumlnemann and the other a Peshitta from the Aramaic do not capitalize the ldquogrdquo in ldquogodrdquo Actually in Spanish it is not required to use the indefinite article (a) in this construction to obtain nearly the same effect as the English statement ldquofor he is a godrdquo Surely the translators of this Spanish version were not suggesting that Elijah was calling Baal ldquoGodrdquo In Hebrew we find the reading ההו א ההה םים א אל כהכ םי־ (ki-elohim hu Literally because god [is] he) likewise translated in our English versions as ldquoFor he isa godrdquo Thus Bible translations from both the Hebrew and Greek (LXX ) texts here and from the Latin and Syriac versions as well all reflect indefinite or qualitative renderings ndash good indicators which show how John 11c with similar syntax should be translated

If you have carefully followed this discussion to this point you may have observed that the indefinite translation of anarthrous predicate nouns (using ldquoardquo) similar in construction to John 11c is a valid option to consider Why is this significant to mention Because Trinitarian scholars try so hard to disengage the likelihood of the indefinite notion in the discussion of John 11c They keep saying that a grammatical construction such as we find in John 11 should be rendered qualitatively usually ignoring or denying the possible indefinite nuance of anarthrous nouns before the verb However in these samples we see a pattern where translators freely use one of those two aspects (indefinite or qualitative)in the translations sometimes alternating between the two It appears then that theology is a factor in their denial of this fact

7th Example (Xenophons Anabasis 146)

Greek εμπoacuteριον δrsquo ην το χωρiacuteον market and was the place

(A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey had this to say (under the heading ldquoWith the Subject in a Copulative Sentencerdquo) ldquoThe article sometimes distinguishes the subjectfrom the predicate in a copulative sentence In Xenophons Anabasis 146 εμπoacuteριον δrsquo ην το χωρiacuteον and the place was a market we have a parallel case to what we have in John 11 καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος and the word was deity The article points out the subject in these examples Neither was the place the only market nor was the word all of God as it would mean if the article were also used with θεός As it stands the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo (Page 148 paragraph laquo3raquo Italics theirs) I agree with the above comment However I feel that the last statement about ldquothe other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo is superfluous This is clearly a case of two Baptist grammarians reading far more into the text than is warranted John chapter 1 is not speaking of three persons in the Godhead Actually the whole Gospel of John makes no mention whatsoever of three persons in one God This language is totally foreign to the New Testament

To run more parallel with Xenophons statement and the place was a market this Grammar could have translated John 11c and the word was a god I am aware that Dr Julius R Mantey has been openly opposed (to put it mildly) to the NW translation ldquothe Word was a godrdquo Nevertheless the example theyset forth seems to contradict Manteys statements Compare the literal Greek reading of Xenophons statement with the suggested translation by Dana and Mantey of which Mantey says is ldquoa parallel caserdquo to John 11c and see for yourself

ldquoand the place was market rdquo (Literal reading in English order Anabasis 146) ldquoand the word was god rdquo (Literal reading in English order John 11c)

ldquoand the place was a market rdquo (Suggested translation by Dana and Mantey) ldquoand the Word was a god rdquo (Controversial translation criticized by Mantey)

The translation offered by Dr Dana and Dr Mantey ldquoand the place was a marketrdquo as indicated above is an unintended admission that ldquothe Word was a godrdquo is a proper translation even though as Trinitarians they prefer another and the word was deity Note too that their suggested translation of John 11c and the word was deity is not the same thing as saying that the word was entirely God for they said ldquonor was the word all of Godrdquo Additionally the use of the word ldquomayrdquo in the statement ldquothe three persons may be impliedrdquo reveals a theological speculation not a fact The truth is that Jesus himself spoke of his Father God as ldquothe only Godrdquo (NIV New King James Version John 544) If Jesus is not ldquothe only Godrdquo who is he then Christ is time and again described as ldquoGods Sonrdquo hence a reflection of Gods glory ldquogodlikerdquo ldquodivinerdquo The Bible itself says ldquoThe Son reflects Gods own gloryand everything about him represents God exactlyrdquo (Hebrews 13 New Living Translation) This focus on Christ by Christian Writers throughout the New Testament led William Barclay to caution ldquoTo say that the Word was God is too much to say that the Word was Divine is too littlerdquo (ldquoGreat Themes of the New Testament II John 11-14rdquo Expository Times 70 (1958-59) 114)

Much has been made of the publication of a letter Mantey wrote to the publishers of the NWT (WT Society) where Mantey asked the WTS to stop quoting him by name since he felt they were misquotingtheir Grammar Many have seized this incident to lash out slanderous statements at the WTS for alleged ldquoscholastic dishonestyrdquo I feel this attack has not much merit It is in the main a theological objection For the benefit of those who do not have these two publications I will reproduce here what the NWT said right before and after quoting the Grammar of Dana and Mantey ldquoCareful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity a personality whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about someone That is what A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey remarks on page 140 paragraph vii [ldquoThe articular construction emphasizes identity the anarthrous construction emphasizes characterrdquo] Accordingly on page 148 paragraph (3) this same publication says about the subject of a copulative sentence [hellip quoted above at beginning of this section] Instead of translating John 11 and the word was deity thisGrammar could have translated it and the word was a god to run more parallel with Xenophons statement and the place was a marketrdquo (NWT Appendix page 774)

In my opinion the NWT quote of the Grammar was accurate enough with one exception The NWT Committee omitted this sentence ldquoAs it stands the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo And it is this omission which Dr Mantey most likely objected to I too believe this sentence was not critical in the context of the grammar being considered to prove the authors point but whether they were ldquodishonestrdquo or not by omitting this one sentence in their quote I leave it for the reader to decide Apparently the NW translators intended to avoid the dogmatic Trinity subject in their Appendix at that point When quoting Dana and Mantey the NWT Committee could certainly have been more explicit by implying for example that in their opinion the authors used an argument that in effect allowed the reading ldquothe word was a godrdquo as a ldquoparallel caserdquo to Xenophons statement ldquothe place was a marketrdquo instead of insinuating by mode of silence that the trinitarian authors approved of such reading (To readmore about the practice of WTS ldquoquoting sourcesrdquo see Note 1 at the end of the article)

Interestingly Dana and Manteys Grammar says on pages 138 139 140 ldquoWhen identity is prominent we find the article and when quality or character is stressed the construction is anarthrous [without thearticle]rdquo And ldquoThe use of the articular and anarthrous constructions of θεός is highly instructive A

study of the uses of the term as given in Moulton and Gedens Concordance convinces one that without the article θεός signifies divine essence while with the article divine personality is chiefly in viewrdquo Furthermore on page 140 on the use of the article in the Greek text it says ldquoThe articular constructionemphasizes identity the anarthrous construction emphasizes characterrdquo

Dr Julius R Mantey did include this statement in his letter of repudiation to the WTS mentioned earlierldquoProf Harner Vol 921 in JBL has gone beyond Colwells research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subjectrdquo (July 11 1974) Instead of advocating a trinity this statement of Mantey quoting Professor Harner oddlysupports some of the arguments published in the 1950 and the 1984 NWT Editions

Going by grammar alone one could say that the renderings ldquothe place was a marketrdquo ldquothe Word was agod [divine]rdquo and ldquothe word was deityrdquo all three potentially agree with the grammar principles expounded by Dana amp Mantey on the articular and the anarthrous constructions of θεός on pages 138-140 and on page 148 though they may not admit to it Again let us not forget their clear message ldquoNeither was the place the only market [the place was a market] nor was the word all of Godrdquo

Coming back to translation issues we can see that generally modern translations do make an effort to convey a difference in translation between predicate nouns with and without the article preceding the verb If we take a look at John 151 where John uses the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the verb ldquo(ho georgoacutes estin) the farmer isrdquo we will find that translators generally reflect that fact in translation However here in John 11 they are reluctant to produce a translation which shows the fact that the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo in this verse lacks the article Why Is it because Greek grammar demands the rendering ldquoGodrdquo Not at all The seven (7) submitted samples clearly indicate that it is not grammar but ldquotheologyrdquo for the reluctance Even Greek scholars teach that ldquowhen a Greek noun lacksthe definite article it normally will be translated as indefiniterdquo (A Primer of Biblical Greek by N Clayton Croy assistant professor of NT at Trinity Luther Seminary Columbus Ohio p 15) At John 11 translators in their drive to make Jesus appear identical to God will use a capital G when Jesus is spoken of Patterns of Greek grammar as seen in the above examples and elsewhere are ignored to sustain their theology (Note the use of ldquonormallyrdquo here because the author is aware that there is lsquono hard rulersquo that can be applied at all times in regards to the use of the article or lack of But his statement holds generally true as in here)

John 12 would be pointless tautology if John meant that the Logos was identical to God as some translations suggest It is also misleading to translate John 11 ldquothe Word was fully Godrdquo as the NET Bible does If we were to use the NET Bibles reasoning which appears in their note of John 11 and apply it to samples discussed above with similar syntax we would get the following translations ldquoThis man [Paul] must be fully Murdererrdquo ldquoThat one [climbing over the fence] is fully Thief and fully Robberrdquo ldquofor he (Baal) is fully Godrdquo ldquoand the place was fully Marketrdquo

Does that make sense Baal a pagan god was certainly not lsquofully Godrsquo in the sense of him being the Supreme God But Elijah could depict Baal as ldquoa godrdquo for he was not lsquothe only godrsquo among the heathens And to say ldquothe place was fully Marketrdquo is meaningless In fact Dana and Mantey argued against the place being The Market the only market They conclude that the Greek construction demands ldquothe place was a marketrdquo And Dana and Mantey pointed out that the Greek construction of John 11 tells us that lsquothe word was deity [ldquodivinerdquo but] not all of Godrsquo

In Marks gospel (649) where Jesus appeared walking over the waters next to the disciples boat duringa storm in which they became terrified after seeing an ldquoapparitionrdquo or ldquophantomrdquo of some sort (since they were unaware it was Jesus) they screamed ldquoIts a ghostrdquo according to some Bible versions (Or ldquoa spiritrdquo KJV) The grammatical structure of Mark 649 and John 11 are similar so how do Bible translations deal with this Do they have the disciples crying out ldquoHe is fully Ghost Or would they scream instead ldquoHe is Phantomrdquo No Most Bibles have the disciples believing or saying it was ldquoa ghostrdquoor ldquoa phantomrdquo or ldquoan apparitionrdquo of some sort At no time do translators argue that it should be translated as they do at John 11c by capitalizing the predicate noun and omitting the indefinite article ldquoardquo John 11 is no exception to the norm Bible translators follow the pattern described by Professor Clayton Croy ldquoWhen a Greek noun lacks the definite article it normally will be translated as indefiniterdquo (op cit A Primer) In the examples above Bible translators have shown us how they really deal with syntax similar to John 11c We have ldquoa hard saying a murderer a devil a prophet a thief a robber a god a market a ghost etc At John 1837 we have ldquoa kingrdquo twice English Bibles do not have Pilate asking Jesus if he was the ldquoKingrdquo Instead English translations followthe pattern described above and render Pilates question as ldquoArt thou a king thenrdquo

In all these cases a predicate noun without the Greek article precedes a verb just as we have in John 11c Accordingly then why not reflect this pattern at John 11 especially so when two entities are being spoken of in the verse and the second occurrence of θεός lacks the article Let us not miss the previous statement by a distinguished grammarian A ldquomost common userdquo of the Greek article is to point out hellip ldquoIndividual from Other Individualsrdquo (op cit Short Grammar p 275)

Although grammarian David Alan Black a Trinitarian objects to the ldquoa Godrdquo rendering at John 11 he takes a page from Dana and Manteys Grammar when he writes ldquoIf the article were also used with θεός the statement would mean that all of God was expressed in the Word As it is the Word is neither lsquoa Godrsquo nor equal with the sum total of Godrdquo (Its Still Greek to Me p 79) This statement by Black appears to contradict the NET Bibles translation of John 11c Blacks conclusion is similar to Danas and Manteys that is ldquothe Word was Deity [θεός]rdquo (Brackets his) In similar vein The New Testament in Plain English translates John 11c as ldquothe Word was Godrdquo However a footnote says ldquoOr Deity Divine (which is actually a better translation because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word)rdquo (Underline added 2003) Now this footnote begs the question If the rendering ldquothe Word was Deity Divinerdquo is actually a ldquobetter translationrdquo why not use that in the main text It seems that trinitarian translators have difficulty in displaying a rendering other than ldquothe Word was Godrdquo even when they acknowledge there are lsquobetter translationsrsquo for the anarthrous θεός in John 11c

In English using a capital letter in ldquofully Godrdquo is misleading to someone brought up in trinitarian teaching A trinitarian believer would likely take that rendering as conveying that Christ is Almighty God himself a concept in conflict with what Christ himself stated at John 173 and John 2017 Daniel Wallace previously quoted and author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics wrote a most interesting comment which reveals how theology plays a big role at the time of translating John 11 ldquoAlthough I believe that θεός in 11c is qualitative I think the simplest and most straightforward translation is lsquoand the Word was Godrsquo It may be better to clearly affirm the NT teaching of the deity of Christ and then explain that he is not the Father than to sound ambiguous on his deity and explain that he is God but is not the Fatherrdquo (Ibid p 269 italics his) What Is he serious

Whats the point of claiming that θεός in 11c is ldquoqualitativerdquo in John 11c as Wallace does emphatically in his Grammar and then suggest to use the rendering lsquothe Word was Godrsquo which implies ldquoidentityrdquo a

ldquopersonalityrdquo the opposite of ldquocharacterrdquo or ldquoqualityrdquo) and be forced to explain that it does not mean what it actually says The end result would then be no less ldquoambiguousrdquo than the alternatives he is obviously trying to avoid Would you not rather have a ldquobetter translationrdquo such as ldquothe Word was divinerdquo which requires no additional explanation The NET Bible (Wallace senior editor) prefers a rendering other than ldquodivinerdquo because he states that ldquodivinerdquo ldquoas a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of Godrdquo However on the word ldquodivinerdquo Murray J Harris responds ldquoBut if θεὸς bears a qualitative sense the rendering lsquodivinersquo should not be dismissed as altogether inappropriate Only if lsquodivinersquo is taken to mean lsquohaving the very nature of Godrsquo does the word accurately convey Johns meaningrdquo (op cit Jesus as God p 68) The argument that ldquodivinerdquo is too generic is weak because really the same argument could be made of the term ldquogodrdquo Jesus applied the term ldquogodsrdquo to humans (John 1034-36) and Paul acknowledged that ldquothere are many gods and many lordsrdquo (1 Corinthians 85) So Wallaces objection is more likely an effort to equate Christ with God at John 11

Truly the Greek Text does not say that Christ wasis the one-and-only God What the Greek does say is that ldquothe Word was with the [True] God and the Word [himself] was a divine beingrdquo thus able to perfectly represent the character of God (Hebrews 13) The only way one could justify the rendering ldquoGodrdquo with a big ldquoGrdquo at John 11c is if the original text had the article before the second instance of theos as well Why Because John is talking about two individuals and deliberately differentiates between the two instances of ldquotheosrdquo by placing the article before the first instance of ldquotheosrdquo and not with the second Max Zerwick (SJ) wrote in this regard ldquoὁ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος [if John would have written ldquothe God was the Logosrdquo] at least in NT usage would signify personal identity of the Word with the Father since the latter [the Father] is ὁ Θεὸς [the God]rdquo (Biblical Greek p 55 Rome)

John wrote the words appearing in verse two to clear any potential misunderstanding that could arise from his bold statement in verse one Marinus de Jonge remarks ldquoThe author of this Prologue clearly wants to identify lsquothe Wordrsquo and God as closely as possible without infringing the belief in the One Godrdquo (Christology in Context The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus Philadelphia Westminster 1988 p 198 Jonge is Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands) So in effect John was saying that the Logos was like God in every imaginable way Hence the New English Bible rendering lsquoWhat God was the Word wasrsquo

Dr Jason BeDuhn explains ldquoIn John 11 the Word is not the one-and-only God but it is a god or divine being I know that sounds strange and even seems impossible coming from the pen of a Christian writer But the fact remains that that is what John wrote His purpose in doing so was at least in part to avoid the notion that God the Father himself incarnated as Christ The one who incarnated was somehow distinct from lsquoGodrsquo while still being lsquoa godrsquo rdquo (op cit Truth in Translation pp 122 123)

Why then are translators unwilling to render John 11c ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo A few reasons could be given Translators mention grammar as one problem an issue addressed throughout this article Others view the rendering ldquoa godrdquo as polytheistic I will further mention two others First is the domino effect of the Trinity doctrine developed centuries after Christ as a means to clamp down raging Christological debates to the point that the doctrine has been taken for granted as ldquotruthrdquo by most ldquoChristianrdquo people since Secondly the role in tradition played by the Latin Vulgate must be mentioned This Latin translation has greatly influenced many translators since its inception from c 405 CE It is well known that the Vulgate heavily influenced early translations of the 16th and 17th Century In fact back then translators were more likely to be familiar with the Latin Vulgate than with the Greek

The Latin Vulgate used no articles (as seen below) and that in conjunction with the Greek lacking the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) and we can see why so many have misunderstood John 11 The Christological debates of past centuries did not improve this state of confusion it made it worse I kindly ask the reader to consider the following Latin and Greek readings as helpful pointers in our discussion Notice in particular the bold letters relevant to our discussion

ndash LATIN (John 11)ldquoIn principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbumrdquo In beginning was Verb and Verb was with God and God was Verb

ndash GREEK (John 11)

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος In beginning was the logos and the logos was toward the god and god was the logos

First of all please notice that Latin makes no distinction between the two occurrences of ldquoGodrdquo in the text (ie both without the article) However Greek being a more specific descriptive language does And it does so by using the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the first occurrence and omitting it before the second Keep in mind what The Translatorrsquos New Testament previously quoted said ldquoIt is difficult to believe that the omission [of the Greek article before the second theos in John 11] is not significantrdquo (p 451) As A T Robertson pointed out ldquoThe article is never meaningless in Greek though it often fails to correspond with the English idiom [hellip] Its free use leads to exactness and finesserdquo (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research p 756) And Buttmann The use of the article [ho ldquotherdquo] has everywhere its positive reasonrdquo (Buttmanns Grammar of NewTestament Greek Bt 88) And another ldquoFor the present the presence or absence of the Greek article should always be carefully indicated in the English translationrdquo (New Testament Greek For Beginners by J Gresham Machen DD LITTD p 35 67) It is the responsibility of the translator to transmit whenever possible this existing difference in the Greek text into the English translation

Which reading of the two languages above (Latin and Greek) shows the greater similarity with the traditional rendering of John 11c Its Latin is it not In fact some Bible translations in other languages have even borrowed the latin word ldquoVerbumrdquo from the Latin Vulgate at John 11 such as the ubiquitous Spanish Reina-Valera which uses ldquoVerbordquo (Verb) instead of ldquoWordrdquo used in English versionsAlso using ldquoVerbordquo Sciacuteo de San Miguel Versioacuten Moderna Goacutemez 2010 Nueva Biblia Latinoamericana de Hoy and the Nueva Versioacuten Internacional Other international versions following the Latin Vulgate at John 11c French Darby Crampon German Luther Bible Italian Diodati and the Portuguese Almeida

It is evident that most English Bibles at John 11 are translating in the spirit of the Latin Vulgate rather than the Greek text regardless of what they claim Surprisingly as you will see in the submitted list of alternate readings at the end of this paper there are some translations though not as popular that are actually closer to the Greek above than the best-selling versions which end up following the Latin Vulgate instead Although John 11 has long been a favorite text by traditionalists to quote in the English world it may be surprise many that a modern Greek Bible reader will not likely appeal to such scripture in support of the traditional view Notwithstanding some Bible translators either disagree with the traditional viewpoint of the Logos as

ldquoGodrdquo or may simply feel that the message conveyed by the original Greek language (as demonstrated by the 7 samples above) demands a different translation at John 11c Some would have you believe that only a few insane unschooled translators with diabolical intentions would ever attempt to deviate from the traditionalist reading That is not simply true I believe most translators offering a different version of John 11 are most sincere in their effort to get to the core of the Greek meaning and to adequately transmit the intended message of the biblical author The submitted list of alternate readings at the end is not intended to be a complete list but to show a variety of renderings and viewpoints Keep in mind too that because of its theological significance other Scriptures do not have as many variant translation renderings as this one does

________________________________________

A careful review of the alternate readings list of John 11 and other related material at the end of the article would lead to this question Could anyone legitimately exclude as a valid option the rendering ldquoagodrdquo found in some Bible versions We have seen that grammar alone cannot condemn the use of such translation though many will keep trying Seven examples were provided which clearly show how translators render predicate nouns without the article occurring before the verb In addition note that these seven examples make reference to one person or one thing while John 11 is speaking of ldquotwordquo entities With greater reason then translators should render this grammatical structure in John 11c in away that brings out the indefinite-qualitative aspect rather than convey identification with the Supreme God

A Grammar states ldquoJohn was not saying that lsquothe word was the Fatherrsquo but that lsquothe word was God (divine)rsquordquo (Gramaacutetica Griega-Sintaxis del Nuevo Testamento [Greek Grammar-Syntax of the NT] by Daniel B Wallace amp Daniel S Steffen Parentheses theirs p 182) Consequently if the translation ldquothe word was Godrdquo must be understood in the adjectival sense as ldquodivinerdquo why not translate it that way Itis therefore reasonable to make a distinction between the term ldquotheosrdquo with and without the article here

In all the more accurate Bible translations do make a distinction between ldquotheosrdquo (God) with and without the article in John 11 Does yours Some argue that John did not have to employ the article before the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo to imply that the Word was ldquoGodrdquo Do you believe that If so why then was the Greek article used with the nominal predicate before the verb in John 151 which literally says ldquoThe father of me the farmer isrdquo And in John 651 ldquoThe bread but which I shall give the flesh of me isrdquo It is evident that Bible writers usually employed the article with specific intention and when they omitted it it was equally significant as well

Is it not better to just follow along with the majority view and thus free oneself from religious tension that may accompany those who sustain a minority view First of all it is dangerous to adopt a majority view if this one is in error A majority view held by ldquoscholarsrdquo of itself does not automatically make a matter ldquotruerdquo Why Because scholars are not infallible nor immune to human tradition Were they in Jesus day They were not Scholars today may find themselves in error just as many scribes were in Jesus day as Matthew chapter 23 clearly demonstrate (Matthew 159) We are warned that ldquothe whole world lies under the power of the evil onerdquo (1 John 519 New Revised Standard Bible) We should not dismiss ldquoreligionrdquo as being beyond the reach or interest of Satan We all need to be in guard of evil influence at all times being careful of not becoming ldquostone-blindrdquo by ldquothe god of this worldrdquo (2 Cor 44 The Message) Again a majority view does not always represent the truth Thus the doctrinal foundation for Christians should be based not on what the majority believe but rather on what the Bible

itself teaches

What does the Bible really say about Jesus Christ

Simply put Jesus is ldquoSon of Godrdquo not ldquoGod the Sonrdquo (Luke 135 NRSV) There is a vast difference in meaning between those two expressions There are more than two hundred references (200x) in the New Testament that explicitly declare that Jesus Christ is the ldquoSon of Godrdquo or that lsquoGod is the Father of Jesus Christrsquo (For a list of instances see The Preachers Outline and Sermon Bible ldquoJohnrdquo p 27) Yet Christendom prefers to dwell on a handful of texts which are said to describe Jesus as God None of those texts are explicit in declaring Jesus equality with God In Scripture Jesus place in the broad picture is one of sonship that is as Son of God not God Furthermore the word ldquosonrdquo is never used to describe God or the ldquoholy spiritrdquo

Christ is also described as ldquothe image of the invisible God [not God] the firstborn of all creationrdquo (Colossians 115) the ldquomediator between God and menrdquo (1 Timothy 25) Yes it is possible to spin these clear statements to make them say something else but is this what we seek One who plays the role of ldquomediatorrdquo cannot in the name of justice be one and the same person as one of the two parts that he is said to represent Otherwise such individual could not be truly impartial in his judgment Moses as a separate entity was able to really serve as ldquomediatorrdquo between God and Israel Now if Jesus the greater Moses was really one-and-the-same ldquoGodrdquo what ldquojusticerdquo could he convey acting as ldquomediatorrdquo between himself and mankind But no Jesus spoke of his Father as ldquomy Godrdquo and as lsquothe God of everyone elsersquo (John 2017) It was this God (ldquothe only Godrdquo John 544 NKJV NIV) according to Jesus himself who lsquorevealedrsquo things to Christ (Mark 1332 Revelation 11) Any statementwhich says that lsquoGod gave Jesus Christ a revelationrsquo would sound very odd to anyone taught to believe that Christ is the equal of God in every sense Scripture calls Christ ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 1913) And the record shows that it was this Word who was ldquowith God in the beginning not that he was ldquoGodrdquo but like God (Others render ldquoa Godrdquo ldquodivinerdquo - Tomanek Schonfield Heb 13)

Bible writers always speak of Jesus Christ in a subordinate role as in Ephesians 13 ldquoBlessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christrdquo 1 Corinthians 1528 ldquoThe Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him [God] who put all things in subjection to him that God may be all in allrdquo (Darby) In Colossians 31 we read ldquoKeep on seeking the things above where Christ is seated at the right hand of Godrdquo (Williams) Jesus himself made it clear to others ldquoI seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which hath sent merdquo (John 530)

Do Scriptures allow for a secondary sense of the words ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo

In the Scriptures the term lsquogodrsquo has various connotations and cannot be narrowed to one single meaning as some try to do A few scholars sustain that the notion of Jesus Christ as ldquoa godrdquo as if there were other gods beside God is incompatible with Jewish ldquomonotheismrdquo which is the belief in only one God and that it implies polytheism Nevertheless the concept itself that God as an entity is composed of three coequal persons runs counter with Jewish monotheism ldquoThe Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheismrdquo so states the Jewish Encyclopedia (ldquoTrinityrdquo) The teaching of the ldquoShemardquo consisted as has been noted in that ldquoJehovah our God is one Jehovahrdquo (Deuteronomy 64 ASV) What purpose would there be for the ldquoShemardquo to stress that Jehovah is ldquoonerdquo and then confound the matter by stating that that

must mean the Divine One is ldquothree personsrdquo in ldquoonerdquo It is explained frequently that the teaching of theTrinity is a ldquomysteryrdquo The problem with such reasoning is that nowhere does Scripture gives us reason to believe in such a concept It is possible that a person who has been exposed to this doctrine for a long time may see ldquoinsinuationsrdquo of it in the Bible However those individuals must in sincerity ask themselves whether their belief is based on ldquofactsrdquo or instead on emotional ldquofancyrdquo

Certain Scriptures are frequently cited as proof by supporters of the Trinity doctrine that Christ is God Isaiah 446 and Hosea 134 are two such Scriptures which have God Jehovah saying ldquoI am the first and I am the last and beside me there is no Godrdquo ldquoAnd thou shalt know no god but me for there is nosavior [Hebrew עע שהש םי beside merdquo These words are strictly taken literally out of their [(u˙moshia) וומוsetting to mean that there can be no ldquogodrdquo or ldquosaviorrdquo but God almighty In the context in which these words were pronounced Israel Gods people were inclined to worship vain hand-made idols (Isaiah 4217) Hence Gods warning in Isaiah and Hosea People brought up in trinitarian dogma tend to restrict the meaning of the term ldquoGodrdquo to those statements found within the context of Isaiah and Hosea leading them to the conclusion that anyone other than the True God must be a ldquofalserdquo god They define the word God within the context of modern trinitarian mentality instead of ancient Scriptural doctrine Trinitarians reason that if the appellative ldquoGodrdquo is applied to Jesus Christ then reasonably Jesus could be no other than the Lord God himself

However such trinitarian reasonings are missing an important element It has to do with the fact that the word ldquogodrdquo can be applied to others since the term itself seems to be related to someone with power and authority The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explains ldquoThis word [rsquoelōhicircm] can in fact be used for other gods (Gen 3130) and even for men (cf Ex 416 71 cf BDB p43)The derivation [of rsquoelōhicircm] is obscure but the implied sense seems to be that of strength or authorityrdquo (Vol II pg 497 italics added) The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words says ldquoThe word itself [אא ל (rsquoēl) Hebrew word for God] derives from a root term meaning lsquopowerrsquo lsquostrengthrsquo orlsquomightrsquo (Stephen D Renn p 439) And the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible states ldquoCommon to these four suggested root meanings [of El God] is the idea of strength power and of supreme excellence and greatnessrdquo (Vol 1 p 881) This may explain why various Bible versions at John 11c describe the Logos as ldquoa powerful divine beingrdquo or the like instead of saying ldquoGodrdquo When the whole context of Scripture is considered it is evident that the words spoken by God found in Isaiah and Hosea are very true in a specific sense namely that there is but one Supreme God and one Main Savior This truth does not rule out the existence of lsquogodlike onesrsquo under God (Job 387 Psalms 291 896)

Is it possible to speak of divine beings (ldquogodsrdquo) existing alongside God

Scholar John Macquarrie in Jesus Christ in Modern Thought claims that the Jewish monotheistic culturewould never tolerate the idea of the Logos belonging to a class of divine beings (P 110) Not quite Other scholars have a different view Ernst Haenchen for example claims the opposite in accord with Scripture ldquoIn the period in which the hymn [at John 11] took its rise it was quite possible in Jewishand Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him Phil 26-10 proves thatrdquo (A Commentary on the Gospel of John John 1Transl by Robert W Funk from Das Johannesevangelium Ein Kommentar p 109)

Another source has this to say ldquoOn the other hand it was a matter of general knowledge and one which the Bible itself shares and does not attempt to conceal that recognition and worship have often been extended to others than the Jewish-Christian God and the term lsquogodrsquo or lsquogodsrsquo is used for them

also as are the respective Greek and Hebrew words It is the custom to use a capital letter G for the God of the Jewish- Christian tradition and a small letter for the othersrdquo (Dictionary of the Bible JamesHastings Revised Edition 1963 Page 333 Grant amp Rowley Charles Scribners Sons New York)

Lets briefly look at how the Bible itself employs the words for ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture At Exodus 71 we read that God made a man Moses ldquoa godrdquo (Hebrew elohim) before Pharaoh God said to Moses ldquoSee I have made thee a god [Others ldquoa Godrdquo ldquoGodrdquo] to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophetrdquo Would this mean then that Moses himself did become an intrinsic part of the Great Divinity by the mere fact of him being called ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo by the Lord Jehovah himself Of coursenot Other translations clarify the meaning of ldquoGodrdquo used here by the LORD The English Standard Version expresses it this way ldquoSee I have made you like God to Pharaohrdquo And the International Standard Version has the LORD saying ldquoListen Ive put you in the role of God to Pharaohrdquo

And in Exodus 416 God making reference to Aaron tells Moses ldquoYou shall be as God to himrdquo (ESV NAB Hebrew lelohim ldquoas Godrdquo Darby ldquoGodrdquo Leeser ldquoa Godrdquo LXX theon ldquoGodrdquo Vulgate Deum)rdquo Moses was simply given a powerful role as Gods emissary who represented his will In Psalm 456 a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) when he became lsquoking of Israelrsquo was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo Obviously this human king was not in fact the One True God Neither was he a false God as trinitarian reasonings would lead one to believe Simply put Solomons throne was ldquodivinerdquo in the sense that he represented God in a position of authority over others

In the Scriptures we find that Jesus is described in Isaiah 96 as ldquoMighty Godrdquo and as ldquoSon of Godrdquo in other places (John 134) What about angels What do we call them Humans Not Angels are in nature heavenly beings closer to God than to men They are powerful divine spirits that reflect Gods glory and Godship They are ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 16) They are ldquogodsrdquo themselves What do we call aldquosonrdquo of a ldquohumanrdquo This ldquosonrdquo is himself a ldquohumanrdquo is he not Just as there is a family of human beings sharing ldquohumanityrdquo there is also a family of celestial beings yes ldquodivine beingsrdquo or ldquogodsrdquo sharing ldquodivinityrdquo A ldquosonrdquo of ldquoGodrdquo is ldquoa godrdquo or a lsquoreflectionrsquo of God Or it could simply refer to ldquoOne who shares a close relationship with Godrdquo (The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary) Notwithstanding the expression ldquoson of Godrdquo is never synonymous with God ( Some argue that the expression ldquoAlmightyrdquo in Revelation 18 applies to Christ but there is no concrete evidence for the claim)

Psalm 821 tells us that ldquoGod standeth in the congregation of the mighty [Brenton ldquogodsrdquo] he judgeth among the godsrdquo The Syriac Peshitta here has ldquoangelsrdquo instead of ldquogodsrdquo while Tanakh has ldquodivine beingsrdquo The Targums offer the alternate reading of ldquojudgesrdquo Whether we apply the term ldquogodsrdquo in verse one of this psalm (Psalm 821) to angels or human judges as Gods representatives (as in verse 6) as the Targums do it still proves that in the Bible other living beings other than God Almighty are spoken of as ldquogodsrdquo or ldquosons of Godrdquo with no hint of polytheism by such use The Andrews Study Bible explains under Psalm 821 ldquogods Term designates earthly rulers leaders mighty ones judges andor princes (v 7) who were Gods representatives and whose work was divinely appointed (Ex 2228 Deut 117 1618 2 Chr 196 compare with Heb 137)rdquo And The NIV Study Bible has this footnote on Psalm 821 ldquogods See v 6 In the language of the OTmdashand in accordance with the conceptual world of the ancient Near Eastmdashrulers and judges as deputies of the heavenly King could be given the honorific title lsquogodrsquo [hellip] or be called lsquoson of Godrsquo []rdquo See also the Psalm 821 footnotes of The Believers Study Bible The Wesley Bible and the HCSB Study Bible

Mighty angels and powerful human rulers or judges called ldquogodsrdquo in Scripture were considered ldquodivinerdquo or ldquogodlikerdquo when they acted on behalf of God As the Lord told Moses ldquoI will make you seem like God to Pharaohrdquo (Exodus 71 NLT) Even people of biblical times used the term ldquoGodrdquo freely in reference to powerful human leaders or people who displayed ldquosupernaturalrdquo feats Acts 1222informs us that when king Herod gave a public speech in royal robes the crowd cheered him on shouting ldquoIt is the voice of a god and not of a manrdquo On another occasion the people of a small island called Paul theos that is ldquoa godrdquo when they witnessed his superhuman powers (Acts 286 Compare with Acts 1411) With this information at hand Robert Young a master of various ancient languages concluded ldquoGodmdashis used of any one (professedly) mighty whether truly so or not and is applied not only to the true God but to false gods Magistratesjudges angels prophets etc eg Ex 71 John 11 1033 34 35 2028 rdquo ndash Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible Eerdmans Publ 1978

Then why do religious writers out there act like no one but God can be referred to as ldquodivinerdquo or ldquoa godrdquo For them anyone else but the true God is a false god They are confining themselves within a box with the Scriptural context of Isaiah chapter 43 44 and 45 discussed above where they refuse to seethe term ldquogodrdquo being used elsewhere in Scripture in a more broadly manner than their biased narrowed definition allows them to In fact even Satan is called ldquothe god [Gr ὁ θεὸς] of this worldrdquo because he actually lsquorulesrsquo this wicked world by the power he exerts over mankind (2 Cor 44 John 1231 1 John 519) Was calling Satan ldquothe god of this worldrdquo meant to promote polytheism Thus the original words for ldquogodrdquo of themselves do not signal whether a god is true or false With some exceptions the Inspired Scriptures commonly affixes the definite article (ldquotherdquo) before the word ldquoGodrdquo to distinguish the Supreme God from other gods This holds true for both the Hebrew and Greek Bible portions

It is clear from the biblical record that in ancient Jewish culture people saw no problem speaking of ldquodivine beingsrdquo under the Supreme God To them it was not exclusively a matter of whether they were true or false ldquogodsrdquo In their cultural mindset the term ldquogodsrdquo when applied positively to others beside the Most High God meant that they were powerful representatives of God whether it was Christ spokenof angels or human judges When speaking of powerful heavenly beings in glory the term ldquosons of Godrdquo was fully acceptable There is no record of Jesus displaying any feelings of disgust when claiming he was ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 1036 NIV) Why should we then

Hence anyone else other than God labeled ldquogodrdquo in Scripture in a positive light are simply divine beings created in the image of the True God belonging to the heavenly family of ldquogodlikerdquo ones The term ldquogodrdquo may also be Scripturally used to describe human beings holding a position of power and authority when appointed by God When the term is used this way polytheism is not an issue

What about the Christ

At John 1033-36 Christ himself appealed to Psalm 82 where the term ldquogodsrdquo was applied to persons other than God Jesus was refuting the charge of blasphemy that he was making himself ldquoGgodrdquo as invalid because he was only claiming to be not God but ldquoGods Sonrdquo which is totally different Jesus had an excellent opportunity here to claim once and for all that he was ldquoGodrdquo but once again he did not do so Jesus Christ holds a much higher position than any angel or man but is still subordinate to his Father God (1 Corinthians 113 Hebrews 32 Colossians 13)

Angels were made subject to Christ after he himself was placed at Gods right hand (1 Peter 322) Although both angels and Christ are described as lsquosons of Godrsquo only Jesus Christ is distinctively called

ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo according to some manuscripts (John 118 Murdock Noyes Concordant Literal Version) Or ldquothe one-begotten Godrdquo (Etheridge) The Word Study Greek-English New Testament describes the Logos as the ldquoonly born Godrdquo (John 118 Paul R McReynolds) Only Christ is called ldquothe firstborn of all creationrdquo a term never used for the lsquoSuperiorityrsquo of God or the holy spirit (Colossians 115) Could Trinitarians ever answer the following question If Christ was not created as some claim who then was the first creation by God Also who is ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo Surely someone lsquocreated firstrsquo in the universe would be honored with the title lsquothe firstborn of all creationrsquo Is there any other way to express such event The Bible simply points to Christ as such of which is said ldquoThese things saith the Amen the faithful and true witness the beginning of the creation of Godrdquo Whatdoes lsquothe beginning of Gods creationrsquo really mean Another Bible translation puts it this way ldquoThe one who is in the origin of things created by God [El que estaacute en el origen de las cosas creadas por Dios]rdquo (Biblia de Ameacuterica approved by various Episcopalian dioceses in Central and South America Casa de la Biblia Madrid) No ldquomysteryrdquo here Its that simple

Could there be any ldquosaviorrdquo other than God

The Sovereign Lord God is the main Savior but he may allow others to act as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo on his behalf in certain situations We find that the term is applied to Christ as the prime agent of salvation (2 Peter 220 1 John 414 Titus 14) We are told that men too like Othniel and Ehud were used as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo of their people (Judges 216 3915 Hebrew moshia same word used for God at Isaiah Compare with Isaiah 452 Hebrew u˙moshia Nehemiah 927 Hebrew moshiim plural of moshia) Would this mean then that those men called ldquosaviorsrdquo in Scripture form a part of the Supreme Divinity No there is a better explanation as found in the NIV

The NIV Study Bible has this to say of Israels leaders or judges ldquoTheir principal purpose is best expressed in [Judges] 216 lsquoThen the LORD raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of hellip raidersrsquo Since it was God who permitted the oppressions and raised up deliverers [saviors] he himself was Israels ultimate Judge and Deliverer [Savior] (1127 see 823 where Gideon a judge insists that the Lord is Israels true rulerrdquo (p 325) The Bible uses the same original words (ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo) for God Christ and men Does it mean they all are the same person or co-equal The context then iswhat determines the correct application for each occurrence of those terms

Who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo

In contrast to others who were called ldquosaviorsrdquo of the people of Israel Jesus is called ldquoSavior of the worldrdquo Jesus can potentially save not only Israel but all of mankind from bondage to sin and from death itself (John 316 1 John 414) Although Christ is undoubtedly a greater Savior than any man heis still subject to the Grandest Savior of all (Isaiah 4311 Acts 412 1 Corinthians 1528) Christ himself came to be in a situation where he had to cry out with a loud voice for salvation Right before his death he implored ldquoMy God my God why hast thou forsaken merdquo He had to be saved by God (Matthew 2746 Hebrews 57 Psalm 288)

Acts 531 tells us who was the One who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquoGod exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israelrdquo (NRSV) According to this scripture whatever capacity Jesus had as ldquosaviorrdquo was due to God To insist that Jesus is ldquoGodrdquo because of his description as ldquosaviorrdquo then we could reason all the same that men such as Othniel and Ehud were alsoldquoGodrdquo because they too were called saviors Overall ldquocontextrdquo should be the guiding principle for the

right comprehension of biblical terms

Jesus as ldquoSon of manrdquo

Jesus made reference to himself in the Gospels nearly 80 times as ldquothe Son of manrdquo an expression indicating he was truly a ldquomanrdquo while on earth not a God-man (Matthew 820 etc) According to Hebrews 29 Jesus ldquowas made a little lower than the angelsrdquo so he could taste death for everyone God cannot ever become ldquolower than the angelsrdquo he created John 114 tells us that it was lsquothe Word who became fleshrsquo not God The doctrine of the ldquoincarnationrdquo as commonly taught actually twists the meaning of John 114 because the text does not say at all that lsquoGod became fleshrsquo Instead it says ldquothe Wordrdquo did Plain and simple 2 John 7 only confirms this In other words the Logos Jesus Christ became ldquohumanrdquo or ldquoa human beingrdquo One scripture often misused to prove that God was made flesh is 1 Timothy 316 but this text did not originally say ldquoGod was manifest in the fleshrdquo as it reads in a few Bible versions since such reading is defective Other translations of the Bible have corrected this error in translation saying instead ldquoHe [or ldquoWhordquo] was manifested in the fleshrdquo allowing for lsquoChrist as the One being manifested in the fleshrsquo For a consideration of 1 Tim 316 see httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

In an effort to simplify the meaning of the expression ldquoSon of manrdquo in reference to Christ in our culture a modern Bible version used the expression ldquothe Human Onerdquo repeatedly (Common English Bible) ldquoThe general use of lsquoson of manrsquo occurs in poetic texts in which the phrase functions as a synonym for lsquomanrsquo or lsquohuman beingrsquo rdquo (The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary) The NIV at Daniel 713 confirms the meaning of the expression ldquoson of manrdquo in a footnote ldquoThe Aramaic phrase bar enash [son of man]means human being The phrase son of man is retained here because of its use in the New Testament as a title of Jesus probably based largely on this verserdquo (2011 Edition) The apostle was very familiar withthis much used expression of Jesus If ldquoSon of manrdquo meant he was a ldquohuman beingrdquo on earth then John would use the similar expression a son of God (or Gods Son) in a way humans would naturally understand it That is lsquoof divine originrsquo (ldquoa godrdquo) without any foreign trinitarian speculation of a later era which Jesus disciples were unaware of (John 1033-36) Jesus divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship As noted the expression may also refer to lsquoone who shares a close relationship with Godrsquo As future co-heirs in the kingdom of Christ human creatures too are designated as ldquosons of Godrdquo but never become identical to the Sovereign God Again polytheism is not an issue here No need to make this into a ldquomysteryrdquo

Why does the Bible speak sometimes as if Jesus Christ himself was ldquoGodrdquo

The Jewish nation already believed and sought lsquoto honorrsquo the Father of Abraham Isaac and Jacob This monotheistic culture adhered to the Mosaic Law as they worshiped the true God But many prophecies which appeared in the Hebrew code identified the Messiah as lsquoemancipatorrsquo of their bondage to sin Themajority of the Jews where hoping the foretold Messiah would rescue them from the Roman yoke Instead of getting involved in earthly politics Jesus repeatedly spoke of lsquoGods kingdomrsquo hence comparatively few exercised faith in him In contrast to the few who believed in Jesus as being ldquosentrdquo by God the majority of Jews could look no further from the man they considered their Father AbrahamThey were blind in their self-sufficiency

There was thus an urgent need to communicate to the Jewish people that exercising faith in Christ was essential to their salvation But how would one do that To start by making them see that Jesus Christ

being shipwrecked near Malta during a rainy and cold day a small island 58 miles south of Sicily The islanders were very kind to them and built a bonfire to warm them up Paul willing to contribute proceeded to gather some wood and as he placed them on the fire a poisonous snake fastened itself on his hand When the islanders saw what happened they pronounced the words above And how do Bibleversions translate this clause which is similar to John 11 in construction

ldquoThis man must be a murderer [Dieser Mensch muszlig ein Moumlrder sein]rdquo (M Luther Bible 1545) ldquoThis man surely is a murthererrdquo (Geneva Bible 1560) ldquoNo doubt this man is a murthererrdquo (Bishops Bible 1568) ldquoThis man is certainly a murdererrdquo (John Worsley New Testament) ldquoCertainly a murderer is the man thisrdquo (The Emphatic Diaglott Interlinear) ldquoThat man must be a murdererrdquo (New Jerusalem Bible) ldquoThere is no doubt that this man is a murdererrdquo (The Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible NT) ldquoThis must be some murdererrdquo (Ronald A Knox) ldquoThis man must be a murdererrdquo (James Moffatt New Testament) ldquoCertainly this man is a murdererrdquo (Greek and English Interlinear NT Mounce) ldquoNo doubt this man is a murdererrdquo (Kenneth S Wuest) ldquoBeyond a doubt this man is a murdererrdquo (Charles B Williams New Testament) ldquoThis man is probably a murdererrdquo (Holman Christian Standard Bible) ldquoThis man must be a murdererrdquo (Common English Bible) ldquoThe man must be a murdererrdquo (New English Bible) ldquoThis man is certainly a murdererrdquo (Living Oracles New Testament) ldquoThis man must certainly be a murdererrdquo (New American Bible)

As seen above none of these translations render this part of the verse in a definite sense as if Paul were being identified as ldquoThe Murdererrdquo they all been warned about Rather the superstitious islanders presumed this was ldquoardquo murderer or ldquosomerdquo murderer (Knox) who got the snake bite he deserved Thusthe emphasis is on the indefiniteness or qualitative aspect of the anarthrous noun not on identification In this verse you have a singular anarthrous predicate noun ldquomurdererrdquo preceding the verb ldquoisrdquo just as in John 11 there is an anarthrous noun ldquogodrdquo preceding the verb ldquowasrdquo Does John 11 demand a definite translation for the article-less noun ldquogodrdquo to make it read ldquoThe Godrdquo (or ldquoGodrdquo) Neither grammar nor the context of John chapter one make such demand To insist that John 11c must be rendered in English ldquothe Word was Godrdquo would be just as improper as insisting that Acts 284 must be translated ldquoThis man must certainly be [The] Murdererrdquo And who does that in Acts 284

3rd Example (John 670)

Greek καὶ ἐξ ὑμῶν εἷς διάβολός ἐστιν and out of you [plural] one devil is

In this text Jesus is addressing his twelve closest disciples when he anticipates that Judas Iscariot wouldlater betray him Jesus referred to Judas as ldquodiabolosrdquo (devil) or slanderer Like other verses under consideration the word ldquodiabolosrdquo lacks the Greek article (ldquotherdquo in English) and precedes the verb ldquoestinrdquo (is) Surprisingly a few scholars (read Holman Christian Standard Bible and the NET Bible) mistakingly add the English the before ldquodevilrdquo under the premise that this is one of those nomadic (one-of-a-kind) nouns indicating definiteness This (one-of-a-kind) view for this scripture has no solid foundation Jesus here is not identifying Judas as the Satan the arch-opposer of God but expressing a

leaning spirit of defection on Judas part He could discern an inclination of satanic qualities such as envy and malice and hence could rightly call him a devil a betrayer a slanderer The qualitative force is so prominent here that adding the article the before ldquodevilrdquo has no justification whatsoever (The explanation by grammarian Daniel Wallace senior editor of the NET Bible is not convincing hereOther translators clearly understand this differently as seen below)

ldquoAnd yet from among you one is an adversaryrdquo (Rotherham)ldquoand one of you is an accuserrdquo (NT James L Tomanek)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (Common English Bible)ldquoand one of you is a devilrdquo (Douay-Rheims Bible)ldquoYet one of you is an adversaryrdquo (The Gospel of John FF Bruce)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (International Standard Version)ldquoand one of you is a devilrdquo (American Standard Version)ldquoYet one of you is a slandererrdquo (New World Translation)ldquoAnd even of you one is an informerrdquo (Edgar G Goodspeed)ldquoand of you -- one is a devilrdquo (Youngs Literal Translation)ldquoand of you one an accuser isrdquo (The Emphatic Diaglott)ldquoYet is not one of you a devilrdquo (New American Bible)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (New International Version)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (Greek-English Interlinear NT William and Robert Mounce)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (New Jerusalem Bible)ldquoYet one of you is an adversaryrdquo (Jewish New Testament David H Stern)ldquobut out of you one is a slanderer rdquo (21st Century New Testament Left column)ldquoYet one of you is a betrayerrdquo (21st Century New Testament Right column)ldquoand of you one a devil isrdquo (Alfred Marshalls Greek-English Interlinear)ldquoAnd of you one is a devilrdquo (Kenneth S Wuests New Testament)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (The Translators New Testament)

FF Bruce says that ldquoOne of them [of the twelve] was diabolos ndash the Greek word means a lsquoslandererrsquo or lsquocalumniatorrsquo or lsquofalse accuserrsquo but it is probably used here as the counterpart to Heb [satan] lsquoadversaryrsquo [ldquoYet one of you is an adversaryrdquo Bruce]rdquo I side with the translators above and with grammarians P B Harner and P S Dixon who argue that the qualitative force of diabolos (devil) is more prominent than its definiteness Dixon says ldquoIt is best therefore to take διάβολος qualitatively A good rendering might be one of you is a devilrdquo (The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John 50 Dallas Theological Seminary 1975) (Harner Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 1539 and John 11 JBL 92 1973 75-87)

4th Example (John 419)

Greek θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ I am beholding that prophet are you These words were pronounced by a Samaritan woman after hearing Jesus divinely perceive personal things about her life even though they had never met

ldquoI perceive that thou art a prophetrdquo (William Tyndales New Testament 1534 Daniell edition) ldquoI perceive that thou art a prophetrdquo (DouayndashRheims Bible)

ldquoI perceive that thou art a prophetrdquo (King James Version) ldquoI view that a prophet you arerdquo (Charles Van der Pool 2006) ldquoI perceive that a prophet art thourdquo (Alfred Marshall D Litt The Interlinear Greek-English NT) ldquoI see that thou art a prophetrdquo (Confraternity Version) ldquoI see that you are a prophetrdquo (New Revised Standard Version) ldquoOh so youre a prophetrdquo (The Message) ldquoI perceive that a prophet are Yourdquo (Interlinear Farstad Hodges Moss Picirilli Pickering) ldquoAre You a prophetrdquo (The Clear Word) ldquoI can see that you are a prophetrdquo (NIV) ldquoI see you are a prophetrdquo (Christian Community Bible) ldquoI perceive that You are a prophetrdquo (NASB) ldquoI see you are a prophetrdquo (The Authentic New Testament Hugh J Schonfield) ldquoI can see that you are a prophetrdquo (Jewish New Testament David H Stern)

Here most English translations have no problem adding the indefinite article (a) before the anarthrous (article-less) noun ldquoprophetrdquo It is appropriate to do so Take notice of the initial lowercase letter in ldquoprophetrdquo not ldquoProphetrdquo In English the a is required before the noun ldquoprophetrdquo used above in an indefinite-qualitative sense It is describing an attribute about the Master as a prophet not identifying him as ldquotheir Prophetrdquo This Samaritan woman of another religion who accepted no more than the Pentateuch did not have sufficient knowledge about the male stranger she just met (Jesus) as the account shows to conclude that he was lsquothe Prophetrsquo or the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo Nevertheless she discovered he had special insight and could describe him as ldquopropheticrdquo or ldquoa prophetrdquo of some kind Jesus was able to have this prophetic ability because God had empowered him with his spirit (Acts 1038)

By the way those of you who know a Romance (or Latin derived) language such as French Italian Portuguese or Spanish may find it a tad easier to follow this discussion regarding the use or absence of the indefinite article The reason for that is that in everyday speech those who speak one of the Latin languages do not have to use the indefinite article as frequently as opposed to those who only speak English which requires using it more often to make a noun indefinite or qualitative Consequently it may be easier to see the connection of the qualitative force of singular anarthrous nouns between Greek and one of the Latin languages A comparison of modern translations of such nouns between English and one of the Latin based languages will bear this out

For instance in Spanish you can either employ or not the indefinite article and still retain the qualitative force of singular anarthrous nouns (See El Griego Biacuteblico Al Alcance De Todos by J A Septieacuten p 122 Editorial CLIE Barcelona) At John 419 you can have the woman say to Jesus ldquoMe parece que tuacute eres profeta [I perceive that you are prophet]rdquo as the Protestant Reina-Valera does or have her say ldquoVeo que tuacute eres un profeta [I can see that your are a prophet]rdquo as the Catholic Torres Amat does Actually it is common in Spanish Bibles to use ldquoprofetardquo without the ldquounrdquo while some translators do add the (un the equivalent of a) to make it more specific ldquoun profetardquo Not only is this an acceptable translation from Greek to Spanish it sounds natural either way unlike English

Similarly in French you can say ldquoje vois que tu es prophegraveterdquo (I see that you are prophet Segond) or you can say ldquoje vois que tu es un prophegraveterdquo (I see that you are a prophet Darby French) The first French reading does not use the indefinite article while the second one does In Italian ldquoio veggoche tu sei profetardquo (I see that you are prophet Diodati) or ldquotu sei un profetardquo (you are a prophet

La Parola egrave Vita) The first Italian version lacks the indefinite article and the second one adds it Both renderings are acceptable One stresses the qualitative aspect and the other the indefinite status of the predicate noun Even Wallace acknowledged ldquoIt is nevertheless difficult to distinguish indefinite from qualitative nouns at times (just as at other times it is difficult to distinguish qualitative from definite nouns) The very fact that any member of a class is mentioned highlights to some degree that particular classndashhence making some kind of qualitative statementrdquo (op cit Wallace p 266 footnote)Wallace adds ldquoAlthough the translation [of John 419] is most naturally lsquoSir I perceive that you are a prophetrsquo the sense may be better characterized as indefinite-qualitativerdquo The same can be said of John 11c (Ibid page 266)

At John 419 natural spoken English requires the use of the ldquoardquo before prophet to bring out the Greek sense in our language and most English Bibles do so To be consistent Bible versions which render John 419 in an indefinite sense (a prophet) or with a lowercase letter ldquoprophetrdquo could do the very same thing in John 11c with its similar grammatical construction One really has to wonder why some individuals who claim to have competence in the Greek fail to understand or acknowledge publicly that in translation work there is often more than one way to render some biblical passages They let religious feelings get in the way clouding their judgment This is made obvious when they seek to convey to others that those who render a certain passage differently from the norm are being ldquoignorantrdquoin the Greek department

5th Example (John 101)

Greek ἐκεῖνος κλέπτης ἐστὶν καὶ λῃστής that (one) thief is and robber

Here Jesus initiates dissertation about how he as a fine shepherd protects his sheep from dangerous individuals that resemble wolves The man who does not enter the sheepfold through the door but climbs in by some other way is a

ldquothe same is a thief and a robberrdquo (William Tyndales NT 1534 Daniell edition) ldquothe same is a thief and a robberrdquo (DouayndashRheims Bible) ldquothe same is a thief and a robberrdquo (New King James Version) ldquois a thief and a banditrdquo (New Jerusalem Bible) ldquois a thief and an outlawrdquo (Common English Bible) ldquothat one is a thief and robberrdquo (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot) ldquothat man is a thief and a robberrdquo (English Standard Version) ldquois a thief and a robberrdquo (New American Bible) ldquothat one is a thief and a robberrdquo (Greek and English Interlinear NT Mounce) ldquothat man is a thief and a robberrdquo (Revised Standard Bible) ldquois a thief and a roguerdquo (Phillips Modern English) ldquohe is a thief and a brigandrdquo (A New Translation by William Barclay) ldquois nothing but a thief or a robberrdquo (New English Bible) ldquohe is either a robber or a banditrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English) ldquois a thief and a robberrdquo (William F Beck-NT) ldquothat one is a thief and a robberrdquo (Literal Translation Version)

Smooth English requires the use of the indefinite article (a) before either thief and robber or both

Most English translations do this Again to be consistent with this syntactical construction these translations could have used the indefinite article (a) at John 11c and have it read ldquothe Word was a godrdquo And if Bible translators are reluctant to use the indefinite article at John 11c they could have at least rendered the anarthrous noun ldquoGodrdquo in such way that brings out the descriptive nature (as an adjective) of such nouns by rendering it ldquoand the Word was god (or divine)rdquo to be consistent with theirother renderings which follow this pattern By the way some translations render it this way

ldquoand the Word was godrdquo (Professor Charles C Torrey Yale University 1947) ldquoand the Logos was god [eacutetait dieu]rdquo (Herbert Pernot 1925 Paris) ldquoand the Word was divinerdquo (E J Goodspeed) ldquoand the Word was god [eacutetait dieu]rdquo (Traduction du monde nouveau 1987) ldquoThe Word was god [eacutetait dieu]rdquo (Marc J H Oltramare 1872 University Professor Geneva) ldquoSo the Word was divinerdquo (Hugh J Schonfield) ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo (Reijnier Rooleeuw MD) ldquoand god was the Word [y dios era la Palabra]rdquo (J J Bartolomeacute Madrid 2002)

6th Example (1 Kings 1827 Septuagint LXX)

Greek ὅτι θεός ἐστιν Hebrew ההו א ההה םים א אל כהכ םי ־ for god is (he) he god for lt ldquoFor he is a godrdquo (Sir Lancelot C L Brentons translation from the Greek LXX) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Septuagint LXX Charles Thomson) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (The Apostles Bible A Modern English Translation of the Greek Septuagint by Paul W Esposito 2004) ldquoFor he is a godrdquo (New English Translation of the Septuagint [NETS] 2007) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (The Orthodox Study Bible St Athanasius Academy Septuagint 2008 LXX) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Orthodox England Michael Asser 2001-2010 based on the Greek text [LXX] of the version published by the Greek Orthodox Church Apostoliki Diakonia) ldquofor a god herdquo (Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament) ldquofor god herdquo (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Jewish Publication Society 1917 Translated from the Hebrew) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts [tr Syriac] George M Lamsa) ldquofor he is godrdquo [pues eacutel es dios] (La Biblia Peshitta en Espantildeol translated from the AramaicSyriac)

ldquobecause god (he) is [porque dios es]rdquo (La Sagrada Biblia G Juumlnemann B 1992 Greek LXX) ldquofor Baal is youre god [for Baal is your god]rdquo (John Wycliffes Translation transl f Latin c 1384) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Douay-Rheims Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate ldquodeus enim estrdquo)

In this account we read of Elijah mocking Baal a false god The Greek construction is similar to that ofJohn 11c Just as in the other instances of theos without the article (ldquotherdquo) and preceding the verb translators find it necessary in English to add the indefinite article (a) to complete the sense in our language Had the speaker used the article before theos it could be taken then as a reference to Baal being ldquoGodrdquo not ldquoa godrdquo Would it not Observe that John Wycliffes Translation from Latin did not capitalize the ldquogrdquo in ldquogodrdquo Also the two Spanish translations above one from the Greek LXX by

Juumlnemann and the other a Peshitta from the Aramaic do not capitalize the ldquogrdquo in ldquogodrdquo Actually in Spanish it is not required to use the indefinite article (a) in this construction to obtain nearly the same effect as the English statement ldquofor he is a godrdquo Surely the translators of this Spanish version were not suggesting that Elijah was calling Baal ldquoGodrdquo In Hebrew we find the reading ההו א ההה םים א אל כהכ םי־ (ki-elohim hu Literally because god [is] he) likewise translated in our English versions as ldquoFor he isa godrdquo Thus Bible translations from both the Hebrew and Greek (LXX ) texts here and from the Latin and Syriac versions as well all reflect indefinite or qualitative renderings ndash good indicators which show how John 11c with similar syntax should be translated

If you have carefully followed this discussion to this point you may have observed that the indefinite translation of anarthrous predicate nouns (using ldquoardquo) similar in construction to John 11c is a valid option to consider Why is this significant to mention Because Trinitarian scholars try so hard to disengage the likelihood of the indefinite notion in the discussion of John 11c They keep saying that a grammatical construction such as we find in John 11 should be rendered qualitatively usually ignoring or denying the possible indefinite nuance of anarthrous nouns before the verb However in these samples we see a pattern where translators freely use one of those two aspects (indefinite or qualitative)in the translations sometimes alternating between the two It appears then that theology is a factor in their denial of this fact

7th Example (Xenophons Anabasis 146)

Greek εμπoacuteριον δrsquo ην το χωρiacuteον market and was the place

(A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey had this to say (under the heading ldquoWith the Subject in a Copulative Sentencerdquo) ldquoThe article sometimes distinguishes the subjectfrom the predicate in a copulative sentence In Xenophons Anabasis 146 εμπoacuteριον δrsquo ην το χωρiacuteον and the place was a market we have a parallel case to what we have in John 11 καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος and the word was deity The article points out the subject in these examples Neither was the place the only market nor was the word all of God as it would mean if the article were also used with θεός As it stands the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo (Page 148 paragraph laquo3raquo Italics theirs) I agree with the above comment However I feel that the last statement about ldquothe other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo is superfluous This is clearly a case of two Baptist grammarians reading far more into the text than is warranted John chapter 1 is not speaking of three persons in the Godhead Actually the whole Gospel of John makes no mention whatsoever of three persons in one God This language is totally foreign to the New Testament

To run more parallel with Xenophons statement and the place was a market this Grammar could have translated John 11c and the word was a god I am aware that Dr Julius R Mantey has been openly opposed (to put it mildly) to the NW translation ldquothe Word was a godrdquo Nevertheless the example theyset forth seems to contradict Manteys statements Compare the literal Greek reading of Xenophons statement with the suggested translation by Dana and Mantey of which Mantey says is ldquoa parallel caserdquo to John 11c and see for yourself

ldquoand the place was market rdquo (Literal reading in English order Anabasis 146) ldquoand the word was god rdquo (Literal reading in English order John 11c)

ldquoand the place was a market rdquo (Suggested translation by Dana and Mantey) ldquoand the Word was a god rdquo (Controversial translation criticized by Mantey)

The translation offered by Dr Dana and Dr Mantey ldquoand the place was a marketrdquo as indicated above is an unintended admission that ldquothe Word was a godrdquo is a proper translation even though as Trinitarians they prefer another and the word was deity Note too that their suggested translation of John 11c and the word was deity is not the same thing as saying that the word was entirely God for they said ldquonor was the word all of Godrdquo Additionally the use of the word ldquomayrdquo in the statement ldquothe three persons may be impliedrdquo reveals a theological speculation not a fact The truth is that Jesus himself spoke of his Father God as ldquothe only Godrdquo (NIV New King James Version John 544) If Jesus is not ldquothe only Godrdquo who is he then Christ is time and again described as ldquoGods Sonrdquo hence a reflection of Gods glory ldquogodlikerdquo ldquodivinerdquo The Bible itself says ldquoThe Son reflects Gods own gloryand everything about him represents God exactlyrdquo (Hebrews 13 New Living Translation) This focus on Christ by Christian Writers throughout the New Testament led William Barclay to caution ldquoTo say that the Word was God is too much to say that the Word was Divine is too littlerdquo (ldquoGreat Themes of the New Testament II John 11-14rdquo Expository Times 70 (1958-59) 114)

Much has been made of the publication of a letter Mantey wrote to the publishers of the NWT (WT Society) where Mantey asked the WTS to stop quoting him by name since he felt they were misquotingtheir Grammar Many have seized this incident to lash out slanderous statements at the WTS for alleged ldquoscholastic dishonestyrdquo I feel this attack has not much merit It is in the main a theological objection For the benefit of those who do not have these two publications I will reproduce here what the NWT said right before and after quoting the Grammar of Dana and Mantey ldquoCareful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity a personality whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about someone That is what A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey remarks on page 140 paragraph vii [ldquoThe articular construction emphasizes identity the anarthrous construction emphasizes characterrdquo] Accordingly on page 148 paragraph (3) this same publication says about the subject of a copulative sentence [hellip quoted above at beginning of this section] Instead of translating John 11 and the word was deity thisGrammar could have translated it and the word was a god to run more parallel with Xenophons statement and the place was a marketrdquo (NWT Appendix page 774)

In my opinion the NWT quote of the Grammar was accurate enough with one exception The NWT Committee omitted this sentence ldquoAs it stands the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo And it is this omission which Dr Mantey most likely objected to I too believe this sentence was not critical in the context of the grammar being considered to prove the authors point but whether they were ldquodishonestrdquo or not by omitting this one sentence in their quote I leave it for the reader to decide Apparently the NW translators intended to avoid the dogmatic Trinity subject in their Appendix at that point When quoting Dana and Mantey the NWT Committee could certainly have been more explicit by implying for example that in their opinion the authors used an argument that in effect allowed the reading ldquothe word was a godrdquo as a ldquoparallel caserdquo to Xenophons statement ldquothe place was a marketrdquo instead of insinuating by mode of silence that the trinitarian authors approved of such reading (To readmore about the practice of WTS ldquoquoting sourcesrdquo see Note 1 at the end of the article)

Interestingly Dana and Manteys Grammar says on pages 138 139 140 ldquoWhen identity is prominent we find the article and when quality or character is stressed the construction is anarthrous [without thearticle]rdquo And ldquoThe use of the articular and anarthrous constructions of θεός is highly instructive A

study of the uses of the term as given in Moulton and Gedens Concordance convinces one that without the article θεός signifies divine essence while with the article divine personality is chiefly in viewrdquo Furthermore on page 140 on the use of the article in the Greek text it says ldquoThe articular constructionemphasizes identity the anarthrous construction emphasizes characterrdquo

Dr Julius R Mantey did include this statement in his letter of repudiation to the WTS mentioned earlierldquoProf Harner Vol 921 in JBL has gone beyond Colwells research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subjectrdquo (July 11 1974) Instead of advocating a trinity this statement of Mantey quoting Professor Harner oddlysupports some of the arguments published in the 1950 and the 1984 NWT Editions

Going by grammar alone one could say that the renderings ldquothe place was a marketrdquo ldquothe Word was agod [divine]rdquo and ldquothe word was deityrdquo all three potentially agree with the grammar principles expounded by Dana amp Mantey on the articular and the anarthrous constructions of θεός on pages 138-140 and on page 148 though they may not admit to it Again let us not forget their clear message ldquoNeither was the place the only market [the place was a market] nor was the word all of Godrdquo

Coming back to translation issues we can see that generally modern translations do make an effort to convey a difference in translation between predicate nouns with and without the article preceding the verb If we take a look at John 151 where John uses the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the verb ldquo(ho georgoacutes estin) the farmer isrdquo we will find that translators generally reflect that fact in translation However here in John 11 they are reluctant to produce a translation which shows the fact that the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo in this verse lacks the article Why Is it because Greek grammar demands the rendering ldquoGodrdquo Not at all The seven (7) submitted samples clearly indicate that it is not grammar but ldquotheologyrdquo for the reluctance Even Greek scholars teach that ldquowhen a Greek noun lacksthe definite article it normally will be translated as indefiniterdquo (A Primer of Biblical Greek by N Clayton Croy assistant professor of NT at Trinity Luther Seminary Columbus Ohio p 15) At John 11 translators in their drive to make Jesus appear identical to God will use a capital G when Jesus is spoken of Patterns of Greek grammar as seen in the above examples and elsewhere are ignored to sustain their theology (Note the use of ldquonormallyrdquo here because the author is aware that there is lsquono hard rulersquo that can be applied at all times in regards to the use of the article or lack of But his statement holds generally true as in here)

John 12 would be pointless tautology if John meant that the Logos was identical to God as some translations suggest It is also misleading to translate John 11 ldquothe Word was fully Godrdquo as the NET Bible does If we were to use the NET Bibles reasoning which appears in their note of John 11 and apply it to samples discussed above with similar syntax we would get the following translations ldquoThis man [Paul] must be fully Murdererrdquo ldquoThat one [climbing over the fence] is fully Thief and fully Robberrdquo ldquofor he (Baal) is fully Godrdquo ldquoand the place was fully Marketrdquo

Does that make sense Baal a pagan god was certainly not lsquofully Godrsquo in the sense of him being the Supreme God But Elijah could depict Baal as ldquoa godrdquo for he was not lsquothe only godrsquo among the heathens And to say ldquothe place was fully Marketrdquo is meaningless In fact Dana and Mantey argued against the place being The Market the only market They conclude that the Greek construction demands ldquothe place was a marketrdquo And Dana and Mantey pointed out that the Greek construction of John 11 tells us that lsquothe word was deity [ldquodivinerdquo but] not all of Godrsquo

In Marks gospel (649) where Jesus appeared walking over the waters next to the disciples boat duringa storm in which they became terrified after seeing an ldquoapparitionrdquo or ldquophantomrdquo of some sort (since they were unaware it was Jesus) they screamed ldquoIts a ghostrdquo according to some Bible versions (Or ldquoa spiritrdquo KJV) The grammatical structure of Mark 649 and John 11 are similar so how do Bible translations deal with this Do they have the disciples crying out ldquoHe is fully Ghost Or would they scream instead ldquoHe is Phantomrdquo No Most Bibles have the disciples believing or saying it was ldquoa ghostrdquoor ldquoa phantomrdquo or ldquoan apparitionrdquo of some sort At no time do translators argue that it should be translated as they do at John 11c by capitalizing the predicate noun and omitting the indefinite article ldquoardquo John 11 is no exception to the norm Bible translators follow the pattern described by Professor Clayton Croy ldquoWhen a Greek noun lacks the definite article it normally will be translated as indefiniterdquo (op cit A Primer) In the examples above Bible translators have shown us how they really deal with syntax similar to John 11c We have ldquoa hard saying a murderer a devil a prophet a thief a robber a god a market a ghost etc At John 1837 we have ldquoa kingrdquo twice English Bibles do not have Pilate asking Jesus if he was the ldquoKingrdquo Instead English translations followthe pattern described above and render Pilates question as ldquoArt thou a king thenrdquo

In all these cases a predicate noun without the Greek article precedes a verb just as we have in John 11c Accordingly then why not reflect this pattern at John 11 especially so when two entities are being spoken of in the verse and the second occurrence of θεός lacks the article Let us not miss the previous statement by a distinguished grammarian A ldquomost common userdquo of the Greek article is to point out hellip ldquoIndividual from Other Individualsrdquo (op cit Short Grammar p 275)

Although grammarian David Alan Black a Trinitarian objects to the ldquoa Godrdquo rendering at John 11 he takes a page from Dana and Manteys Grammar when he writes ldquoIf the article were also used with θεός the statement would mean that all of God was expressed in the Word As it is the Word is neither lsquoa Godrsquo nor equal with the sum total of Godrdquo (Its Still Greek to Me p 79) This statement by Black appears to contradict the NET Bibles translation of John 11c Blacks conclusion is similar to Danas and Manteys that is ldquothe Word was Deity [θεός]rdquo (Brackets his) In similar vein The New Testament in Plain English translates John 11c as ldquothe Word was Godrdquo However a footnote says ldquoOr Deity Divine (which is actually a better translation because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word)rdquo (Underline added 2003) Now this footnote begs the question If the rendering ldquothe Word was Deity Divinerdquo is actually a ldquobetter translationrdquo why not use that in the main text It seems that trinitarian translators have difficulty in displaying a rendering other than ldquothe Word was Godrdquo even when they acknowledge there are lsquobetter translationsrsquo for the anarthrous θεός in John 11c

In English using a capital letter in ldquofully Godrdquo is misleading to someone brought up in trinitarian teaching A trinitarian believer would likely take that rendering as conveying that Christ is Almighty God himself a concept in conflict with what Christ himself stated at John 173 and John 2017 Daniel Wallace previously quoted and author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics wrote a most interesting comment which reveals how theology plays a big role at the time of translating John 11 ldquoAlthough I believe that θεός in 11c is qualitative I think the simplest and most straightforward translation is lsquoand the Word was Godrsquo It may be better to clearly affirm the NT teaching of the deity of Christ and then explain that he is not the Father than to sound ambiguous on his deity and explain that he is God but is not the Fatherrdquo (Ibid p 269 italics his) What Is he serious

Whats the point of claiming that θεός in 11c is ldquoqualitativerdquo in John 11c as Wallace does emphatically in his Grammar and then suggest to use the rendering lsquothe Word was Godrsquo which implies ldquoidentityrdquo a

ldquopersonalityrdquo the opposite of ldquocharacterrdquo or ldquoqualityrdquo) and be forced to explain that it does not mean what it actually says The end result would then be no less ldquoambiguousrdquo than the alternatives he is obviously trying to avoid Would you not rather have a ldquobetter translationrdquo such as ldquothe Word was divinerdquo which requires no additional explanation The NET Bible (Wallace senior editor) prefers a rendering other than ldquodivinerdquo because he states that ldquodivinerdquo ldquoas a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of Godrdquo However on the word ldquodivinerdquo Murray J Harris responds ldquoBut if θεὸς bears a qualitative sense the rendering lsquodivinersquo should not be dismissed as altogether inappropriate Only if lsquodivinersquo is taken to mean lsquohaving the very nature of Godrsquo does the word accurately convey Johns meaningrdquo (op cit Jesus as God p 68) The argument that ldquodivinerdquo is too generic is weak because really the same argument could be made of the term ldquogodrdquo Jesus applied the term ldquogodsrdquo to humans (John 1034-36) and Paul acknowledged that ldquothere are many gods and many lordsrdquo (1 Corinthians 85) So Wallaces objection is more likely an effort to equate Christ with God at John 11

Truly the Greek Text does not say that Christ wasis the one-and-only God What the Greek does say is that ldquothe Word was with the [True] God and the Word [himself] was a divine beingrdquo thus able to perfectly represent the character of God (Hebrews 13) The only way one could justify the rendering ldquoGodrdquo with a big ldquoGrdquo at John 11c is if the original text had the article before the second instance of theos as well Why Because John is talking about two individuals and deliberately differentiates between the two instances of ldquotheosrdquo by placing the article before the first instance of ldquotheosrdquo and not with the second Max Zerwick (SJ) wrote in this regard ldquoὁ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος [if John would have written ldquothe God was the Logosrdquo] at least in NT usage would signify personal identity of the Word with the Father since the latter [the Father] is ὁ Θεὸς [the God]rdquo (Biblical Greek p 55 Rome)

John wrote the words appearing in verse two to clear any potential misunderstanding that could arise from his bold statement in verse one Marinus de Jonge remarks ldquoThe author of this Prologue clearly wants to identify lsquothe Wordrsquo and God as closely as possible without infringing the belief in the One Godrdquo (Christology in Context The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus Philadelphia Westminster 1988 p 198 Jonge is Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands) So in effect John was saying that the Logos was like God in every imaginable way Hence the New English Bible rendering lsquoWhat God was the Word wasrsquo

Dr Jason BeDuhn explains ldquoIn John 11 the Word is not the one-and-only God but it is a god or divine being I know that sounds strange and even seems impossible coming from the pen of a Christian writer But the fact remains that that is what John wrote His purpose in doing so was at least in part to avoid the notion that God the Father himself incarnated as Christ The one who incarnated was somehow distinct from lsquoGodrsquo while still being lsquoa godrsquo rdquo (op cit Truth in Translation pp 122 123)

Why then are translators unwilling to render John 11c ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo A few reasons could be given Translators mention grammar as one problem an issue addressed throughout this article Others view the rendering ldquoa godrdquo as polytheistic I will further mention two others First is the domino effect of the Trinity doctrine developed centuries after Christ as a means to clamp down raging Christological debates to the point that the doctrine has been taken for granted as ldquotruthrdquo by most ldquoChristianrdquo people since Secondly the role in tradition played by the Latin Vulgate must be mentioned This Latin translation has greatly influenced many translators since its inception from c 405 CE It is well known that the Vulgate heavily influenced early translations of the 16th and 17th Century In fact back then translators were more likely to be familiar with the Latin Vulgate than with the Greek

The Latin Vulgate used no articles (as seen below) and that in conjunction with the Greek lacking the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) and we can see why so many have misunderstood John 11 The Christological debates of past centuries did not improve this state of confusion it made it worse I kindly ask the reader to consider the following Latin and Greek readings as helpful pointers in our discussion Notice in particular the bold letters relevant to our discussion

ndash LATIN (John 11)ldquoIn principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbumrdquo In beginning was Verb and Verb was with God and God was Verb

ndash GREEK (John 11)

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος In beginning was the logos and the logos was toward the god and god was the logos

First of all please notice that Latin makes no distinction between the two occurrences of ldquoGodrdquo in the text (ie both without the article) However Greek being a more specific descriptive language does And it does so by using the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the first occurrence and omitting it before the second Keep in mind what The Translatorrsquos New Testament previously quoted said ldquoIt is difficult to believe that the omission [of the Greek article before the second theos in John 11] is not significantrdquo (p 451) As A T Robertson pointed out ldquoThe article is never meaningless in Greek though it often fails to correspond with the English idiom [hellip] Its free use leads to exactness and finesserdquo (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research p 756) And Buttmann The use of the article [ho ldquotherdquo] has everywhere its positive reasonrdquo (Buttmanns Grammar of NewTestament Greek Bt 88) And another ldquoFor the present the presence or absence of the Greek article should always be carefully indicated in the English translationrdquo (New Testament Greek For Beginners by J Gresham Machen DD LITTD p 35 67) It is the responsibility of the translator to transmit whenever possible this existing difference in the Greek text into the English translation

Which reading of the two languages above (Latin and Greek) shows the greater similarity with the traditional rendering of John 11c Its Latin is it not In fact some Bible translations in other languages have even borrowed the latin word ldquoVerbumrdquo from the Latin Vulgate at John 11 such as the ubiquitous Spanish Reina-Valera which uses ldquoVerbordquo (Verb) instead of ldquoWordrdquo used in English versionsAlso using ldquoVerbordquo Sciacuteo de San Miguel Versioacuten Moderna Goacutemez 2010 Nueva Biblia Latinoamericana de Hoy and the Nueva Versioacuten Internacional Other international versions following the Latin Vulgate at John 11c French Darby Crampon German Luther Bible Italian Diodati and the Portuguese Almeida

It is evident that most English Bibles at John 11 are translating in the spirit of the Latin Vulgate rather than the Greek text regardless of what they claim Surprisingly as you will see in the submitted list of alternate readings at the end of this paper there are some translations though not as popular that are actually closer to the Greek above than the best-selling versions which end up following the Latin Vulgate instead Although John 11 has long been a favorite text by traditionalists to quote in the English world it may be surprise many that a modern Greek Bible reader will not likely appeal to such scripture in support of the traditional view Notwithstanding some Bible translators either disagree with the traditional viewpoint of the Logos as

ldquoGodrdquo or may simply feel that the message conveyed by the original Greek language (as demonstrated by the 7 samples above) demands a different translation at John 11c Some would have you believe that only a few insane unschooled translators with diabolical intentions would ever attempt to deviate from the traditionalist reading That is not simply true I believe most translators offering a different version of John 11 are most sincere in their effort to get to the core of the Greek meaning and to adequately transmit the intended message of the biblical author The submitted list of alternate readings at the end is not intended to be a complete list but to show a variety of renderings and viewpoints Keep in mind too that because of its theological significance other Scriptures do not have as many variant translation renderings as this one does

________________________________________

A careful review of the alternate readings list of John 11 and other related material at the end of the article would lead to this question Could anyone legitimately exclude as a valid option the rendering ldquoagodrdquo found in some Bible versions We have seen that grammar alone cannot condemn the use of such translation though many will keep trying Seven examples were provided which clearly show how translators render predicate nouns without the article occurring before the verb In addition note that these seven examples make reference to one person or one thing while John 11 is speaking of ldquotwordquo entities With greater reason then translators should render this grammatical structure in John 11c in away that brings out the indefinite-qualitative aspect rather than convey identification with the Supreme God

A Grammar states ldquoJohn was not saying that lsquothe word was the Fatherrsquo but that lsquothe word was God (divine)rsquordquo (Gramaacutetica Griega-Sintaxis del Nuevo Testamento [Greek Grammar-Syntax of the NT] by Daniel B Wallace amp Daniel S Steffen Parentheses theirs p 182) Consequently if the translation ldquothe word was Godrdquo must be understood in the adjectival sense as ldquodivinerdquo why not translate it that way Itis therefore reasonable to make a distinction between the term ldquotheosrdquo with and without the article here

In all the more accurate Bible translations do make a distinction between ldquotheosrdquo (God) with and without the article in John 11 Does yours Some argue that John did not have to employ the article before the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo to imply that the Word was ldquoGodrdquo Do you believe that If so why then was the Greek article used with the nominal predicate before the verb in John 151 which literally says ldquoThe father of me the farmer isrdquo And in John 651 ldquoThe bread but which I shall give the flesh of me isrdquo It is evident that Bible writers usually employed the article with specific intention and when they omitted it it was equally significant as well

Is it not better to just follow along with the majority view and thus free oneself from religious tension that may accompany those who sustain a minority view First of all it is dangerous to adopt a majority view if this one is in error A majority view held by ldquoscholarsrdquo of itself does not automatically make a matter ldquotruerdquo Why Because scholars are not infallible nor immune to human tradition Were they in Jesus day They were not Scholars today may find themselves in error just as many scribes were in Jesus day as Matthew chapter 23 clearly demonstrate (Matthew 159) We are warned that ldquothe whole world lies under the power of the evil onerdquo (1 John 519 New Revised Standard Bible) We should not dismiss ldquoreligionrdquo as being beyond the reach or interest of Satan We all need to be in guard of evil influence at all times being careful of not becoming ldquostone-blindrdquo by ldquothe god of this worldrdquo (2 Cor 44 The Message) Again a majority view does not always represent the truth Thus the doctrinal foundation for Christians should be based not on what the majority believe but rather on what the Bible

itself teaches

What does the Bible really say about Jesus Christ

Simply put Jesus is ldquoSon of Godrdquo not ldquoGod the Sonrdquo (Luke 135 NRSV) There is a vast difference in meaning between those two expressions There are more than two hundred references (200x) in the New Testament that explicitly declare that Jesus Christ is the ldquoSon of Godrdquo or that lsquoGod is the Father of Jesus Christrsquo (For a list of instances see The Preachers Outline and Sermon Bible ldquoJohnrdquo p 27) Yet Christendom prefers to dwell on a handful of texts which are said to describe Jesus as God None of those texts are explicit in declaring Jesus equality with God In Scripture Jesus place in the broad picture is one of sonship that is as Son of God not God Furthermore the word ldquosonrdquo is never used to describe God or the ldquoholy spiritrdquo

Christ is also described as ldquothe image of the invisible God [not God] the firstborn of all creationrdquo (Colossians 115) the ldquomediator between God and menrdquo (1 Timothy 25) Yes it is possible to spin these clear statements to make them say something else but is this what we seek One who plays the role of ldquomediatorrdquo cannot in the name of justice be one and the same person as one of the two parts that he is said to represent Otherwise such individual could not be truly impartial in his judgment Moses as a separate entity was able to really serve as ldquomediatorrdquo between God and Israel Now if Jesus the greater Moses was really one-and-the-same ldquoGodrdquo what ldquojusticerdquo could he convey acting as ldquomediatorrdquo between himself and mankind But no Jesus spoke of his Father as ldquomy Godrdquo and as lsquothe God of everyone elsersquo (John 2017) It was this God (ldquothe only Godrdquo John 544 NKJV NIV) according to Jesus himself who lsquorevealedrsquo things to Christ (Mark 1332 Revelation 11) Any statementwhich says that lsquoGod gave Jesus Christ a revelationrsquo would sound very odd to anyone taught to believe that Christ is the equal of God in every sense Scripture calls Christ ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 1913) And the record shows that it was this Word who was ldquowith God in the beginning not that he was ldquoGodrdquo but like God (Others render ldquoa Godrdquo ldquodivinerdquo - Tomanek Schonfield Heb 13)

Bible writers always speak of Jesus Christ in a subordinate role as in Ephesians 13 ldquoBlessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christrdquo 1 Corinthians 1528 ldquoThe Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him [God] who put all things in subjection to him that God may be all in allrdquo (Darby) In Colossians 31 we read ldquoKeep on seeking the things above where Christ is seated at the right hand of Godrdquo (Williams) Jesus himself made it clear to others ldquoI seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which hath sent merdquo (John 530)

Do Scriptures allow for a secondary sense of the words ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo

In the Scriptures the term lsquogodrsquo has various connotations and cannot be narrowed to one single meaning as some try to do A few scholars sustain that the notion of Jesus Christ as ldquoa godrdquo as if there were other gods beside God is incompatible with Jewish ldquomonotheismrdquo which is the belief in only one God and that it implies polytheism Nevertheless the concept itself that God as an entity is composed of three coequal persons runs counter with Jewish monotheism ldquoThe Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheismrdquo so states the Jewish Encyclopedia (ldquoTrinityrdquo) The teaching of the ldquoShemardquo consisted as has been noted in that ldquoJehovah our God is one Jehovahrdquo (Deuteronomy 64 ASV) What purpose would there be for the ldquoShemardquo to stress that Jehovah is ldquoonerdquo and then confound the matter by stating that that

must mean the Divine One is ldquothree personsrdquo in ldquoonerdquo It is explained frequently that the teaching of theTrinity is a ldquomysteryrdquo The problem with such reasoning is that nowhere does Scripture gives us reason to believe in such a concept It is possible that a person who has been exposed to this doctrine for a long time may see ldquoinsinuationsrdquo of it in the Bible However those individuals must in sincerity ask themselves whether their belief is based on ldquofactsrdquo or instead on emotional ldquofancyrdquo

Certain Scriptures are frequently cited as proof by supporters of the Trinity doctrine that Christ is God Isaiah 446 and Hosea 134 are two such Scriptures which have God Jehovah saying ldquoI am the first and I am the last and beside me there is no Godrdquo ldquoAnd thou shalt know no god but me for there is nosavior [Hebrew עע שהש םי beside merdquo These words are strictly taken literally out of their [(u˙moshia) וומוsetting to mean that there can be no ldquogodrdquo or ldquosaviorrdquo but God almighty In the context in which these words were pronounced Israel Gods people were inclined to worship vain hand-made idols (Isaiah 4217) Hence Gods warning in Isaiah and Hosea People brought up in trinitarian dogma tend to restrict the meaning of the term ldquoGodrdquo to those statements found within the context of Isaiah and Hosea leading them to the conclusion that anyone other than the True God must be a ldquofalserdquo god They define the word God within the context of modern trinitarian mentality instead of ancient Scriptural doctrine Trinitarians reason that if the appellative ldquoGodrdquo is applied to Jesus Christ then reasonably Jesus could be no other than the Lord God himself

However such trinitarian reasonings are missing an important element It has to do with the fact that the word ldquogodrdquo can be applied to others since the term itself seems to be related to someone with power and authority The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explains ldquoThis word [rsquoelōhicircm] can in fact be used for other gods (Gen 3130) and even for men (cf Ex 416 71 cf BDB p43)The derivation [of rsquoelōhicircm] is obscure but the implied sense seems to be that of strength or authorityrdquo (Vol II pg 497 italics added) The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words says ldquoThe word itself [אא ל (rsquoēl) Hebrew word for God] derives from a root term meaning lsquopowerrsquo lsquostrengthrsquo orlsquomightrsquo (Stephen D Renn p 439) And the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible states ldquoCommon to these four suggested root meanings [of El God] is the idea of strength power and of supreme excellence and greatnessrdquo (Vol 1 p 881) This may explain why various Bible versions at John 11c describe the Logos as ldquoa powerful divine beingrdquo or the like instead of saying ldquoGodrdquo When the whole context of Scripture is considered it is evident that the words spoken by God found in Isaiah and Hosea are very true in a specific sense namely that there is but one Supreme God and one Main Savior This truth does not rule out the existence of lsquogodlike onesrsquo under God (Job 387 Psalms 291 896)

Is it possible to speak of divine beings (ldquogodsrdquo) existing alongside God

Scholar John Macquarrie in Jesus Christ in Modern Thought claims that the Jewish monotheistic culturewould never tolerate the idea of the Logos belonging to a class of divine beings (P 110) Not quite Other scholars have a different view Ernst Haenchen for example claims the opposite in accord with Scripture ldquoIn the period in which the hymn [at John 11] took its rise it was quite possible in Jewishand Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him Phil 26-10 proves thatrdquo (A Commentary on the Gospel of John John 1Transl by Robert W Funk from Das Johannesevangelium Ein Kommentar p 109)

Another source has this to say ldquoOn the other hand it was a matter of general knowledge and one which the Bible itself shares and does not attempt to conceal that recognition and worship have often been extended to others than the Jewish-Christian God and the term lsquogodrsquo or lsquogodsrsquo is used for them

also as are the respective Greek and Hebrew words It is the custom to use a capital letter G for the God of the Jewish- Christian tradition and a small letter for the othersrdquo (Dictionary of the Bible JamesHastings Revised Edition 1963 Page 333 Grant amp Rowley Charles Scribners Sons New York)

Lets briefly look at how the Bible itself employs the words for ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture At Exodus 71 we read that God made a man Moses ldquoa godrdquo (Hebrew elohim) before Pharaoh God said to Moses ldquoSee I have made thee a god [Others ldquoa Godrdquo ldquoGodrdquo] to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophetrdquo Would this mean then that Moses himself did become an intrinsic part of the Great Divinity by the mere fact of him being called ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo by the Lord Jehovah himself Of coursenot Other translations clarify the meaning of ldquoGodrdquo used here by the LORD The English Standard Version expresses it this way ldquoSee I have made you like God to Pharaohrdquo And the International Standard Version has the LORD saying ldquoListen Ive put you in the role of God to Pharaohrdquo

And in Exodus 416 God making reference to Aaron tells Moses ldquoYou shall be as God to himrdquo (ESV NAB Hebrew lelohim ldquoas Godrdquo Darby ldquoGodrdquo Leeser ldquoa Godrdquo LXX theon ldquoGodrdquo Vulgate Deum)rdquo Moses was simply given a powerful role as Gods emissary who represented his will In Psalm 456 a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) when he became lsquoking of Israelrsquo was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo Obviously this human king was not in fact the One True God Neither was he a false God as trinitarian reasonings would lead one to believe Simply put Solomons throne was ldquodivinerdquo in the sense that he represented God in a position of authority over others

In the Scriptures we find that Jesus is described in Isaiah 96 as ldquoMighty Godrdquo and as ldquoSon of Godrdquo in other places (John 134) What about angels What do we call them Humans Not Angels are in nature heavenly beings closer to God than to men They are powerful divine spirits that reflect Gods glory and Godship They are ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 16) They are ldquogodsrdquo themselves What do we call aldquosonrdquo of a ldquohumanrdquo This ldquosonrdquo is himself a ldquohumanrdquo is he not Just as there is a family of human beings sharing ldquohumanityrdquo there is also a family of celestial beings yes ldquodivine beingsrdquo or ldquogodsrdquo sharing ldquodivinityrdquo A ldquosonrdquo of ldquoGodrdquo is ldquoa godrdquo or a lsquoreflectionrsquo of God Or it could simply refer to ldquoOne who shares a close relationship with Godrdquo (The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary) Notwithstanding the expression ldquoson of Godrdquo is never synonymous with God ( Some argue that the expression ldquoAlmightyrdquo in Revelation 18 applies to Christ but there is no concrete evidence for the claim)

Psalm 821 tells us that ldquoGod standeth in the congregation of the mighty [Brenton ldquogodsrdquo] he judgeth among the godsrdquo The Syriac Peshitta here has ldquoangelsrdquo instead of ldquogodsrdquo while Tanakh has ldquodivine beingsrdquo The Targums offer the alternate reading of ldquojudgesrdquo Whether we apply the term ldquogodsrdquo in verse one of this psalm (Psalm 821) to angels or human judges as Gods representatives (as in verse 6) as the Targums do it still proves that in the Bible other living beings other than God Almighty are spoken of as ldquogodsrdquo or ldquosons of Godrdquo with no hint of polytheism by such use The Andrews Study Bible explains under Psalm 821 ldquogods Term designates earthly rulers leaders mighty ones judges andor princes (v 7) who were Gods representatives and whose work was divinely appointed (Ex 2228 Deut 117 1618 2 Chr 196 compare with Heb 137)rdquo And The NIV Study Bible has this footnote on Psalm 821 ldquogods See v 6 In the language of the OTmdashand in accordance with the conceptual world of the ancient Near Eastmdashrulers and judges as deputies of the heavenly King could be given the honorific title lsquogodrsquo [hellip] or be called lsquoson of Godrsquo []rdquo See also the Psalm 821 footnotes of The Believers Study Bible The Wesley Bible and the HCSB Study Bible

Mighty angels and powerful human rulers or judges called ldquogodsrdquo in Scripture were considered ldquodivinerdquo or ldquogodlikerdquo when they acted on behalf of God As the Lord told Moses ldquoI will make you seem like God to Pharaohrdquo (Exodus 71 NLT) Even people of biblical times used the term ldquoGodrdquo freely in reference to powerful human leaders or people who displayed ldquosupernaturalrdquo feats Acts 1222informs us that when king Herod gave a public speech in royal robes the crowd cheered him on shouting ldquoIt is the voice of a god and not of a manrdquo On another occasion the people of a small island called Paul theos that is ldquoa godrdquo when they witnessed his superhuman powers (Acts 286 Compare with Acts 1411) With this information at hand Robert Young a master of various ancient languages concluded ldquoGodmdashis used of any one (professedly) mighty whether truly so or not and is applied not only to the true God but to false gods Magistratesjudges angels prophets etc eg Ex 71 John 11 1033 34 35 2028 rdquo ndash Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible Eerdmans Publ 1978

Then why do religious writers out there act like no one but God can be referred to as ldquodivinerdquo or ldquoa godrdquo For them anyone else but the true God is a false god They are confining themselves within a box with the Scriptural context of Isaiah chapter 43 44 and 45 discussed above where they refuse to seethe term ldquogodrdquo being used elsewhere in Scripture in a more broadly manner than their biased narrowed definition allows them to In fact even Satan is called ldquothe god [Gr ὁ θεὸς] of this worldrdquo because he actually lsquorulesrsquo this wicked world by the power he exerts over mankind (2 Cor 44 John 1231 1 John 519) Was calling Satan ldquothe god of this worldrdquo meant to promote polytheism Thus the original words for ldquogodrdquo of themselves do not signal whether a god is true or false With some exceptions the Inspired Scriptures commonly affixes the definite article (ldquotherdquo) before the word ldquoGodrdquo to distinguish the Supreme God from other gods This holds true for both the Hebrew and Greek Bible portions

It is clear from the biblical record that in ancient Jewish culture people saw no problem speaking of ldquodivine beingsrdquo under the Supreme God To them it was not exclusively a matter of whether they were true or false ldquogodsrdquo In their cultural mindset the term ldquogodsrdquo when applied positively to others beside the Most High God meant that they were powerful representatives of God whether it was Christ spokenof angels or human judges When speaking of powerful heavenly beings in glory the term ldquosons of Godrdquo was fully acceptable There is no record of Jesus displaying any feelings of disgust when claiming he was ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 1036 NIV) Why should we then

Hence anyone else other than God labeled ldquogodrdquo in Scripture in a positive light are simply divine beings created in the image of the True God belonging to the heavenly family of ldquogodlikerdquo ones The term ldquogodrdquo may also be Scripturally used to describe human beings holding a position of power and authority when appointed by God When the term is used this way polytheism is not an issue

What about the Christ

At John 1033-36 Christ himself appealed to Psalm 82 where the term ldquogodsrdquo was applied to persons other than God Jesus was refuting the charge of blasphemy that he was making himself ldquoGgodrdquo as invalid because he was only claiming to be not God but ldquoGods Sonrdquo which is totally different Jesus had an excellent opportunity here to claim once and for all that he was ldquoGodrdquo but once again he did not do so Jesus Christ holds a much higher position than any angel or man but is still subordinate to his Father God (1 Corinthians 113 Hebrews 32 Colossians 13)

Angels were made subject to Christ after he himself was placed at Gods right hand (1 Peter 322) Although both angels and Christ are described as lsquosons of Godrsquo only Jesus Christ is distinctively called

ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo according to some manuscripts (John 118 Murdock Noyes Concordant Literal Version) Or ldquothe one-begotten Godrdquo (Etheridge) The Word Study Greek-English New Testament describes the Logos as the ldquoonly born Godrdquo (John 118 Paul R McReynolds) Only Christ is called ldquothe firstborn of all creationrdquo a term never used for the lsquoSuperiorityrsquo of God or the holy spirit (Colossians 115) Could Trinitarians ever answer the following question If Christ was not created as some claim who then was the first creation by God Also who is ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo Surely someone lsquocreated firstrsquo in the universe would be honored with the title lsquothe firstborn of all creationrsquo Is there any other way to express such event The Bible simply points to Christ as such of which is said ldquoThese things saith the Amen the faithful and true witness the beginning of the creation of Godrdquo Whatdoes lsquothe beginning of Gods creationrsquo really mean Another Bible translation puts it this way ldquoThe one who is in the origin of things created by God [El que estaacute en el origen de las cosas creadas por Dios]rdquo (Biblia de Ameacuterica approved by various Episcopalian dioceses in Central and South America Casa de la Biblia Madrid) No ldquomysteryrdquo here Its that simple

Could there be any ldquosaviorrdquo other than God

The Sovereign Lord God is the main Savior but he may allow others to act as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo on his behalf in certain situations We find that the term is applied to Christ as the prime agent of salvation (2 Peter 220 1 John 414 Titus 14) We are told that men too like Othniel and Ehud were used as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo of their people (Judges 216 3915 Hebrew moshia same word used for God at Isaiah Compare with Isaiah 452 Hebrew u˙moshia Nehemiah 927 Hebrew moshiim plural of moshia) Would this mean then that those men called ldquosaviorsrdquo in Scripture form a part of the Supreme Divinity No there is a better explanation as found in the NIV

The NIV Study Bible has this to say of Israels leaders or judges ldquoTheir principal purpose is best expressed in [Judges] 216 lsquoThen the LORD raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of hellip raidersrsquo Since it was God who permitted the oppressions and raised up deliverers [saviors] he himself was Israels ultimate Judge and Deliverer [Savior] (1127 see 823 where Gideon a judge insists that the Lord is Israels true rulerrdquo (p 325) The Bible uses the same original words (ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo) for God Christ and men Does it mean they all are the same person or co-equal The context then iswhat determines the correct application for each occurrence of those terms

Who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo

In contrast to others who were called ldquosaviorsrdquo of the people of Israel Jesus is called ldquoSavior of the worldrdquo Jesus can potentially save not only Israel but all of mankind from bondage to sin and from death itself (John 316 1 John 414) Although Christ is undoubtedly a greater Savior than any man heis still subject to the Grandest Savior of all (Isaiah 4311 Acts 412 1 Corinthians 1528) Christ himself came to be in a situation where he had to cry out with a loud voice for salvation Right before his death he implored ldquoMy God my God why hast thou forsaken merdquo He had to be saved by God (Matthew 2746 Hebrews 57 Psalm 288)

Acts 531 tells us who was the One who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquoGod exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israelrdquo (NRSV) According to this scripture whatever capacity Jesus had as ldquosaviorrdquo was due to God To insist that Jesus is ldquoGodrdquo because of his description as ldquosaviorrdquo then we could reason all the same that men such as Othniel and Ehud were alsoldquoGodrdquo because they too were called saviors Overall ldquocontextrdquo should be the guiding principle for the

right comprehension of biblical terms

Jesus as ldquoSon of manrdquo

Jesus made reference to himself in the Gospels nearly 80 times as ldquothe Son of manrdquo an expression indicating he was truly a ldquomanrdquo while on earth not a God-man (Matthew 820 etc) According to Hebrews 29 Jesus ldquowas made a little lower than the angelsrdquo so he could taste death for everyone God cannot ever become ldquolower than the angelsrdquo he created John 114 tells us that it was lsquothe Word who became fleshrsquo not God The doctrine of the ldquoincarnationrdquo as commonly taught actually twists the meaning of John 114 because the text does not say at all that lsquoGod became fleshrsquo Instead it says ldquothe Wordrdquo did Plain and simple 2 John 7 only confirms this In other words the Logos Jesus Christ became ldquohumanrdquo or ldquoa human beingrdquo One scripture often misused to prove that God was made flesh is 1 Timothy 316 but this text did not originally say ldquoGod was manifest in the fleshrdquo as it reads in a few Bible versions since such reading is defective Other translations of the Bible have corrected this error in translation saying instead ldquoHe [or ldquoWhordquo] was manifested in the fleshrdquo allowing for lsquoChrist as the One being manifested in the fleshrsquo For a consideration of 1 Tim 316 see httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

In an effort to simplify the meaning of the expression ldquoSon of manrdquo in reference to Christ in our culture a modern Bible version used the expression ldquothe Human Onerdquo repeatedly (Common English Bible) ldquoThe general use of lsquoson of manrsquo occurs in poetic texts in which the phrase functions as a synonym for lsquomanrsquo or lsquohuman beingrsquo rdquo (The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary) The NIV at Daniel 713 confirms the meaning of the expression ldquoson of manrdquo in a footnote ldquoThe Aramaic phrase bar enash [son of man]means human being The phrase son of man is retained here because of its use in the New Testament as a title of Jesus probably based largely on this verserdquo (2011 Edition) The apostle was very familiar withthis much used expression of Jesus If ldquoSon of manrdquo meant he was a ldquohuman beingrdquo on earth then John would use the similar expression a son of God (or Gods Son) in a way humans would naturally understand it That is lsquoof divine originrsquo (ldquoa godrdquo) without any foreign trinitarian speculation of a later era which Jesus disciples were unaware of (John 1033-36) Jesus divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship As noted the expression may also refer to lsquoone who shares a close relationship with Godrsquo As future co-heirs in the kingdom of Christ human creatures too are designated as ldquosons of Godrdquo but never become identical to the Sovereign God Again polytheism is not an issue here No need to make this into a ldquomysteryrdquo

Why does the Bible speak sometimes as if Jesus Christ himself was ldquoGodrdquo

The Jewish nation already believed and sought lsquoto honorrsquo the Father of Abraham Isaac and Jacob This monotheistic culture adhered to the Mosaic Law as they worshiped the true God But many prophecies which appeared in the Hebrew code identified the Messiah as lsquoemancipatorrsquo of their bondage to sin Themajority of the Jews where hoping the foretold Messiah would rescue them from the Roman yoke Instead of getting involved in earthly politics Jesus repeatedly spoke of lsquoGods kingdomrsquo hence comparatively few exercised faith in him In contrast to the few who believed in Jesus as being ldquosentrdquo by God the majority of Jews could look no further from the man they considered their Father AbrahamThey were blind in their self-sufficiency

There was thus an urgent need to communicate to the Jewish people that exercising faith in Christ was essential to their salvation But how would one do that To start by making them see that Jesus Christ

leaning spirit of defection on Judas part He could discern an inclination of satanic qualities such as envy and malice and hence could rightly call him a devil a betrayer a slanderer The qualitative force is so prominent here that adding the article the before ldquodevilrdquo has no justification whatsoever (The explanation by grammarian Daniel Wallace senior editor of the NET Bible is not convincing hereOther translators clearly understand this differently as seen below)

ldquoAnd yet from among you one is an adversaryrdquo (Rotherham)ldquoand one of you is an accuserrdquo (NT James L Tomanek)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (Common English Bible)ldquoand one of you is a devilrdquo (Douay-Rheims Bible)ldquoYet one of you is an adversaryrdquo (The Gospel of John FF Bruce)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (International Standard Version)ldquoand one of you is a devilrdquo (American Standard Version)ldquoYet one of you is a slandererrdquo (New World Translation)ldquoAnd even of you one is an informerrdquo (Edgar G Goodspeed)ldquoand of you -- one is a devilrdquo (Youngs Literal Translation)ldquoand of you one an accuser isrdquo (The Emphatic Diaglott)ldquoYet is not one of you a devilrdquo (New American Bible)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (New International Version)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (Greek-English Interlinear NT William and Robert Mounce)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (New Jerusalem Bible)ldquoYet one of you is an adversaryrdquo (Jewish New Testament David H Stern)ldquobut out of you one is a slanderer rdquo (21st Century New Testament Left column)ldquoYet one of you is a betrayerrdquo (21st Century New Testament Right column)ldquoand of you one a devil isrdquo (Alfred Marshalls Greek-English Interlinear)ldquoAnd of you one is a devilrdquo (Kenneth S Wuests New Testament)ldquoYet one of you is a devilrdquo (The Translators New Testament)

FF Bruce says that ldquoOne of them [of the twelve] was diabolos ndash the Greek word means a lsquoslandererrsquo or lsquocalumniatorrsquo or lsquofalse accuserrsquo but it is probably used here as the counterpart to Heb [satan] lsquoadversaryrsquo [ldquoYet one of you is an adversaryrdquo Bruce]rdquo I side with the translators above and with grammarians P B Harner and P S Dixon who argue that the qualitative force of diabolos (devil) is more prominent than its definiteness Dixon says ldquoIt is best therefore to take διάβολος qualitatively A good rendering might be one of you is a devilrdquo (The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John 50 Dallas Theological Seminary 1975) (Harner Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 1539 and John 11 JBL 92 1973 75-87)

4th Example (John 419)

Greek θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ I am beholding that prophet are you These words were pronounced by a Samaritan woman after hearing Jesus divinely perceive personal things about her life even though they had never met

ldquoI perceive that thou art a prophetrdquo (William Tyndales New Testament 1534 Daniell edition) ldquoI perceive that thou art a prophetrdquo (DouayndashRheims Bible)

ldquoI perceive that thou art a prophetrdquo (King James Version) ldquoI view that a prophet you arerdquo (Charles Van der Pool 2006) ldquoI perceive that a prophet art thourdquo (Alfred Marshall D Litt The Interlinear Greek-English NT) ldquoI see that thou art a prophetrdquo (Confraternity Version) ldquoI see that you are a prophetrdquo (New Revised Standard Version) ldquoOh so youre a prophetrdquo (The Message) ldquoI perceive that a prophet are Yourdquo (Interlinear Farstad Hodges Moss Picirilli Pickering) ldquoAre You a prophetrdquo (The Clear Word) ldquoI can see that you are a prophetrdquo (NIV) ldquoI see you are a prophetrdquo (Christian Community Bible) ldquoI perceive that You are a prophetrdquo (NASB) ldquoI see you are a prophetrdquo (The Authentic New Testament Hugh J Schonfield) ldquoI can see that you are a prophetrdquo (Jewish New Testament David H Stern)

Here most English translations have no problem adding the indefinite article (a) before the anarthrous (article-less) noun ldquoprophetrdquo It is appropriate to do so Take notice of the initial lowercase letter in ldquoprophetrdquo not ldquoProphetrdquo In English the a is required before the noun ldquoprophetrdquo used above in an indefinite-qualitative sense It is describing an attribute about the Master as a prophet not identifying him as ldquotheir Prophetrdquo This Samaritan woman of another religion who accepted no more than the Pentateuch did not have sufficient knowledge about the male stranger she just met (Jesus) as the account shows to conclude that he was lsquothe Prophetrsquo or the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo Nevertheless she discovered he had special insight and could describe him as ldquopropheticrdquo or ldquoa prophetrdquo of some kind Jesus was able to have this prophetic ability because God had empowered him with his spirit (Acts 1038)

By the way those of you who know a Romance (or Latin derived) language such as French Italian Portuguese or Spanish may find it a tad easier to follow this discussion regarding the use or absence of the indefinite article The reason for that is that in everyday speech those who speak one of the Latin languages do not have to use the indefinite article as frequently as opposed to those who only speak English which requires using it more often to make a noun indefinite or qualitative Consequently it may be easier to see the connection of the qualitative force of singular anarthrous nouns between Greek and one of the Latin languages A comparison of modern translations of such nouns between English and one of the Latin based languages will bear this out

For instance in Spanish you can either employ or not the indefinite article and still retain the qualitative force of singular anarthrous nouns (See El Griego Biacuteblico Al Alcance De Todos by J A Septieacuten p 122 Editorial CLIE Barcelona) At John 419 you can have the woman say to Jesus ldquoMe parece que tuacute eres profeta [I perceive that you are prophet]rdquo as the Protestant Reina-Valera does or have her say ldquoVeo que tuacute eres un profeta [I can see that your are a prophet]rdquo as the Catholic Torres Amat does Actually it is common in Spanish Bibles to use ldquoprofetardquo without the ldquounrdquo while some translators do add the (un the equivalent of a) to make it more specific ldquoun profetardquo Not only is this an acceptable translation from Greek to Spanish it sounds natural either way unlike English

Similarly in French you can say ldquoje vois que tu es prophegraveterdquo (I see that you are prophet Segond) or you can say ldquoje vois que tu es un prophegraveterdquo (I see that you are a prophet Darby French) The first French reading does not use the indefinite article while the second one does In Italian ldquoio veggoche tu sei profetardquo (I see that you are prophet Diodati) or ldquotu sei un profetardquo (you are a prophet

La Parola egrave Vita) The first Italian version lacks the indefinite article and the second one adds it Both renderings are acceptable One stresses the qualitative aspect and the other the indefinite status of the predicate noun Even Wallace acknowledged ldquoIt is nevertheless difficult to distinguish indefinite from qualitative nouns at times (just as at other times it is difficult to distinguish qualitative from definite nouns) The very fact that any member of a class is mentioned highlights to some degree that particular classndashhence making some kind of qualitative statementrdquo (op cit Wallace p 266 footnote)Wallace adds ldquoAlthough the translation [of John 419] is most naturally lsquoSir I perceive that you are a prophetrsquo the sense may be better characterized as indefinite-qualitativerdquo The same can be said of John 11c (Ibid page 266)

At John 419 natural spoken English requires the use of the ldquoardquo before prophet to bring out the Greek sense in our language and most English Bibles do so To be consistent Bible versions which render John 419 in an indefinite sense (a prophet) or with a lowercase letter ldquoprophetrdquo could do the very same thing in John 11c with its similar grammatical construction One really has to wonder why some individuals who claim to have competence in the Greek fail to understand or acknowledge publicly that in translation work there is often more than one way to render some biblical passages They let religious feelings get in the way clouding their judgment This is made obvious when they seek to convey to others that those who render a certain passage differently from the norm are being ldquoignorantrdquoin the Greek department

5th Example (John 101)

Greek ἐκεῖνος κλέπτης ἐστὶν καὶ λῃστής that (one) thief is and robber

Here Jesus initiates dissertation about how he as a fine shepherd protects his sheep from dangerous individuals that resemble wolves The man who does not enter the sheepfold through the door but climbs in by some other way is a

ldquothe same is a thief and a robberrdquo (William Tyndales NT 1534 Daniell edition) ldquothe same is a thief and a robberrdquo (DouayndashRheims Bible) ldquothe same is a thief and a robberrdquo (New King James Version) ldquois a thief and a banditrdquo (New Jerusalem Bible) ldquois a thief and an outlawrdquo (Common English Bible) ldquothat one is a thief and robberrdquo (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot) ldquothat man is a thief and a robberrdquo (English Standard Version) ldquois a thief and a robberrdquo (New American Bible) ldquothat one is a thief and a robberrdquo (Greek and English Interlinear NT Mounce) ldquothat man is a thief and a robberrdquo (Revised Standard Bible) ldquois a thief and a roguerdquo (Phillips Modern English) ldquohe is a thief and a brigandrdquo (A New Translation by William Barclay) ldquois nothing but a thief or a robberrdquo (New English Bible) ldquohe is either a robber or a banditrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English) ldquois a thief and a robberrdquo (William F Beck-NT) ldquothat one is a thief and a robberrdquo (Literal Translation Version)

Smooth English requires the use of the indefinite article (a) before either thief and robber or both

Most English translations do this Again to be consistent with this syntactical construction these translations could have used the indefinite article (a) at John 11c and have it read ldquothe Word was a godrdquo And if Bible translators are reluctant to use the indefinite article at John 11c they could have at least rendered the anarthrous noun ldquoGodrdquo in such way that brings out the descriptive nature (as an adjective) of such nouns by rendering it ldquoand the Word was god (or divine)rdquo to be consistent with theirother renderings which follow this pattern By the way some translations render it this way

ldquoand the Word was godrdquo (Professor Charles C Torrey Yale University 1947) ldquoand the Logos was god [eacutetait dieu]rdquo (Herbert Pernot 1925 Paris) ldquoand the Word was divinerdquo (E J Goodspeed) ldquoand the Word was god [eacutetait dieu]rdquo (Traduction du monde nouveau 1987) ldquoThe Word was god [eacutetait dieu]rdquo (Marc J H Oltramare 1872 University Professor Geneva) ldquoSo the Word was divinerdquo (Hugh J Schonfield) ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo (Reijnier Rooleeuw MD) ldquoand god was the Word [y dios era la Palabra]rdquo (J J Bartolomeacute Madrid 2002)

6th Example (1 Kings 1827 Septuagint LXX)

Greek ὅτι θεός ἐστιν Hebrew ההו א ההה םים א אל כהכ םי ־ for god is (he) he god for lt ldquoFor he is a godrdquo (Sir Lancelot C L Brentons translation from the Greek LXX) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Septuagint LXX Charles Thomson) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (The Apostles Bible A Modern English Translation of the Greek Septuagint by Paul W Esposito 2004) ldquoFor he is a godrdquo (New English Translation of the Septuagint [NETS] 2007) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (The Orthodox Study Bible St Athanasius Academy Septuagint 2008 LXX) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Orthodox England Michael Asser 2001-2010 based on the Greek text [LXX] of the version published by the Greek Orthodox Church Apostoliki Diakonia) ldquofor a god herdquo (Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament) ldquofor god herdquo (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Jewish Publication Society 1917 Translated from the Hebrew) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts [tr Syriac] George M Lamsa) ldquofor he is godrdquo [pues eacutel es dios] (La Biblia Peshitta en Espantildeol translated from the AramaicSyriac)

ldquobecause god (he) is [porque dios es]rdquo (La Sagrada Biblia G Juumlnemann B 1992 Greek LXX) ldquofor Baal is youre god [for Baal is your god]rdquo (John Wycliffes Translation transl f Latin c 1384) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Douay-Rheims Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate ldquodeus enim estrdquo)

In this account we read of Elijah mocking Baal a false god The Greek construction is similar to that ofJohn 11c Just as in the other instances of theos without the article (ldquotherdquo) and preceding the verb translators find it necessary in English to add the indefinite article (a) to complete the sense in our language Had the speaker used the article before theos it could be taken then as a reference to Baal being ldquoGodrdquo not ldquoa godrdquo Would it not Observe that John Wycliffes Translation from Latin did not capitalize the ldquogrdquo in ldquogodrdquo Also the two Spanish translations above one from the Greek LXX by

Juumlnemann and the other a Peshitta from the Aramaic do not capitalize the ldquogrdquo in ldquogodrdquo Actually in Spanish it is not required to use the indefinite article (a) in this construction to obtain nearly the same effect as the English statement ldquofor he is a godrdquo Surely the translators of this Spanish version were not suggesting that Elijah was calling Baal ldquoGodrdquo In Hebrew we find the reading ההו א ההה םים א אל כהכ םי־ (ki-elohim hu Literally because god [is] he) likewise translated in our English versions as ldquoFor he isa godrdquo Thus Bible translations from both the Hebrew and Greek (LXX ) texts here and from the Latin and Syriac versions as well all reflect indefinite or qualitative renderings ndash good indicators which show how John 11c with similar syntax should be translated

If you have carefully followed this discussion to this point you may have observed that the indefinite translation of anarthrous predicate nouns (using ldquoardquo) similar in construction to John 11c is a valid option to consider Why is this significant to mention Because Trinitarian scholars try so hard to disengage the likelihood of the indefinite notion in the discussion of John 11c They keep saying that a grammatical construction such as we find in John 11 should be rendered qualitatively usually ignoring or denying the possible indefinite nuance of anarthrous nouns before the verb However in these samples we see a pattern where translators freely use one of those two aspects (indefinite or qualitative)in the translations sometimes alternating between the two It appears then that theology is a factor in their denial of this fact

7th Example (Xenophons Anabasis 146)

Greek εμπoacuteριον δrsquo ην το χωρiacuteον market and was the place

(A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey had this to say (under the heading ldquoWith the Subject in a Copulative Sentencerdquo) ldquoThe article sometimes distinguishes the subjectfrom the predicate in a copulative sentence In Xenophons Anabasis 146 εμπoacuteριον δrsquo ην το χωρiacuteον and the place was a market we have a parallel case to what we have in John 11 καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος and the word was deity The article points out the subject in these examples Neither was the place the only market nor was the word all of God as it would mean if the article were also used with θεός As it stands the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo (Page 148 paragraph laquo3raquo Italics theirs) I agree with the above comment However I feel that the last statement about ldquothe other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo is superfluous This is clearly a case of two Baptist grammarians reading far more into the text than is warranted John chapter 1 is not speaking of three persons in the Godhead Actually the whole Gospel of John makes no mention whatsoever of three persons in one God This language is totally foreign to the New Testament

To run more parallel with Xenophons statement and the place was a market this Grammar could have translated John 11c and the word was a god I am aware that Dr Julius R Mantey has been openly opposed (to put it mildly) to the NW translation ldquothe Word was a godrdquo Nevertheless the example theyset forth seems to contradict Manteys statements Compare the literal Greek reading of Xenophons statement with the suggested translation by Dana and Mantey of which Mantey says is ldquoa parallel caserdquo to John 11c and see for yourself

ldquoand the place was market rdquo (Literal reading in English order Anabasis 146) ldquoand the word was god rdquo (Literal reading in English order John 11c)

ldquoand the place was a market rdquo (Suggested translation by Dana and Mantey) ldquoand the Word was a god rdquo (Controversial translation criticized by Mantey)

The translation offered by Dr Dana and Dr Mantey ldquoand the place was a marketrdquo as indicated above is an unintended admission that ldquothe Word was a godrdquo is a proper translation even though as Trinitarians they prefer another and the word was deity Note too that their suggested translation of John 11c and the word was deity is not the same thing as saying that the word was entirely God for they said ldquonor was the word all of Godrdquo Additionally the use of the word ldquomayrdquo in the statement ldquothe three persons may be impliedrdquo reveals a theological speculation not a fact The truth is that Jesus himself spoke of his Father God as ldquothe only Godrdquo (NIV New King James Version John 544) If Jesus is not ldquothe only Godrdquo who is he then Christ is time and again described as ldquoGods Sonrdquo hence a reflection of Gods glory ldquogodlikerdquo ldquodivinerdquo The Bible itself says ldquoThe Son reflects Gods own gloryand everything about him represents God exactlyrdquo (Hebrews 13 New Living Translation) This focus on Christ by Christian Writers throughout the New Testament led William Barclay to caution ldquoTo say that the Word was God is too much to say that the Word was Divine is too littlerdquo (ldquoGreat Themes of the New Testament II John 11-14rdquo Expository Times 70 (1958-59) 114)

Much has been made of the publication of a letter Mantey wrote to the publishers of the NWT (WT Society) where Mantey asked the WTS to stop quoting him by name since he felt they were misquotingtheir Grammar Many have seized this incident to lash out slanderous statements at the WTS for alleged ldquoscholastic dishonestyrdquo I feel this attack has not much merit It is in the main a theological objection For the benefit of those who do not have these two publications I will reproduce here what the NWT said right before and after quoting the Grammar of Dana and Mantey ldquoCareful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity a personality whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about someone That is what A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey remarks on page 140 paragraph vii [ldquoThe articular construction emphasizes identity the anarthrous construction emphasizes characterrdquo] Accordingly on page 148 paragraph (3) this same publication says about the subject of a copulative sentence [hellip quoted above at beginning of this section] Instead of translating John 11 and the word was deity thisGrammar could have translated it and the word was a god to run more parallel with Xenophons statement and the place was a marketrdquo (NWT Appendix page 774)

In my opinion the NWT quote of the Grammar was accurate enough with one exception The NWT Committee omitted this sentence ldquoAs it stands the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo And it is this omission which Dr Mantey most likely objected to I too believe this sentence was not critical in the context of the grammar being considered to prove the authors point but whether they were ldquodishonestrdquo or not by omitting this one sentence in their quote I leave it for the reader to decide Apparently the NW translators intended to avoid the dogmatic Trinity subject in their Appendix at that point When quoting Dana and Mantey the NWT Committee could certainly have been more explicit by implying for example that in their opinion the authors used an argument that in effect allowed the reading ldquothe word was a godrdquo as a ldquoparallel caserdquo to Xenophons statement ldquothe place was a marketrdquo instead of insinuating by mode of silence that the trinitarian authors approved of such reading (To readmore about the practice of WTS ldquoquoting sourcesrdquo see Note 1 at the end of the article)

Interestingly Dana and Manteys Grammar says on pages 138 139 140 ldquoWhen identity is prominent we find the article and when quality or character is stressed the construction is anarthrous [without thearticle]rdquo And ldquoThe use of the articular and anarthrous constructions of θεός is highly instructive A

study of the uses of the term as given in Moulton and Gedens Concordance convinces one that without the article θεός signifies divine essence while with the article divine personality is chiefly in viewrdquo Furthermore on page 140 on the use of the article in the Greek text it says ldquoThe articular constructionemphasizes identity the anarthrous construction emphasizes characterrdquo

Dr Julius R Mantey did include this statement in his letter of repudiation to the WTS mentioned earlierldquoProf Harner Vol 921 in JBL has gone beyond Colwells research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subjectrdquo (July 11 1974) Instead of advocating a trinity this statement of Mantey quoting Professor Harner oddlysupports some of the arguments published in the 1950 and the 1984 NWT Editions

Going by grammar alone one could say that the renderings ldquothe place was a marketrdquo ldquothe Word was agod [divine]rdquo and ldquothe word was deityrdquo all three potentially agree with the grammar principles expounded by Dana amp Mantey on the articular and the anarthrous constructions of θεός on pages 138-140 and on page 148 though they may not admit to it Again let us not forget their clear message ldquoNeither was the place the only market [the place was a market] nor was the word all of Godrdquo

Coming back to translation issues we can see that generally modern translations do make an effort to convey a difference in translation between predicate nouns with and without the article preceding the verb If we take a look at John 151 where John uses the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the verb ldquo(ho georgoacutes estin) the farmer isrdquo we will find that translators generally reflect that fact in translation However here in John 11 they are reluctant to produce a translation which shows the fact that the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo in this verse lacks the article Why Is it because Greek grammar demands the rendering ldquoGodrdquo Not at all The seven (7) submitted samples clearly indicate that it is not grammar but ldquotheologyrdquo for the reluctance Even Greek scholars teach that ldquowhen a Greek noun lacksthe definite article it normally will be translated as indefiniterdquo (A Primer of Biblical Greek by N Clayton Croy assistant professor of NT at Trinity Luther Seminary Columbus Ohio p 15) At John 11 translators in their drive to make Jesus appear identical to God will use a capital G when Jesus is spoken of Patterns of Greek grammar as seen in the above examples and elsewhere are ignored to sustain their theology (Note the use of ldquonormallyrdquo here because the author is aware that there is lsquono hard rulersquo that can be applied at all times in regards to the use of the article or lack of But his statement holds generally true as in here)

John 12 would be pointless tautology if John meant that the Logos was identical to God as some translations suggest It is also misleading to translate John 11 ldquothe Word was fully Godrdquo as the NET Bible does If we were to use the NET Bibles reasoning which appears in their note of John 11 and apply it to samples discussed above with similar syntax we would get the following translations ldquoThis man [Paul] must be fully Murdererrdquo ldquoThat one [climbing over the fence] is fully Thief and fully Robberrdquo ldquofor he (Baal) is fully Godrdquo ldquoand the place was fully Marketrdquo

Does that make sense Baal a pagan god was certainly not lsquofully Godrsquo in the sense of him being the Supreme God But Elijah could depict Baal as ldquoa godrdquo for he was not lsquothe only godrsquo among the heathens And to say ldquothe place was fully Marketrdquo is meaningless In fact Dana and Mantey argued against the place being The Market the only market They conclude that the Greek construction demands ldquothe place was a marketrdquo And Dana and Mantey pointed out that the Greek construction of John 11 tells us that lsquothe word was deity [ldquodivinerdquo but] not all of Godrsquo

In Marks gospel (649) where Jesus appeared walking over the waters next to the disciples boat duringa storm in which they became terrified after seeing an ldquoapparitionrdquo or ldquophantomrdquo of some sort (since they were unaware it was Jesus) they screamed ldquoIts a ghostrdquo according to some Bible versions (Or ldquoa spiritrdquo KJV) The grammatical structure of Mark 649 and John 11 are similar so how do Bible translations deal with this Do they have the disciples crying out ldquoHe is fully Ghost Or would they scream instead ldquoHe is Phantomrdquo No Most Bibles have the disciples believing or saying it was ldquoa ghostrdquoor ldquoa phantomrdquo or ldquoan apparitionrdquo of some sort At no time do translators argue that it should be translated as they do at John 11c by capitalizing the predicate noun and omitting the indefinite article ldquoardquo John 11 is no exception to the norm Bible translators follow the pattern described by Professor Clayton Croy ldquoWhen a Greek noun lacks the definite article it normally will be translated as indefiniterdquo (op cit A Primer) In the examples above Bible translators have shown us how they really deal with syntax similar to John 11c We have ldquoa hard saying a murderer a devil a prophet a thief a robber a god a market a ghost etc At John 1837 we have ldquoa kingrdquo twice English Bibles do not have Pilate asking Jesus if he was the ldquoKingrdquo Instead English translations followthe pattern described above and render Pilates question as ldquoArt thou a king thenrdquo

In all these cases a predicate noun without the Greek article precedes a verb just as we have in John 11c Accordingly then why not reflect this pattern at John 11 especially so when two entities are being spoken of in the verse and the second occurrence of θεός lacks the article Let us not miss the previous statement by a distinguished grammarian A ldquomost common userdquo of the Greek article is to point out hellip ldquoIndividual from Other Individualsrdquo (op cit Short Grammar p 275)

Although grammarian David Alan Black a Trinitarian objects to the ldquoa Godrdquo rendering at John 11 he takes a page from Dana and Manteys Grammar when he writes ldquoIf the article were also used with θεός the statement would mean that all of God was expressed in the Word As it is the Word is neither lsquoa Godrsquo nor equal with the sum total of Godrdquo (Its Still Greek to Me p 79) This statement by Black appears to contradict the NET Bibles translation of John 11c Blacks conclusion is similar to Danas and Manteys that is ldquothe Word was Deity [θεός]rdquo (Brackets his) In similar vein The New Testament in Plain English translates John 11c as ldquothe Word was Godrdquo However a footnote says ldquoOr Deity Divine (which is actually a better translation because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word)rdquo (Underline added 2003) Now this footnote begs the question If the rendering ldquothe Word was Deity Divinerdquo is actually a ldquobetter translationrdquo why not use that in the main text It seems that trinitarian translators have difficulty in displaying a rendering other than ldquothe Word was Godrdquo even when they acknowledge there are lsquobetter translationsrsquo for the anarthrous θεός in John 11c

In English using a capital letter in ldquofully Godrdquo is misleading to someone brought up in trinitarian teaching A trinitarian believer would likely take that rendering as conveying that Christ is Almighty God himself a concept in conflict with what Christ himself stated at John 173 and John 2017 Daniel Wallace previously quoted and author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics wrote a most interesting comment which reveals how theology plays a big role at the time of translating John 11 ldquoAlthough I believe that θεός in 11c is qualitative I think the simplest and most straightforward translation is lsquoand the Word was Godrsquo It may be better to clearly affirm the NT teaching of the deity of Christ and then explain that he is not the Father than to sound ambiguous on his deity and explain that he is God but is not the Fatherrdquo (Ibid p 269 italics his) What Is he serious

Whats the point of claiming that θεός in 11c is ldquoqualitativerdquo in John 11c as Wallace does emphatically in his Grammar and then suggest to use the rendering lsquothe Word was Godrsquo which implies ldquoidentityrdquo a

ldquopersonalityrdquo the opposite of ldquocharacterrdquo or ldquoqualityrdquo) and be forced to explain that it does not mean what it actually says The end result would then be no less ldquoambiguousrdquo than the alternatives he is obviously trying to avoid Would you not rather have a ldquobetter translationrdquo such as ldquothe Word was divinerdquo which requires no additional explanation The NET Bible (Wallace senior editor) prefers a rendering other than ldquodivinerdquo because he states that ldquodivinerdquo ldquoas a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of Godrdquo However on the word ldquodivinerdquo Murray J Harris responds ldquoBut if θεὸς bears a qualitative sense the rendering lsquodivinersquo should not be dismissed as altogether inappropriate Only if lsquodivinersquo is taken to mean lsquohaving the very nature of Godrsquo does the word accurately convey Johns meaningrdquo (op cit Jesus as God p 68) The argument that ldquodivinerdquo is too generic is weak because really the same argument could be made of the term ldquogodrdquo Jesus applied the term ldquogodsrdquo to humans (John 1034-36) and Paul acknowledged that ldquothere are many gods and many lordsrdquo (1 Corinthians 85) So Wallaces objection is more likely an effort to equate Christ with God at John 11

Truly the Greek Text does not say that Christ wasis the one-and-only God What the Greek does say is that ldquothe Word was with the [True] God and the Word [himself] was a divine beingrdquo thus able to perfectly represent the character of God (Hebrews 13) The only way one could justify the rendering ldquoGodrdquo with a big ldquoGrdquo at John 11c is if the original text had the article before the second instance of theos as well Why Because John is talking about two individuals and deliberately differentiates between the two instances of ldquotheosrdquo by placing the article before the first instance of ldquotheosrdquo and not with the second Max Zerwick (SJ) wrote in this regard ldquoὁ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος [if John would have written ldquothe God was the Logosrdquo] at least in NT usage would signify personal identity of the Word with the Father since the latter [the Father] is ὁ Θεὸς [the God]rdquo (Biblical Greek p 55 Rome)

John wrote the words appearing in verse two to clear any potential misunderstanding that could arise from his bold statement in verse one Marinus de Jonge remarks ldquoThe author of this Prologue clearly wants to identify lsquothe Wordrsquo and God as closely as possible without infringing the belief in the One Godrdquo (Christology in Context The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus Philadelphia Westminster 1988 p 198 Jonge is Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands) So in effect John was saying that the Logos was like God in every imaginable way Hence the New English Bible rendering lsquoWhat God was the Word wasrsquo

Dr Jason BeDuhn explains ldquoIn John 11 the Word is not the one-and-only God but it is a god or divine being I know that sounds strange and even seems impossible coming from the pen of a Christian writer But the fact remains that that is what John wrote His purpose in doing so was at least in part to avoid the notion that God the Father himself incarnated as Christ The one who incarnated was somehow distinct from lsquoGodrsquo while still being lsquoa godrsquo rdquo (op cit Truth in Translation pp 122 123)

Why then are translators unwilling to render John 11c ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo A few reasons could be given Translators mention grammar as one problem an issue addressed throughout this article Others view the rendering ldquoa godrdquo as polytheistic I will further mention two others First is the domino effect of the Trinity doctrine developed centuries after Christ as a means to clamp down raging Christological debates to the point that the doctrine has been taken for granted as ldquotruthrdquo by most ldquoChristianrdquo people since Secondly the role in tradition played by the Latin Vulgate must be mentioned This Latin translation has greatly influenced many translators since its inception from c 405 CE It is well known that the Vulgate heavily influenced early translations of the 16th and 17th Century In fact back then translators were more likely to be familiar with the Latin Vulgate than with the Greek

The Latin Vulgate used no articles (as seen below) and that in conjunction with the Greek lacking the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) and we can see why so many have misunderstood John 11 The Christological debates of past centuries did not improve this state of confusion it made it worse I kindly ask the reader to consider the following Latin and Greek readings as helpful pointers in our discussion Notice in particular the bold letters relevant to our discussion

ndash LATIN (John 11)ldquoIn principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbumrdquo In beginning was Verb and Verb was with God and God was Verb

ndash GREEK (John 11)

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος In beginning was the logos and the logos was toward the god and god was the logos

First of all please notice that Latin makes no distinction between the two occurrences of ldquoGodrdquo in the text (ie both without the article) However Greek being a more specific descriptive language does And it does so by using the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the first occurrence and omitting it before the second Keep in mind what The Translatorrsquos New Testament previously quoted said ldquoIt is difficult to believe that the omission [of the Greek article before the second theos in John 11] is not significantrdquo (p 451) As A T Robertson pointed out ldquoThe article is never meaningless in Greek though it often fails to correspond with the English idiom [hellip] Its free use leads to exactness and finesserdquo (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research p 756) And Buttmann The use of the article [ho ldquotherdquo] has everywhere its positive reasonrdquo (Buttmanns Grammar of NewTestament Greek Bt 88) And another ldquoFor the present the presence or absence of the Greek article should always be carefully indicated in the English translationrdquo (New Testament Greek For Beginners by J Gresham Machen DD LITTD p 35 67) It is the responsibility of the translator to transmit whenever possible this existing difference in the Greek text into the English translation

Which reading of the two languages above (Latin and Greek) shows the greater similarity with the traditional rendering of John 11c Its Latin is it not In fact some Bible translations in other languages have even borrowed the latin word ldquoVerbumrdquo from the Latin Vulgate at John 11 such as the ubiquitous Spanish Reina-Valera which uses ldquoVerbordquo (Verb) instead of ldquoWordrdquo used in English versionsAlso using ldquoVerbordquo Sciacuteo de San Miguel Versioacuten Moderna Goacutemez 2010 Nueva Biblia Latinoamericana de Hoy and the Nueva Versioacuten Internacional Other international versions following the Latin Vulgate at John 11c French Darby Crampon German Luther Bible Italian Diodati and the Portuguese Almeida

It is evident that most English Bibles at John 11 are translating in the spirit of the Latin Vulgate rather than the Greek text regardless of what they claim Surprisingly as you will see in the submitted list of alternate readings at the end of this paper there are some translations though not as popular that are actually closer to the Greek above than the best-selling versions which end up following the Latin Vulgate instead Although John 11 has long been a favorite text by traditionalists to quote in the English world it may be surprise many that a modern Greek Bible reader will not likely appeal to such scripture in support of the traditional view Notwithstanding some Bible translators either disagree with the traditional viewpoint of the Logos as

ldquoGodrdquo or may simply feel that the message conveyed by the original Greek language (as demonstrated by the 7 samples above) demands a different translation at John 11c Some would have you believe that only a few insane unschooled translators with diabolical intentions would ever attempt to deviate from the traditionalist reading That is not simply true I believe most translators offering a different version of John 11 are most sincere in their effort to get to the core of the Greek meaning and to adequately transmit the intended message of the biblical author The submitted list of alternate readings at the end is not intended to be a complete list but to show a variety of renderings and viewpoints Keep in mind too that because of its theological significance other Scriptures do not have as many variant translation renderings as this one does

________________________________________

A careful review of the alternate readings list of John 11 and other related material at the end of the article would lead to this question Could anyone legitimately exclude as a valid option the rendering ldquoagodrdquo found in some Bible versions We have seen that grammar alone cannot condemn the use of such translation though many will keep trying Seven examples were provided which clearly show how translators render predicate nouns without the article occurring before the verb In addition note that these seven examples make reference to one person or one thing while John 11 is speaking of ldquotwordquo entities With greater reason then translators should render this grammatical structure in John 11c in away that brings out the indefinite-qualitative aspect rather than convey identification with the Supreme God

A Grammar states ldquoJohn was not saying that lsquothe word was the Fatherrsquo but that lsquothe word was God (divine)rsquordquo (Gramaacutetica Griega-Sintaxis del Nuevo Testamento [Greek Grammar-Syntax of the NT] by Daniel B Wallace amp Daniel S Steffen Parentheses theirs p 182) Consequently if the translation ldquothe word was Godrdquo must be understood in the adjectival sense as ldquodivinerdquo why not translate it that way Itis therefore reasonable to make a distinction between the term ldquotheosrdquo with and without the article here

In all the more accurate Bible translations do make a distinction between ldquotheosrdquo (God) with and without the article in John 11 Does yours Some argue that John did not have to employ the article before the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo to imply that the Word was ldquoGodrdquo Do you believe that If so why then was the Greek article used with the nominal predicate before the verb in John 151 which literally says ldquoThe father of me the farmer isrdquo And in John 651 ldquoThe bread but which I shall give the flesh of me isrdquo It is evident that Bible writers usually employed the article with specific intention and when they omitted it it was equally significant as well

Is it not better to just follow along with the majority view and thus free oneself from religious tension that may accompany those who sustain a minority view First of all it is dangerous to adopt a majority view if this one is in error A majority view held by ldquoscholarsrdquo of itself does not automatically make a matter ldquotruerdquo Why Because scholars are not infallible nor immune to human tradition Were they in Jesus day They were not Scholars today may find themselves in error just as many scribes were in Jesus day as Matthew chapter 23 clearly demonstrate (Matthew 159) We are warned that ldquothe whole world lies under the power of the evil onerdquo (1 John 519 New Revised Standard Bible) We should not dismiss ldquoreligionrdquo as being beyond the reach or interest of Satan We all need to be in guard of evil influence at all times being careful of not becoming ldquostone-blindrdquo by ldquothe god of this worldrdquo (2 Cor 44 The Message) Again a majority view does not always represent the truth Thus the doctrinal foundation for Christians should be based not on what the majority believe but rather on what the Bible

itself teaches

What does the Bible really say about Jesus Christ

Simply put Jesus is ldquoSon of Godrdquo not ldquoGod the Sonrdquo (Luke 135 NRSV) There is a vast difference in meaning between those two expressions There are more than two hundred references (200x) in the New Testament that explicitly declare that Jesus Christ is the ldquoSon of Godrdquo or that lsquoGod is the Father of Jesus Christrsquo (For a list of instances see The Preachers Outline and Sermon Bible ldquoJohnrdquo p 27) Yet Christendom prefers to dwell on a handful of texts which are said to describe Jesus as God None of those texts are explicit in declaring Jesus equality with God In Scripture Jesus place in the broad picture is one of sonship that is as Son of God not God Furthermore the word ldquosonrdquo is never used to describe God or the ldquoholy spiritrdquo

Christ is also described as ldquothe image of the invisible God [not God] the firstborn of all creationrdquo (Colossians 115) the ldquomediator between God and menrdquo (1 Timothy 25) Yes it is possible to spin these clear statements to make them say something else but is this what we seek One who plays the role of ldquomediatorrdquo cannot in the name of justice be one and the same person as one of the two parts that he is said to represent Otherwise such individual could not be truly impartial in his judgment Moses as a separate entity was able to really serve as ldquomediatorrdquo between God and Israel Now if Jesus the greater Moses was really one-and-the-same ldquoGodrdquo what ldquojusticerdquo could he convey acting as ldquomediatorrdquo between himself and mankind But no Jesus spoke of his Father as ldquomy Godrdquo and as lsquothe God of everyone elsersquo (John 2017) It was this God (ldquothe only Godrdquo John 544 NKJV NIV) according to Jesus himself who lsquorevealedrsquo things to Christ (Mark 1332 Revelation 11) Any statementwhich says that lsquoGod gave Jesus Christ a revelationrsquo would sound very odd to anyone taught to believe that Christ is the equal of God in every sense Scripture calls Christ ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 1913) And the record shows that it was this Word who was ldquowith God in the beginning not that he was ldquoGodrdquo but like God (Others render ldquoa Godrdquo ldquodivinerdquo - Tomanek Schonfield Heb 13)

Bible writers always speak of Jesus Christ in a subordinate role as in Ephesians 13 ldquoBlessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christrdquo 1 Corinthians 1528 ldquoThe Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him [God] who put all things in subjection to him that God may be all in allrdquo (Darby) In Colossians 31 we read ldquoKeep on seeking the things above where Christ is seated at the right hand of Godrdquo (Williams) Jesus himself made it clear to others ldquoI seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which hath sent merdquo (John 530)

Do Scriptures allow for a secondary sense of the words ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo

In the Scriptures the term lsquogodrsquo has various connotations and cannot be narrowed to one single meaning as some try to do A few scholars sustain that the notion of Jesus Christ as ldquoa godrdquo as if there were other gods beside God is incompatible with Jewish ldquomonotheismrdquo which is the belief in only one God and that it implies polytheism Nevertheless the concept itself that God as an entity is composed of three coequal persons runs counter with Jewish monotheism ldquoThe Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheismrdquo so states the Jewish Encyclopedia (ldquoTrinityrdquo) The teaching of the ldquoShemardquo consisted as has been noted in that ldquoJehovah our God is one Jehovahrdquo (Deuteronomy 64 ASV) What purpose would there be for the ldquoShemardquo to stress that Jehovah is ldquoonerdquo and then confound the matter by stating that that

must mean the Divine One is ldquothree personsrdquo in ldquoonerdquo It is explained frequently that the teaching of theTrinity is a ldquomysteryrdquo The problem with such reasoning is that nowhere does Scripture gives us reason to believe in such a concept It is possible that a person who has been exposed to this doctrine for a long time may see ldquoinsinuationsrdquo of it in the Bible However those individuals must in sincerity ask themselves whether their belief is based on ldquofactsrdquo or instead on emotional ldquofancyrdquo

Certain Scriptures are frequently cited as proof by supporters of the Trinity doctrine that Christ is God Isaiah 446 and Hosea 134 are two such Scriptures which have God Jehovah saying ldquoI am the first and I am the last and beside me there is no Godrdquo ldquoAnd thou shalt know no god but me for there is nosavior [Hebrew עע שהש םי beside merdquo These words are strictly taken literally out of their [(u˙moshia) וומוsetting to mean that there can be no ldquogodrdquo or ldquosaviorrdquo but God almighty In the context in which these words were pronounced Israel Gods people were inclined to worship vain hand-made idols (Isaiah 4217) Hence Gods warning in Isaiah and Hosea People brought up in trinitarian dogma tend to restrict the meaning of the term ldquoGodrdquo to those statements found within the context of Isaiah and Hosea leading them to the conclusion that anyone other than the True God must be a ldquofalserdquo god They define the word God within the context of modern trinitarian mentality instead of ancient Scriptural doctrine Trinitarians reason that if the appellative ldquoGodrdquo is applied to Jesus Christ then reasonably Jesus could be no other than the Lord God himself

However such trinitarian reasonings are missing an important element It has to do with the fact that the word ldquogodrdquo can be applied to others since the term itself seems to be related to someone with power and authority The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explains ldquoThis word [rsquoelōhicircm] can in fact be used for other gods (Gen 3130) and even for men (cf Ex 416 71 cf BDB p43)The derivation [of rsquoelōhicircm] is obscure but the implied sense seems to be that of strength or authorityrdquo (Vol II pg 497 italics added) The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words says ldquoThe word itself [אא ל (rsquoēl) Hebrew word for God] derives from a root term meaning lsquopowerrsquo lsquostrengthrsquo orlsquomightrsquo (Stephen D Renn p 439) And the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible states ldquoCommon to these four suggested root meanings [of El God] is the idea of strength power and of supreme excellence and greatnessrdquo (Vol 1 p 881) This may explain why various Bible versions at John 11c describe the Logos as ldquoa powerful divine beingrdquo or the like instead of saying ldquoGodrdquo When the whole context of Scripture is considered it is evident that the words spoken by God found in Isaiah and Hosea are very true in a specific sense namely that there is but one Supreme God and one Main Savior This truth does not rule out the existence of lsquogodlike onesrsquo under God (Job 387 Psalms 291 896)

Is it possible to speak of divine beings (ldquogodsrdquo) existing alongside God

Scholar John Macquarrie in Jesus Christ in Modern Thought claims that the Jewish monotheistic culturewould never tolerate the idea of the Logos belonging to a class of divine beings (P 110) Not quite Other scholars have a different view Ernst Haenchen for example claims the opposite in accord with Scripture ldquoIn the period in which the hymn [at John 11] took its rise it was quite possible in Jewishand Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him Phil 26-10 proves thatrdquo (A Commentary on the Gospel of John John 1Transl by Robert W Funk from Das Johannesevangelium Ein Kommentar p 109)

Another source has this to say ldquoOn the other hand it was a matter of general knowledge and one which the Bible itself shares and does not attempt to conceal that recognition and worship have often been extended to others than the Jewish-Christian God and the term lsquogodrsquo or lsquogodsrsquo is used for them

also as are the respective Greek and Hebrew words It is the custom to use a capital letter G for the God of the Jewish- Christian tradition and a small letter for the othersrdquo (Dictionary of the Bible JamesHastings Revised Edition 1963 Page 333 Grant amp Rowley Charles Scribners Sons New York)

Lets briefly look at how the Bible itself employs the words for ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture At Exodus 71 we read that God made a man Moses ldquoa godrdquo (Hebrew elohim) before Pharaoh God said to Moses ldquoSee I have made thee a god [Others ldquoa Godrdquo ldquoGodrdquo] to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophetrdquo Would this mean then that Moses himself did become an intrinsic part of the Great Divinity by the mere fact of him being called ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo by the Lord Jehovah himself Of coursenot Other translations clarify the meaning of ldquoGodrdquo used here by the LORD The English Standard Version expresses it this way ldquoSee I have made you like God to Pharaohrdquo And the International Standard Version has the LORD saying ldquoListen Ive put you in the role of God to Pharaohrdquo

And in Exodus 416 God making reference to Aaron tells Moses ldquoYou shall be as God to himrdquo (ESV NAB Hebrew lelohim ldquoas Godrdquo Darby ldquoGodrdquo Leeser ldquoa Godrdquo LXX theon ldquoGodrdquo Vulgate Deum)rdquo Moses was simply given a powerful role as Gods emissary who represented his will In Psalm 456 a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) when he became lsquoking of Israelrsquo was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo Obviously this human king was not in fact the One True God Neither was he a false God as trinitarian reasonings would lead one to believe Simply put Solomons throne was ldquodivinerdquo in the sense that he represented God in a position of authority over others

In the Scriptures we find that Jesus is described in Isaiah 96 as ldquoMighty Godrdquo and as ldquoSon of Godrdquo in other places (John 134) What about angels What do we call them Humans Not Angels are in nature heavenly beings closer to God than to men They are powerful divine spirits that reflect Gods glory and Godship They are ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 16) They are ldquogodsrdquo themselves What do we call aldquosonrdquo of a ldquohumanrdquo This ldquosonrdquo is himself a ldquohumanrdquo is he not Just as there is a family of human beings sharing ldquohumanityrdquo there is also a family of celestial beings yes ldquodivine beingsrdquo or ldquogodsrdquo sharing ldquodivinityrdquo A ldquosonrdquo of ldquoGodrdquo is ldquoa godrdquo or a lsquoreflectionrsquo of God Or it could simply refer to ldquoOne who shares a close relationship with Godrdquo (The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary) Notwithstanding the expression ldquoson of Godrdquo is never synonymous with God ( Some argue that the expression ldquoAlmightyrdquo in Revelation 18 applies to Christ but there is no concrete evidence for the claim)

Psalm 821 tells us that ldquoGod standeth in the congregation of the mighty [Brenton ldquogodsrdquo] he judgeth among the godsrdquo The Syriac Peshitta here has ldquoangelsrdquo instead of ldquogodsrdquo while Tanakh has ldquodivine beingsrdquo The Targums offer the alternate reading of ldquojudgesrdquo Whether we apply the term ldquogodsrdquo in verse one of this psalm (Psalm 821) to angels or human judges as Gods representatives (as in verse 6) as the Targums do it still proves that in the Bible other living beings other than God Almighty are spoken of as ldquogodsrdquo or ldquosons of Godrdquo with no hint of polytheism by such use The Andrews Study Bible explains under Psalm 821 ldquogods Term designates earthly rulers leaders mighty ones judges andor princes (v 7) who were Gods representatives and whose work was divinely appointed (Ex 2228 Deut 117 1618 2 Chr 196 compare with Heb 137)rdquo And The NIV Study Bible has this footnote on Psalm 821 ldquogods See v 6 In the language of the OTmdashand in accordance with the conceptual world of the ancient Near Eastmdashrulers and judges as deputies of the heavenly King could be given the honorific title lsquogodrsquo [hellip] or be called lsquoson of Godrsquo []rdquo See also the Psalm 821 footnotes of The Believers Study Bible The Wesley Bible and the HCSB Study Bible

Mighty angels and powerful human rulers or judges called ldquogodsrdquo in Scripture were considered ldquodivinerdquo or ldquogodlikerdquo when they acted on behalf of God As the Lord told Moses ldquoI will make you seem like God to Pharaohrdquo (Exodus 71 NLT) Even people of biblical times used the term ldquoGodrdquo freely in reference to powerful human leaders or people who displayed ldquosupernaturalrdquo feats Acts 1222informs us that when king Herod gave a public speech in royal robes the crowd cheered him on shouting ldquoIt is the voice of a god and not of a manrdquo On another occasion the people of a small island called Paul theos that is ldquoa godrdquo when they witnessed his superhuman powers (Acts 286 Compare with Acts 1411) With this information at hand Robert Young a master of various ancient languages concluded ldquoGodmdashis used of any one (professedly) mighty whether truly so or not and is applied not only to the true God but to false gods Magistratesjudges angels prophets etc eg Ex 71 John 11 1033 34 35 2028 rdquo ndash Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible Eerdmans Publ 1978

Then why do religious writers out there act like no one but God can be referred to as ldquodivinerdquo or ldquoa godrdquo For them anyone else but the true God is a false god They are confining themselves within a box with the Scriptural context of Isaiah chapter 43 44 and 45 discussed above where they refuse to seethe term ldquogodrdquo being used elsewhere in Scripture in a more broadly manner than their biased narrowed definition allows them to In fact even Satan is called ldquothe god [Gr ὁ θεὸς] of this worldrdquo because he actually lsquorulesrsquo this wicked world by the power he exerts over mankind (2 Cor 44 John 1231 1 John 519) Was calling Satan ldquothe god of this worldrdquo meant to promote polytheism Thus the original words for ldquogodrdquo of themselves do not signal whether a god is true or false With some exceptions the Inspired Scriptures commonly affixes the definite article (ldquotherdquo) before the word ldquoGodrdquo to distinguish the Supreme God from other gods This holds true for both the Hebrew and Greek Bible portions

It is clear from the biblical record that in ancient Jewish culture people saw no problem speaking of ldquodivine beingsrdquo under the Supreme God To them it was not exclusively a matter of whether they were true or false ldquogodsrdquo In their cultural mindset the term ldquogodsrdquo when applied positively to others beside the Most High God meant that they were powerful representatives of God whether it was Christ spokenof angels or human judges When speaking of powerful heavenly beings in glory the term ldquosons of Godrdquo was fully acceptable There is no record of Jesus displaying any feelings of disgust when claiming he was ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 1036 NIV) Why should we then

Hence anyone else other than God labeled ldquogodrdquo in Scripture in a positive light are simply divine beings created in the image of the True God belonging to the heavenly family of ldquogodlikerdquo ones The term ldquogodrdquo may also be Scripturally used to describe human beings holding a position of power and authority when appointed by God When the term is used this way polytheism is not an issue

What about the Christ

At John 1033-36 Christ himself appealed to Psalm 82 where the term ldquogodsrdquo was applied to persons other than God Jesus was refuting the charge of blasphemy that he was making himself ldquoGgodrdquo as invalid because he was only claiming to be not God but ldquoGods Sonrdquo which is totally different Jesus had an excellent opportunity here to claim once and for all that he was ldquoGodrdquo but once again he did not do so Jesus Christ holds a much higher position than any angel or man but is still subordinate to his Father God (1 Corinthians 113 Hebrews 32 Colossians 13)

Angels were made subject to Christ after he himself was placed at Gods right hand (1 Peter 322) Although both angels and Christ are described as lsquosons of Godrsquo only Jesus Christ is distinctively called

ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo according to some manuscripts (John 118 Murdock Noyes Concordant Literal Version) Or ldquothe one-begotten Godrdquo (Etheridge) The Word Study Greek-English New Testament describes the Logos as the ldquoonly born Godrdquo (John 118 Paul R McReynolds) Only Christ is called ldquothe firstborn of all creationrdquo a term never used for the lsquoSuperiorityrsquo of God or the holy spirit (Colossians 115) Could Trinitarians ever answer the following question If Christ was not created as some claim who then was the first creation by God Also who is ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo Surely someone lsquocreated firstrsquo in the universe would be honored with the title lsquothe firstborn of all creationrsquo Is there any other way to express such event The Bible simply points to Christ as such of which is said ldquoThese things saith the Amen the faithful and true witness the beginning of the creation of Godrdquo Whatdoes lsquothe beginning of Gods creationrsquo really mean Another Bible translation puts it this way ldquoThe one who is in the origin of things created by God [El que estaacute en el origen de las cosas creadas por Dios]rdquo (Biblia de Ameacuterica approved by various Episcopalian dioceses in Central and South America Casa de la Biblia Madrid) No ldquomysteryrdquo here Its that simple

Could there be any ldquosaviorrdquo other than God

The Sovereign Lord God is the main Savior but he may allow others to act as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo on his behalf in certain situations We find that the term is applied to Christ as the prime agent of salvation (2 Peter 220 1 John 414 Titus 14) We are told that men too like Othniel and Ehud were used as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo of their people (Judges 216 3915 Hebrew moshia same word used for God at Isaiah Compare with Isaiah 452 Hebrew u˙moshia Nehemiah 927 Hebrew moshiim plural of moshia) Would this mean then that those men called ldquosaviorsrdquo in Scripture form a part of the Supreme Divinity No there is a better explanation as found in the NIV

The NIV Study Bible has this to say of Israels leaders or judges ldquoTheir principal purpose is best expressed in [Judges] 216 lsquoThen the LORD raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of hellip raidersrsquo Since it was God who permitted the oppressions and raised up deliverers [saviors] he himself was Israels ultimate Judge and Deliverer [Savior] (1127 see 823 where Gideon a judge insists that the Lord is Israels true rulerrdquo (p 325) The Bible uses the same original words (ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo) for God Christ and men Does it mean they all are the same person or co-equal The context then iswhat determines the correct application for each occurrence of those terms

Who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo

In contrast to others who were called ldquosaviorsrdquo of the people of Israel Jesus is called ldquoSavior of the worldrdquo Jesus can potentially save not only Israel but all of mankind from bondage to sin and from death itself (John 316 1 John 414) Although Christ is undoubtedly a greater Savior than any man heis still subject to the Grandest Savior of all (Isaiah 4311 Acts 412 1 Corinthians 1528) Christ himself came to be in a situation where he had to cry out with a loud voice for salvation Right before his death he implored ldquoMy God my God why hast thou forsaken merdquo He had to be saved by God (Matthew 2746 Hebrews 57 Psalm 288)

Acts 531 tells us who was the One who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquoGod exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israelrdquo (NRSV) According to this scripture whatever capacity Jesus had as ldquosaviorrdquo was due to God To insist that Jesus is ldquoGodrdquo because of his description as ldquosaviorrdquo then we could reason all the same that men such as Othniel and Ehud were alsoldquoGodrdquo because they too were called saviors Overall ldquocontextrdquo should be the guiding principle for the

right comprehension of biblical terms

Jesus as ldquoSon of manrdquo

Jesus made reference to himself in the Gospels nearly 80 times as ldquothe Son of manrdquo an expression indicating he was truly a ldquomanrdquo while on earth not a God-man (Matthew 820 etc) According to Hebrews 29 Jesus ldquowas made a little lower than the angelsrdquo so he could taste death for everyone God cannot ever become ldquolower than the angelsrdquo he created John 114 tells us that it was lsquothe Word who became fleshrsquo not God The doctrine of the ldquoincarnationrdquo as commonly taught actually twists the meaning of John 114 because the text does not say at all that lsquoGod became fleshrsquo Instead it says ldquothe Wordrdquo did Plain and simple 2 John 7 only confirms this In other words the Logos Jesus Christ became ldquohumanrdquo or ldquoa human beingrdquo One scripture often misused to prove that God was made flesh is 1 Timothy 316 but this text did not originally say ldquoGod was manifest in the fleshrdquo as it reads in a few Bible versions since such reading is defective Other translations of the Bible have corrected this error in translation saying instead ldquoHe [or ldquoWhordquo] was manifested in the fleshrdquo allowing for lsquoChrist as the One being manifested in the fleshrsquo For a consideration of 1 Tim 316 see httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

In an effort to simplify the meaning of the expression ldquoSon of manrdquo in reference to Christ in our culture a modern Bible version used the expression ldquothe Human Onerdquo repeatedly (Common English Bible) ldquoThe general use of lsquoson of manrsquo occurs in poetic texts in which the phrase functions as a synonym for lsquomanrsquo or lsquohuman beingrsquo rdquo (The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary) The NIV at Daniel 713 confirms the meaning of the expression ldquoson of manrdquo in a footnote ldquoThe Aramaic phrase bar enash [son of man]means human being The phrase son of man is retained here because of its use in the New Testament as a title of Jesus probably based largely on this verserdquo (2011 Edition) The apostle was very familiar withthis much used expression of Jesus If ldquoSon of manrdquo meant he was a ldquohuman beingrdquo on earth then John would use the similar expression a son of God (or Gods Son) in a way humans would naturally understand it That is lsquoof divine originrsquo (ldquoa godrdquo) without any foreign trinitarian speculation of a later era which Jesus disciples were unaware of (John 1033-36) Jesus divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship As noted the expression may also refer to lsquoone who shares a close relationship with Godrsquo As future co-heirs in the kingdom of Christ human creatures too are designated as ldquosons of Godrdquo but never become identical to the Sovereign God Again polytheism is not an issue here No need to make this into a ldquomysteryrdquo

Why does the Bible speak sometimes as if Jesus Christ himself was ldquoGodrdquo

The Jewish nation already believed and sought lsquoto honorrsquo the Father of Abraham Isaac and Jacob This monotheistic culture adhered to the Mosaic Law as they worshiped the true God But many prophecies which appeared in the Hebrew code identified the Messiah as lsquoemancipatorrsquo of their bondage to sin Themajority of the Jews where hoping the foretold Messiah would rescue them from the Roman yoke Instead of getting involved in earthly politics Jesus repeatedly spoke of lsquoGods kingdomrsquo hence comparatively few exercised faith in him In contrast to the few who believed in Jesus as being ldquosentrdquo by God the majority of Jews could look no further from the man they considered their Father AbrahamThey were blind in their self-sufficiency

There was thus an urgent need to communicate to the Jewish people that exercising faith in Christ was essential to their salvation But how would one do that To start by making them see that Jesus Christ

ldquoI perceive that thou art a prophetrdquo (King James Version) ldquoI view that a prophet you arerdquo (Charles Van der Pool 2006) ldquoI perceive that a prophet art thourdquo (Alfred Marshall D Litt The Interlinear Greek-English NT) ldquoI see that thou art a prophetrdquo (Confraternity Version) ldquoI see that you are a prophetrdquo (New Revised Standard Version) ldquoOh so youre a prophetrdquo (The Message) ldquoI perceive that a prophet are Yourdquo (Interlinear Farstad Hodges Moss Picirilli Pickering) ldquoAre You a prophetrdquo (The Clear Word) ldquoI can see that you are a prophetrdquo (NIV) ldquoI see you are a prophetrdquo (Christian Community Bible) ldquoI perceive that You are a prophetrdquo (NASB) ldquoI see you are a prophetrdquo (The Authentic New Testament Hugh J Schonfield) ldquoI can see that you are a prophetrdquo (Jewish New Testament David H Stern)

Here most English translations have no problem adding the indefinite article (a) before the anarthrous (article-less) noun ldquoprophetrdquo It is appropriate to do so Take notice of the initial lowercase letter in ldquoprophetrdquo not ldquoProphetrdquo In English the a is required before the noun ldquoprophetrdquo used above in an indefinite-qualitative sense It is describing an attribute about the Master as a prophet not identifying him as ldquotheir Prophetrdquo This Samaritan woman of another religion who accepted no more than the Pentateuch did not have sufficient knowledge about the male stranger she just met (Jesus) as the account shows to conclude that he was lsquothe Prophetrsquo or the promised ldquoMessiahrdquo Nevertheless she discovered he had special insight and could describe him as ldquopropheticrdquo or ldquoa prophetrdquo of some kind Jesus was able to have this prophetic ability because God had empowered him with his spirit (Acts 1038)

By the way those of you who know a Romance (or Latin derived) language such as French Italian Portuguese or Spanish may find it a tad easier to follow this discussion regarding the use or absence of the indefinite article The reason for that is that in everyday speech those who speak one of the Latin languages do not have to use the indefinite article as frequently as opposed to those who only speak English which requires using it more often to make a noun indefinite or qualitative Consequently it may be easier to see the connection of the qualitative force of singular anarthrous nouns between Greek and one of the Latin languages A comparison of modern translations of such nouns between English and one of the Latin based languages will bear this out

For instance in Spanish you can either employ or not the indefinite article and still retain the qualitative force of singular anarthrous nouns (See El Griego Biacuteblico Al Alcance De Todos by J A Septieacuten p 122 Editorial CLIE Barcelona) At John 419 you can have the woman say to Jesus ldquoMe parece que tuacute eres profeta [I perceive that you are prophet]rdquo as the Protestant Reina-Valera does or have her say ldquoVeo que tuacute eres un profeta [I can see that your are a prophet]rdquo as the Catholic Torres Amat does Actually it is common in Spanish Bibles to use ldquoprofetardquo without the ldquounrdquo while some translators do add the (un the equivalent of a) to make it more specific ldquoun profetardquo Not only is this an acceptable translation from Greek to Spanish it sounds natural either way unlike English

Similarly in French you can say ldquoje vois que tu es prophegraveterdquo (I see that you are prophet Segond) or you can say ldquoje vois que tu es un prophegraveterdquo (I see that you are a prophet Darby French) The first French reading does not use the indefinite article while the second one does In Italian ldquoio veggoche tu sei profetardquo (I see that you are prophet Diodati) or ldquotu sei un profetardquo (you are a prophet

La Parola egrave Vita) The first Italian version lacks the indefinite article and the second one adds it Both renderings are acceptable One stresses the qualitative aspect and the other the indefinite status of the predicate noun Even Wallace acknowledged ldquoIt is nevertheless difficult to distinguish indefinite from qualitative nouns at times (just as at other times it is difficult to distinguish qualitative from definite nouns) The very fact that any member of a class is mentioned highlights to some degree that particular classndashhence making some kind of qualitative statementrdquo (op cit Wallace p 266 footnote)Wallace adds ldquoAlthough the translation [of John 419] is most naturally lsquoSir I perceive that you are a prophetrsquo the sense may be better characterized as indefinite-qualitativerdquo The same can be said of John 11c (Ibid page 266)

At John 419 natural spoken English requires the use of the ldquoardquo before prophet to bring out the Greek sense in our language and most English Bibles do so To be consistent Bible versions which render John 419 in an indefinite sense (a prophet) or with a lowercase letter ldquoprophetrdquo could do the very same thing in John 11c with its similar grammatical construction One really has to wonder why some individuals who claim to have competence in the Greek fail to understand or acknowledge publicly that in translation work there is often more than one way to render some biblical passages They let religious feelings get in the way clouding their judgment This is made obvious when they seek to convey to others that those who render a certain passage differently from the norm are being ldquoignorantrdquoin the Greek department

5th Example (John 101)

Greek ἐκεῖνος κλέπτης ἐστὶν καὶ λῃστής that (one) thief is and robber

Here Jesus initiates dissertation about how he as a fine shepherd protects his sheep from dangerous individuals that resemble wolves The man who does not enter the sheepfold through the door but climbs in by some other way is a

ldquothe same is a thief and a robberrdquo (William Tyndales NT 1534 Daniell edition) ldquothe same is a thief and a robberrdquo (DouayndashRheims Bible) ldquothe same is a thief and a robberrdquo (New King James Version) ldquois a thief and a banditrdquo (New Jerusalem Bible) ldquois a thief and an outlawrdquo (Common English Bible) ldquothat one is a thief and robberrdquo (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot) ldquothat man is a thief and a robberrdquo (English Standard Version) ldquois a thief and a robberrdquo (New American Bible) ldquothat one is a thief and a robberrdquo (Greek and English Interlinear NT Mounce) ldquothat man is a thief and a robberrdquo (Revised Standard Bible) ldquois a thief and a roguerdquo (Phillips Modern English) ldquohe is a thief and a brigandrdquo (A New Translation by William Barclay) ldquois nothing but a thief or a robberrdquo (New English Bible) ldquohe is either a robber or a banditrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English) ldquois a thief and a robberrdquo (William F Beck-NT) ldquothat one is a thief and a robberrdquo (Literal Translation Version)

Smooth English requires the use of the indefinite article (a) before either thief and robber or both

Most English translations do this Again to be consistent with this syntactical construction these translations could have used the indefinite article (a) at John 11c and have it read ldquothe Word was a godrdquo And if Bible translators are reluctant to use the indefinite article at John 11c they could have at least rendered the anarthrous noun ldquoGodrdquo in such way that brings out the descriptive nature (as an adjective) of such nouns by rendering it ldquoand the Word was god (or divine)rdquo to be consistent with theirother renderings which follow this pattern By the way some translations render it this way

ldquoand the Word was godrdquo (Professor Charles C Torrey Yale University 1947) ldquoand the Logos was god [eacutetait dieu]rdquo (Herbert Pernot 1925 Paris) ldquoand the Word was divinerdquo (E J Goodspeed) ldquoand the Word was god [eacutetait dieu]rdquo (Traduction du monde nouveau 1987) ldquoThe Word was god [eacutetait dieu]rdquo (Marc J H Oltramare 1872 University Professor Geneva) ldquoSo the Word was divinerdquo (Hugh J Schonfield) ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo (Reijnier Rooleeuw MD) ldquoand god was the Word [y dios era la Palabra]rdquo (J J Bartolomeacute Madrid 2002)

6th Example (1 Kings 1827 Septuagint LXX)

Greek ὅτι θεός ἐστιν Hebrew ההו א ההה םים א אל כהכ םי ־ for god is (he) he god for lt ldquoFor he is a godrdquo (Sir Lancelot C L Brentons translation from the Greek LXX) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Septuagint LXX Charles Thomson) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (The Apostles Bible A Modern English Translation of the Greek Septuagint by Paul W Esposito 2004) ldquoFor he is a godrdquo (New English Translation of the Septuagint [NETS] 2007) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (The Orthodox Study Bible St Athanasius Academy Septuagint 2008 LXX) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Orthodox England Michael Asser 2001-2010 based on the Greek text [LXX] of the version published by the Greek Orthodox Church Apostoliki Diakonia) ldquofor a god herdquo (Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament) ldquofor god herdquo (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Jewish Publication Society 1917 Translated from the Hebrew) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts [tr Syriac] George M Lamsa) ldquofor he is godrdquo [pues eacutel es dios] (La Biblia Peshitta en Espantildeol translated from the AramaicSyriac)

ldquobecause god (he) is [porque dios es]rdquo (La Sagrada Biblia G Juumlnemann B 1992 Greek LXX) ldquofor Baal is youre god [for Baal is your god]rdquo (John Wycliffes Translation transl f Latin c 1384) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Douay-Rheims Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate ldquodeus enim estrdquo)

In this account we read of Elijah mocking Baal a false god The Greek construction is similar to that ofJohn 11c Just as in the other instances of theos without the article (ldquotherdquo) and preceding the verb translators find it necessary in English to add the indefinite article (a) to complete the sense in our language Had the speaker used the article before theos it could be taken then as a reference to Baal being ldquoGodrdquo not ldquoa godrdquo Would it not Observe that John Wycliffes Translation from Latin did not capitalize the ldquogrdquo in ldquogodrdquo Also the two Spanish translations above one from the Greek LXX by

Juumlnemann and the other a Peshitta from the Aramaic do not capitalize the ldquogrdquo in ldquogodrdquo Actually in Spanish it is not required to use the indefinite article (a) in this construction to obtain nearly the same effect as the English statement ldquofor he is a godrdquo Surely the translators of this Spanish version were not suggesting that Elijah was calling Baal ldquoGodrdquo In Hebrew we find the reading ההו א ההה םים א אל כהכ םי־ (ki-elohim hu Literally because god [is] he) likewise translated in our English versions as ldquoFor he isa godrdquo Thus Bible translations from both the Hebrew and Greek (LXX ) texts here and from the Latin and Syriac versions as well all reflect indefinite or qualitative renderings ndash good indicators which show how John 11c with similar syntax should be translated

If you have carefully followed this discussion to this point you may have observed that the indefinite translation of anarthrous predicate nouns (using ldquoardquo) similar in construction to John 11c is a valid option to consider Why is this significant to mention Because Trinitarian scholars try so hard to disengage the likelihood of the indefinite notion in the discussion of John 11c They keep saying that a grammatical construction such as we find in John 11 should be rendered qualitatively usually ignoring or denying the possible indefinite nuance of anarthrous nouns before the verb However in these samples we see a pattern where translators freely use one of those two aspects (indefinite or qualitative)in the translations sometimes alternating between the two It appears then that theology is a factor in their denial of this fact

7th Example (Xenophons Anabasis 146)

Greek εμπoacuteριον δrsquo ην το χωρiacuteον market and was the place

(A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey had this to say (under the heading ldquoWith the Subject in a Copulative Sentencerdquo) ldquoThe article sometimes distinguishes the subjectfrom the predicate in a copulative sentence In Xenophons Anabasis 146 εμπoacuteριον δrsquo ην το χωρiacuteον and the place was a market we have a parallel case to what we have in John 11 καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος and the word was deity The article points out the subject in these examples Neither was the place the only market nor was the word all of God as it would mean if the article were also used with θεός As it stands the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo (Page 148 paragraph laquo3raquo Italics theirs) I agree with the above comment However I feel that the last statement about ldquothe other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo is superfluous This is clearly a case of two Baptist grammarians reading far more into the text than is warranted John chapter 1 is not speaking of three persons in the Godhead Actually the whole Gospel of John makes no mention whatsoever of three persons in one God This language is totally foreign to the New Testament

To run more parallel with Xenophons statement and the place was a market this Grammar could have translated John 11c and the word was a god I am aware that Dr Julius R Mantey has been openly opposed (to put it mildly) to the NW translation ldquothe Word was a godrdquo Nevertheless the example theyset forth seems to contradict Manteys statements Compare the literal Greek reading of Xenophons statement with the suggested translation by Dana and Mantey of which Mantey says is ldquoa parallel caserdquo to John 11c and see for yourself

ldquoand the place was market rdquo (Literal reading in English order Anabasis 146) ldquoand the word was god rdquo (Literal reading in English order John 11c)

ldquoand the place was a market rdquo (Suggested translation by Dana and Mantey) ldquoand the Word was a god rdquo (Controversial translation criticized by Mantey)

The translation offered by Dr Dana and Dr Mantey ldquoand the place was a marketrdquo as indicated above is an unintended admission that ldquothe Word was a godrdquo is a proper translation even though as Trinitarians they prefer another and the word was deity Note too that their suggested translation of John 11c and the word was deity is not the same thing as saying that the word was entirely God for they said ldquonor was the word all of Godrdquo Additionally the use of the word ldquomayrdquo in the statement ldquothe three persons may be impliedrdquo reveals a theological speculation not a fact The truth is that Jesus himself spoke of his Father God as ldquothe only Godrdquo (NIV New King James Version John 544) If Jesus is not ldquothe only Godrdquo who is he then Christ is time and again described as ldquoGods Sonrdquo hence a reflection of Gods glory ldquogodlikerdquo ldquodivinerdquo The Bible itself says ldquoThe Son reflects Gods own gloryand everything about him represents God exactlyrdquo (Hebrews 13 New Living Translation) This focus on Christ by Christian Writers throughout the New Testament led William Barclay to caution ldquoTo say that the Word was God is too much to say that the Word was Divine is too littlerdquo (ldquoGreat Themes of the New Testament II John 11-14rdquo Expository Times 70 (1958-59) 114)

Much has been made of the publication of a letter Mantey wrote to the publishers of the NWT (WT Society) where Mantey asked the WTS to stop quoting him by name since he felt they were misquotingtheir Grammar Many have seized this incident to lash out slanderous statements at the WTS for alleged ldquoscholastic dishonestyrdquo I feel this attack has not much merit It is in the main a theological objection For the benefit of those who do not have these two publications I will reproduce here what the NWT said right before and after quoting the Grammar of Dana and Mantey ldquoCareful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity a personality whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about someone That is what A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey remarks on page 140 paragraph vii [ldquoThe articular construction emphasizes identity the anarthrous construction emphasizes characterrdquo] Accordingly on page 148 paragraph (3) this same publication says about the subject of a copulative sentence [hellip quoted above at beginning of this section] Instead of translating John 11 and the word was deity thisGrammar could have translated it and the word was a god to run more parallel with Xenophons statement and the place was a marketrdquo (NWT Appendix page 774)

In my opinion the NWT quote of the Grammar was accurate enough with one exception The NWT Committee omitted this sentence ldquoAs it stands the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo And it is this omission which Dr Mantey most likely objected to I too believe this sentence was not critical in the context of the grammar being considered to prove the authors point but whether they were ldquodishonestrdquo or not by omitting this one sentence in their quote I leave it for the reader to decide Apparently the NW translators intended to avoid the dogmatic Trinity subject in their Appendix at that point When quoting Dana and Mantey the NWT Committee could certainly have been more explicit by implying for example that in their opinion the authors used an argument that in effect allowed the reading ldquothe word was a godrdquo as a ldquoparallel caserdquo to Xenophons statement ldquothe place was a marketrdquo instead of insinuating by mode of silence that the trinitarian authors approved of such reading (To readmore about the practice of WTS ldquoquoting sourcesrdquo see Note 1 at the end of the article)

Interestingly Dana and Manteys Grammar says on pages 138 139 140 ldquoWhen identity is prominent we find the article and when quality or character is stressed the construction is anarthrous [without thearticle]rdquo And ldquoThe use of the articular and anarthrous constructions of θεός is highly instructive A

study of the uses of the term as given in Moulton and Gedens Concordance convinces one that without the article θεός signifies divine essence while with the article divine personality is chiefly in viewrdquo Furthermore on page 140 on the use of the article in the Greek text it says ldquoThe articular constructionemphasizes identity the anarthrous construction emphasizes characterrdquo

Dr Julius R Mantey did include this statement in his letter of repudiation to the WTS mentioned earlierldquoProf Harner Vol 921 in JBL has gone beyond Colwells research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subjectrdquo (July 11 1974) Instead of advocating a trinity this statement of Mantey quoting Professor Harner oddlysupports some of the arguments published in the 1950 and the 1984 NWT Editions

Going by grammar alone one could say that the renderings ldquothe place was a marketrdquo ldquothe Word was agod [divine]rdquo and ldquothe word was deityrdquo all three potentially agree with the grammar principles expounded by Dana amp Mantey on the articular and the anarthrous constructions of θεός on pages 138-140 and on page 148 though they may not admit to it Again let us not forget their clear message ldquoNeither was the place the only market [the place was a market] nor was the word all of Godrdquo

Coming back to translation issues we can see that generally modern translations do make an effort to convey a difference in translation between predicate nouns with and without the article preceding the verb If we take a look at John 151 where John uses the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the verb ldquo(ho georgoacutes estin) the farmer isrdquo we will find that translators generally reflect that fact in translation However here in John 11 they are reluctant to produce a translation which shows the fact that the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo in this verse lacks the article Why Is it because Greek grammar demands the rendering ldquoGodrdquo Not at all The seven (7) submitted samples clearly indicate that it is not grammar but ldquotheologyrdquo for the reluctance Even Greek scholars teach that ldquowhen a Greek noun lacksthe definite article it normally will be translated as indefiniterdquo (A Primer of Biblical Greek by N Clayton Croy assistant professor of NT at Trinity Luther Seminary Columbus Ohio p 15) At John 11 translators in their drive to make Jesus appear identical to God will use a capital G when Jesus is spoken of Patterns of Greek grammar as seen in the above examples and elsewhere are ignored to sustain their theology (Note the use of ldquonormallyrdquo here because the author is aware that there is lsquono hard rulersquo that can be applied at all times in regards to the use of the article or lack of But his statement holds generally true as in here)

John 12 would be pointless tautology if John meant that the Logos was identical to God as some translations suggest It is also misleading to translate John 11 ldquothe Word was fully Godrdquo as the NET Bible does If we were to use the NET Bibles reasoning which appears in their note of John 11 and apply it to samples discussed above with similar syntax we would get the following translations ldquoThis man [Paul] must be fully Murdererrdquo ldquoThat one [climbing over the fence] is fully Thief and fully Robberrdquo ldquofor he (Baal) is fully Godrdquo ldquoand the place was fully Marketrdquo

Does that make sense Baal a pagan god was certainly not lsquofully Godrsquo in the sense of him being the Supreme God But Elijah could depict Baal as ldquoa godrdquo for he was not lsquothe only godrsquo among the heathens And to say ldquothe place was fully Marketrdquo is meaningless In fact Dana and Mantey argued against the place being The Market the only market They conclude that the Greek construction demands ldquothe place was a marketrdquo And Dana and Mantey pointed out that the Greek construction of John 11 tells us that lsquothe word was deity [ldquodivinerdquo but] not all of Godrsquo

In Marks gospel (649) where Jesus appeared walking over the waters next to the disciples boat duringa storm in which they became terrified after seeing an ldquoapparitionrdquo or ldquophantomrdquo of some sort (since they were unaware it was Jesus) they screamed ldquoIts a ghostrdquo according to some Bible versions (Or ldquoa spiritrdquo KJV) The grammatical structure of Mark 649 and John 11 are similar so how do Bible translations deal with this Do they have the disciples crying out ldquoHe is fully Ghost Or would they scream instead ldquoHe is Phantomrdquo No Most Bibles have the disciples believing or saying it was ldquoa ghostrdquoor ldquoa phantomrdquo or ldquoan apparitionrdquo of some sort At no time do translators argue that it should be translated as they do at John 11c by capitalizing the predicate noun and omitting the indefinite article ldquoardquo John 11 is no exception to the norm Bible translators follow the pattern described by Professor Clayton Croy ldquoWhen a Greek noun lacks the definite article it normally will be translated as indefiniterdquo (op cit A Primer) In the examples above Bible translators have shown us how they really deal with syntax similar to John 11c We have ldquoa hard saying a murderer a devil a prophet a thief a robber a god a market a ghost etc At John 1837 we have ldquoa kingrdquo twice English Bibles do not have Pilate asking Jesus if he was the ldquoKingrdquo Instead English translations followthe pattern described above and render Pilates question as ldquoArt thou a king thenrdquo

In all these cases a predicate noun without the Greek article precedes a verb just as we have in John 11c Accordingly then why not reflect this pattern at John 11 especially so when two entities are being spoken of in the verse and the second occurrence of θεός lacks the article Let us not miss the previous statement by a distinguished grammarian A ldquomost common userdquo of the Greek article is to point out hellip ldquoIndividual from Other Individualsrdquo (op cit Short Grammar p 275)

Although grammarian David Alan Black a Trinitarian objects to the ldquoa Godrdquo rendering at John 11 he takes a page from Dana and Manteys Grammar when he writes ldquoIf the article were also used with θεός the statement would mean that all of God was expressed in the Word As it is the Word is neither lsquoa Godrsquo nor equal with the sum total of Godrdquo (Its Still Greek to Me p 79) This statement by Black appears to contradict the NET Bibles translation of John 11c Blacks conclusion is similar to Danas and Manteys that is ldquothe Word was Deity [θεός]rdquo (Brackets his) In similar vein The New Testament in Plain English translates John 11c as ldquothe Word was Godrdquo However a footnote says ldquoOr Deity Divine (which is actually a better translation because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word)rdquo (Underline added 2003) Now this footnote begs the question If the rendering ldquothe Word was Deity Divinerdquo is actually a ldquobetter translationrdquo why not use that in the main text It seems that trinitarian translators have difficulty in displaying a rendering other than ldquothe Word was Godrdquo even when they acknowledge there are lsquobetter translationsrsquo for the anarthrous θεός in John 11c

In English using a capital letter in ldquofully Godrdquo is misleading to someone brought up in trinitarian teaching A trinitarian believer would likely take that rendering as conveying that Christ is Almighty God himself a concept in conflict with what Christ himself stated at John 173 and John 2017 Daniel Wallace previously quoted and author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics wrote a most interesting comment which reveals how theology plays a big role at the time of translating John 11 ldquoAlthough I believe that θεός in 11c is qualitative I think the simplest and most straightforward translation is lsquoand the Word was Godrsquo It may be better to clearly affirm the NT teaching of the deity of Christ and then explain that he is not the Father than to sound ambiguous on his deity and explain that he is God but is not the Fatherrdquo (Ibid p 269 italics his) What Is he serious

Whats the point of claiming that θεός in 11c is ldquoqualitativerdquo in John 11c as Wallace does emphatically in his Grammar and then suggest to use the rendering lsquothe Word was Godrsquo which implies ldquoidentityrdquo a

ldquopersonalityrdquo the opposite of ldquocharacterrdquo or ldquoqualityrdquo) and be forced to explain that it does not mean what it actually says The end result would then be no less ldquoambiguousrdquo than the alternatives he is obviously trying to avoid Would you not rather have a ldquobetter translationrdquo such as ldquothe Word was divinerdquo which requires no additional explanation The NET Bible (Wallace senior editor) prefers a rendering other than ldquodivinerdquo because he states that ldquodivinerdquo ldquoas a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of Godrdquo However on the word ldquodivinerdquo Murray J Harris responds ldquoBut if θεὸς bears a qualitative sense the rendering lsquodivinersquo should not be dismissed as altogether inappropriate Only if lsquodivinersquo is taken to mean lsquohaving the very nature of Godrsquo does the word accurately convey Johns meaningrdquo (op cit Jesus as God p 68) The argument that ldquodivinerdquo is too generic is weak because really the same argument could be made of the term ldquogodrdquo Jesus applied the term ldquogodsrdquo to humans (John 1034-36) and Paul acknowledged that ldquothere are many gods and many lordsrdquo (1 Corinthians 85) So Wallaces objection is more likely an effort to equate Christ with God at John 11

Truly the Greek Text does not say that Christ wasis the one-and-only God What the Greek does say is that ldquothe Word was with the [True] God and the Word [himself] was a divine beingrdquo thus able to perfectly represent the character of God (Hebrews 13) The only way one could justify the rendering ldquoGodrdquo with a big ldquoGrdquo at John 11c is if the original text had the article before the second instance of theos as well Why Because John is talking about two individuals and deliberately differentiates between the two instances of ldquotheosrdquo by placing the article before the first instance of ldquotheosrdquo and not with the second Max Zerwick (SJ) wrote in this regard ldquoὁ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος [if John would have written ldquothe God was the Logosrdquo] at least in NT usage would signify personal identity of the Word with the Father since the latter [the Father] is ὁ Θεὸς [the God]rdquo (Biblical Greek p 55 Rome)

John wrote the words appearing in verse two to clear any potential misunderstanding that could arise from his bold statement in verse one Marinus de Jonge remarks ldquoThe author of this Prologue clearly wants to identify lsquothe Wordrsquo and God as closely as possible without infringing the belief in the One Godrdquo (Christology in Context The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus Philadelphia Westminster 1988 p 198 Jonge is Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands) So in effect John was saying that the Logos was like God in every imaginable way Hence the New English Bible rendering lsquoWhat God was the Word wasrsquo

Dr Jason BeDuhn explains ldquoIn John 11 the Word is not the one-and-only God but it is a god or divine being I know that sounds strange and even seems impossible coming from the pen of a Christian writer But the fact remains that that is what John wrote His purpose in doing so was at least in part to avoid the notion that God the Father himself incarnated as Christ The one who incarnated was somehow distinct from lsquoGodrsquo while still being lsquoa godrsquo rdquo (op cit Truth in Translation pp 122 123)

Why then are translators unwilling to render John 11c ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo A few reasons could be given Translators mention grammar as one problem an issue addressed throughout this article Others view the rendering ldquoa godrdquo as polytheistic I will further mention two others First is the domino effect of the Trinity doctrine developed centuries after Christ as a means to clamp down raging Christological debates to the point that the doctrine has been taken for granted as ldquotruthrdquo by most ldquoChristianrdquo people since Secondly the role in tradition played by the Latin Vulgate must be mentioned This Latin translation has greatly influenced many translators since its inception from c 405 CE It is well known that the Vulgate heavily influenced early translations of the 16th and 17th Century In fact back then translators were more likely to be familiar with the Latin Vulgate than with the Greek

The Latin Vulgate used no articles (as seen below) and that in conjunction with the Greek lacking the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) and we can see why so many have misunderstood John 11 The Christological debates of past centuries did not improve this state of confusion it made it worse I kindly ask the reader to consider the following Latin and Greek readings as helpful pointers in our discussion Notice in particular the bold letters relevant to our discussion

ndash LATIN (John 11)ldquoIn principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbumrdquo In beginning was Verb and Verb was with God and God was Verb

ndash GREEK (John 11)

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος In beginning was the logos and the logos was toward the god and god was the logos

First of all please notice that Latin makes no distinction between the two occurrences of ldquoGodrdquo in the text (ie both without the article) However Greek being a more specific descriptive language does And it does so by using the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the first occurrence and omitting it before the second Keep in mind what The Translatorrsquos New Testament previously quoted said ldquoIt is difficult to believe that the omission [of the Greek article before the second theos in John 11] is not significantrdquo (p 451) As A T Robertson pointed out ldquoThe article is never meaningless in Greek though it often fails to correspond with the English idiom [hellip] Its free use leads to exactness and finesserdquo (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research p 756) And Buttmann The use of the article [ho ldquotherdquo] has everywhere its positive reasonrdquo (Buttmanns Grammar of NewTestament Greek Bt 88) And another ldquoFor the present the presence or absence of the Greek article should always be carefully indicated in the English translationrdquo (New Testament Greek For Beginners by J Gresham Machen DD LITTD p 35 67) It is the responsibility of the translator to transmit whenever possible this existing difference in the Greek text into the English translation

Which reading of the two languages above (Latin and Greek) shows the greater similarity with the traditional rendering of John 11c Its Latin is it not In fact some Bible translations in other languages have even borrowed the latin word ldquoVerbumrdquo from the Latin Vulgate at John 11 such as the ubiquitous Spanish Reina-Valera which uses ldquoVerbordquo (Verb) instead of ldquoWordrdquo used in English versionsAlso using ldquoVerbordquo Sciacuteo de San Miguel Versioacuten Moderna Goacutemez 2010 Nueva Biblia Latinoamericana de Hoy and the Nueva Versioacuten Internacional Other international versions following the Latin Vulgate at John 11c French Darby Crampon German Luther Bible Italian Diodati and the Portuguese Almeida

It is evident that most English Bibles at John 11 are translating in the spirit of the Latin Vulgate rather than the Greek text regardless of what they claim Surprisingly as you will see in the submitted list of alternate readings at the end of this paper there are some translations though not as popular that are actually closer to the Greek above than the best-selling versions which end up following the Latin Vulgate instead Although John 11 has long been a favorite text by traditionalists to quote in the English world it may be surprise many that a modern Greek Bible reader will not likely appeal to such scripture in support of the traditional view Notwithstanding some Bible translators either disagree with the traditional viewpoint of the Logos as

ldquoGodrdquo or may simply feel that the message conveyed by the original Greek language (as demonstrated by the 7 samples above) demands a different translation at John 11c Some would have you believe that only a few insane unschooled translators with diabolical intentions would ever attempt to deviate from the traditionalist reading That is not simply true I believe most translators offering a different version of John 11 are most sincere in their effort to get to the core of the Greek meaning and to adequately transmit the intended message of the biblical author The submitted list of alternate readings at the end is not intended to be a complete list but to show a variety of renderings and viewpoints Keep in mind too that because of its theological significance other Scriptures do not have as many variant translation renderings as this one does

________________________________________

A careful review of the alternate readings list of John 11 and other related material at the end of the article would lead to this question Could anyone legitimately exclude as a valid option the rendering ldquoagodrdquo found in some Bible versions We have seen that grammar alone cannot condemn the use of such translation though many will keep trying Seven examples were provided which clearly show how translators render predicate nouns without the article occurring before the verb In addition note that these seven examples make reference to one person or one thing while John 11 is speaking of ldquotwordquo entities With greater reason then translators should render this grammatical structure in John 11c in away that brings out the indefinite-qualitative aspect rather than convey identification with the Supreme God

A Grammar states ldquoJohn was not saying that lsquothe word was the Fatherrsquo but that lsquothe word was God (divine)rsquordquo (Gramaacutetica Griega-Sintaxis del Nuevo Testamento [Greek Grammar-Syntax of the NT] by Daniel B Wallace amp Daniel S Steffen Parentheses theirs p 182) Consequently if the translation ldquothe word was Godrdquo must be understood in the adjectival sense as ldquodivinerdquo why not translate it that way Itis therefore reasonable to make a distinction between the term ldquotheosrdquo with and without the article here

In all the more accurate Bible translations do make a distinction between ldquotheosrdquo (God) with and without the article in John 11 Does yours Some argue that John did not have to employ the article before the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo to imply that the Word was ldquoGodrdquo Do you believe that If so why then was the Greek article used with the nominal predicate before the verb in John 151 which literally says ldquoThe father of me the farmer isrdquo And in John 651 ldquoThe bread but which I shall give the flesh of me isrdquo It is evident that Bible writers usually employed the article with specific intention and when they omitted it it was equally significant as well

Is it not better to just follow along with the majority view and thus free oneself from religious tension that may accompany those who sustain a minority view First of all it is dangerous to adopt a majority view if this one is in error A majority view held by ldquoscholarsrdquo of itself does not automatically make a matter ldquotruerdquo Why Because scholars are not infallible nor immune to human tradition Were they in Jesus day They were not Scholars today may find themselves in error just as many scribes were in Jesus day as Matthew chapter 23 clearly demonstrate (Matthew 159) We are warned that ldquothe whole world lies under the power of the evil onerdquo (1 John 519 New Revised Standard Bible) We should not dismiss ldquoreligionrdquo as being beyond the reach or interest of Satan We all need to be in guard of evil influence at all times being careful of not becoming ldquostone-blindrdquo by ldquothe god of this worldrdquo (2 Cor 44 The Message) Again a majority view does not always represent the truth Thus the doctrinal foundation for Christians should be based not on what the majority believe but rather on what the Bible

itself teaches

What does the Bible really say about Jesus Christ

Simply put Jesus is ldquoSon of Godrdquo not ldquoGod the Sonrdquo (Luke 135 NRSV) There is a vast difference in meaning between those two expressions There are more than two hundred references (200x) in the New Testament that explicitly declare that Jesus Christ is the ldquoSon of Godrdquo or that lsquoGod is the Father of Jesus Christrsquo (For a list of instances see The Preachers Outline and Sermon Bible ldquoJohnrdquo p 27) Yet Christendom prefers to dwell on a handful of texts which are said to describe Jesus as God None of those texts are explicit in declaring Jesus equality with God In Scripture Jesus place in the broad picture is one of sonship that is as Son of God not God Furthermore the word ldquosonrdquo is never used to describe God or the ldquoholy spiritrdquo

Christ is also described as ldquothe image of the invisible God [not God] the firstborn of all creationrdquo (Colossians 115) the ldquomediator between God and menrdquo (1 Timothy 25) Yes it is possible to spin these clear statements to make them say something else but is this what we seek One who plays the role of ldquomediatorrdquo cannot in the name of justice be one and the same person as one of the two parts that he is said to represent Otherwise such individual could not be truly impartial in his judgment Moses as a separate entity was able to really serve as ldquomediatorrdquo between God and Israel Now if Jesus the greater Moses was really one-and-the-same ldquoGodrdquo what ldquojusticerdquo could he convey acting as ldquomediatorrdquo between himself and mankind But no Jesus spoke of his Father as ldquomy Godrdquo and as lsquothe God of everyone elsersquo (John 2017) It was this God (ldquothe only Godrdquo John 544 NKJV NIV) according to Jesus himself who lsquorevealedrsquo things to Christ (Mark 1332 Revelation 11) Any statementwhich says that lsquoGod gave Jesus Christ a revelationrsquo would sound very odd to anyone taught to believe that Christ is the equal of God in every sense Scripture calls Christ ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 1913) And the record shows that it was this Word who was ldquowith God in the beginning not that he was ldquoGodrdquo but like God (Others render ldquoa Godrdquo ldquodivinerdquo - Tomanek Schonfield Heb 13)

Bible writers always speak of Jesus Christ in a subordinate role as in Ephesians 13 ldquoBlessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christrdquo 1 Corinthians 1528 ldquoThe Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him [God] who put all things in subjection to him that God may be all in allrdquo (Darby) In Colossians 31 we read ldquoKeep on seeking the things above where Christ is seated at the right hand of Godrdquo (Williams) Jesus himself made it clear to others ldquoI seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which hath sent merdquo (John 530)

Do Scriptures allow for a secondary sense of the words ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo

In the Scriptures the term lsquogodrsquo has various connotations and cannot be narrowed to one single meaning as some try to do A few scholars sustain that the notion of Jesus Christ as ldquoa godrdquo as if there were other gods beside God is incompatible with Jewish ldquomonotheismrdquo which is the belief in only one God and that it implies polytheism Nevertheless the concept itself that God as an entity is composed of three coequal persons runs counter with Jewish monotheism ldquoThe Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheismrdquo so states the Jewish Encyclopedia (ldquoTrinityrdquo) The teaching of the ldquoShemardquo consisted as has been noted in that ldquoJehovah our God is one Jehovahrdquo (Deuteronomy 64 ASV) What purpose would there be for the ldquoShemardquo to stress that Jehovah is ldquoonerdquo and then confound the matter by stating that that

must mean the Divine One is ldquothree personsrdquo in ldquoonerdquo It is explained frequently that the teaching of theTrinity is a ldquomysteryrdquo The problem with such reasoning is that nowhere does Scripture gives us reason to believe in such a concept It is possible that a person who has been exposed to this doctrine for a long time may see ldquoinsinuationsrdquo of it in the Bible However those individuals must in sincerity ask themselves whether their belief is based on ldquofactsrdquo or instead on emotional ldquofancyrdquo

Certain Scriptures are frequently cited as proof by supporters of the Trinity doctrine that Christ is God Isaiah 446 and Hosea 134 are two such Scriptures which have God Jehovah saying ldquoI am the first and I am the last and beside me there is no Godrdquo ldquoAnd thou shalt know no god but me for there is nosavior [Hebrew עע שהש םי beside merdquo These words are strictly taken literally out of their [(u˙moshia) וומוsetting to mean that there can be no ldquogodrdquo or ldquosaviorrdquo but God almighty In the context in which these words were pronounced Israel Gods people were inclined to worship vain hand-made idols (Isaiah 4217) Hence Gods warning in Isaiah and Hosea People brought up in trinitarian dogma tend to restrict the meaning of the term ldquoGodrdquo to those statements found within the context of Isaiah and Hosea leading them to the conclusion that anyone other than the True God must be a ldquofalserdquo god They define the word God within the context of modern trinitarian mentality instead of ancient Scriptural doctrine Trinitarians reason that if the appellative ldquoGodrdquo is applied to Jesus Christ then reasonably Jesus could be no other than the Lord God himself

However such trinitarian reasonings are missing an important element It has to do with the fact that the word ldquogodrdquo can be applied to others since the term itself seems to be related to someone with power and authority The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explains ldquoThis word [rsquoelōhicircm] can in fact be used for other gods (Gen 3130) and even for men (cf Ex 416 71 cf BDB p43)The derivation [of rsquoelōhicircm] is obscure but the implied sense seems to be that of strength or authorityrdquo (Vol II pg 497 italics added) The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words says ldquoThe word itself [אא ל (rsquoēl) Hebrew word for God] derives from a root term meaning lsquopowerrsquo lsquostrengthrsquo orlsquomightrsquo (Stephen D Renn p 439) And the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible states ldquoCommon to these four suggested root meanings [of El God] is the idea of strength power and of supreme excellence and greatnessrdquo (Vol 1 p 881) This may explain why various Bible versions at John 11c describe the Logos as ldquoa powerful divine beingrdquo or the like instead of saying ldquoGodrdquo When the whole context of Scripture is considered it is evident that the words spoken by God found in Isaiah and Hosea are very true in a specific sense namely that there is but one Supreme God and one Main Savior This truth does not rule out the existence of lsquogodlike onesrsquo under God (Job 387 Psalms 291 896)

Is it possible to speak of divine beings (ldquogodsrdquo) existing alongside God

Scholar John Macquarrie in Jesus Christ in Modern Thought claims that the Jewish monotheistic culturewould never tolerate the idea of the Logos belonging to a class of divine beings (P 110) Not quite Other scholars have a different view Ernst Haenchen for example claims the opposite in accord with Scripture ldquoIn the period in which the hymn [at John 11] took its rise it was quite possible in Jewishand Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him Phil 26-10 proves thatrdquo (A Commentary on the Gospel of John John 1Transl by Robert W Funk from Das Johannesevangelium Ein Kommentar p 109)

Another source has this to say ldquoOn the other hand it was a matter of general knowledge and one which the Bible itself shares and does not attempt to conceal that recognition and worship have often been extended to others than the Jewish-Christian God and the term lsquogodrsquo or lsquogodsrsquo is used for them

also as are the respective Greek and Hebrew words It is the custom to use a capital letter G for the God of the Jewish- Christian tradition and a small letter for the othersrdquo (Dictionary of the Bible JamesHastings Revised Edition 1963 Page 333 Grant amp Rowley Charles Scribners Sons New York)

Lets briefly look at how the Bible itself employs the words for ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture At Exodus 71 we read that God made a man Moses ldquoa godrdquo (Hebrew elohim) before Pharaoh God said to Moses ldquoSee I have made thee a god [Others ldquoa Godrdquo ldquoGodrdquo] to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophetrdquo Would this mean then that Moses himself did become an intrinsic part of the Great Divinity by the mere fact of him being called ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo by the Lord Jehovah himself Of coursenot Other translations clarify the meaning of ldquoGodrdquo used here by the LORD The English Standard Version expresses it this way ldquoSee I have made you like God to Pharaohrdquo And the International Standard Version has the LORD saying ldquoListen Ive put you in the role of God to Pharaohrdquo

And in Exodus 416 God making reference to Aaron tells Moses ldquoYou shall be as God to himrdquo (ESV NAB Hebrew lelohim ldquoas Godrdquo Darby ldquoGodrdquo Leeser ldquoa Godrdquo LXX theon ldquoGodrdquo Vulgate Deum)rdquo Moses was simply given a powerful role as Gods emissary who represented his will In Psalm 456 a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) when he became lsquoking of Israelrsquo was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo Obviously this human king was not in fact the One True God Neither was he a false God as trinitarian reasonings would lead one to believe Simply put Solomons throne was ldquodivinerdquo in the sense that he represented God in a position of authority over others

In the Scriptures we find that Jesus is described in Isaiah 96 as ldquoMighty Godrdquo and as ldquoSon of Godrdquo in other places (John 134) What about angels What do we call them Humans Not Angels are in nature heavenly beings closer to God than to men They are powerful divine spirits that reflect Gods glory and Godship They are ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 16) They are ldquogodsrdquo themselves What do we call aldquosonrdquo of a ldquohumanrdquo This ldquosonrdquo is himself a ldquohumanrdquo is he not Just as there is a family of human beings sharing ldquohumanityrdquo there is also a family of celestial beings yes ldquodivine beingsrdquo or ldquogodsrdquo sharing ldquodivinityrdquo A ldquosonrdquo of ldquoGodrdquo is ldquoa godrdquo or a lsquoreflectionrsquo of God Or it could simply refer to ldquoOne who shares a close relationship with Godrdquo (The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary) Notwithstanding the expression ldquoson of Godrdquo is never synonymous with God ( Some argue that the expression ldquoAlmightyrdquo in Revelation 18 applies to Christ but there is no concrete evidence for the claim)

Psalm 821 tells us that ldquoGod standeth in the congregation of the mighty [Brenton ldquogodsrdquo] he judgeth among the godsrdquo The Syriac Peshitta here has ldquoangelsrdquo instead of ldquogodsrdquo while Tanakh has ldquodivine beingsrdquo The Targums offer the alternate reading of ldquojudgesrdquo Whether we apply the term ldquogodsrdquo in verse one of this psalm (Psalm 821) to angels or human judges as Gods representatives (as in verse 6) as the Targums do it still proves that in the Bible other living beings other than God Almighty are spoken of as ldquogodsrdquo or ldquosons of Godrdquo with no hint of polytheism by such use The Andrews Study Bible explains under Psalm 821 ldquogods Term designates earthly rulers leaders mighty ones judges andor princes (v 7) who were Gods representatives and whose work was divinely appointed (Ex 2228 Deut 117 1618 2 Chr 196 compare with Heb 137)rdquo And The NIV Study Bible has this footnote on Psalm 821 ldquogods See v 6 In the language of the OTmdashand in accordance with the conceptual world of the ancient Near Eastmdashrulers and judges as deputies of the heavenly King could be given the honorific title lsquogodrsquo [hellip] or be called lsquoson of Godrsquo []rdquo See also the Psalm 821 footnotes of The Believers Study Bible The Wesley Bible and the HCSB Study Bible

Mighty angels and powerful human rulers or judges called ldquogodsrdquo in Scripture were considered ldquodivinerdquo or ldquogodlikerdquo when they acted on behalf of God As the Lord told Moses ldquoI will make you seem like God to Pharaohrdquo (Exodus 71 NLT) Even people of biblical times used the term ldquoGodrdquo freely in reference to powerful human leaders or people who displayed ldquosupernaturalrdquo feats Acts 1222informs us that when king Herod gave a public speech in royal robes the crowd cheered him on shouting ldquoIt is the voice of a god and not of a manrdquo On another occasion the people of a small island called Paul theos that is ldquoa godrdquo when they witnessed his superhuman powers (Acts 286 Compare with Acts 1411) With this information at hand Robert Young a master of various ancient languages concluded ldquoGodmdashis used of any one (professedly) mighty whether truly so or not and is applied not only to the true God but to false gods Magistratesjudges angels prophets etc eg Ex 71 John 11 1033 34 35 2028 rdquo ndash Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible Eerdmans Publ 1978

Then why do religious writers out there act like no one but God can be referred to as ldquodivinerdquo or ldquoa godrdquo For them anyone else but the true God is a false god They are confining themselves within a box with the Scriptural context of Isaiah chapter 43 44 and 45 discussed above where they refuse to seethe term ldquogodrdquo being used elsewhere in Scripture in a more broadly manner than their biased narrowed definition allows them to In fact even Satan is called ldquothe god [Gr ὁ θεὸς] of this worldrdquo because he actually lsquorulesrsquo this wicked world by the power he exerts over mankind (2 Cor 44 John 1231 1 John 519) Was calling Satan ldquothe god of this worldrdquo meant to promote polytheism Thus the original words for ldquogodrdquo of themselves do not signal whether a god is true or false With some exceptions the Inspired Scriptures commonly affixes the definite article (ldquotherdquo) before the word ldquoGodrdquo to distinguish the Supreme God from other gods This holds true for both the Hebrew and Greek Bible portions

It is clear from the biblical record that in ancient Jewish culture people saw no problem speaking of ldquodivine beingsrdquo under the Supreme God To them it was not exclusively a matter of whether they were true or false ldquogodsrdquo In their cultural mindset the term ldquogodsrdquo when applied positively to others beside the Most High God meant that they were powerful representatives of God whether it was Christ spokenof angels or human judges When speaking of powerful heavenly beings in glory the term ldquosons of Godrdquo was fully acceptable There is no record of Jesus displaying any feelings of disgust when claiming he was ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 1036 NIV) Why should we then

Hence anyone else other than God labeled ldquogodrdquo in Scripture in a positive light are simply divine beings created in the image of the True God belonging to the heavenly family of ldquogodlikerdquo ones The term ldquogodrdquo may also be Scripturally used to describe human beings holding a position of power and authority when appointed by God When the term is used this way polytheism is not an issue

What about the Christ

At John 1033-36 Christ himself appealed to Psalm 82 where the term ldquogodsrdquo was applied to persons other than God Jesus was refuting the charge of blasphemy that he was making himself ldquoGgodrdquo as invalid because he was only claiming to be not God but ldquoGods Sonrdquo which is totally different Jesus had an excellent opportunity here to claim once and for all that he was ldquoGodrdquo but once again he did not do so Jesus Christ holds a much higher position than any angel or man but is still subordinate to his Father God (1 Corinthians 113 Hebrews 32 Colossians 13)

Angels were made subject to Christ after he himself was placed at Gods right hand (1 Peter 322) Although both angels and Christ are described as lsquosons of Godrsquo only Jesus Christ is distinctively called

ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo according to some manuscripts (John 118 Murdock Noyes Concordant Literal Version) Or ldquothe one-begotten Godrdquo (Etheridge) The Word Study Greek-English New Testament describes the Logos as the ldquoonly born Godrdquo (John 118 Paul R McReynolds) Only Christ is called ldquothe firstborn of all creationrdquo a term never used for the lsquoSuperiorityrsquo of God or the holy spirit (Colossians 115) Could Trinitarians ever answer the following question If Christ was not created as some claim who then was the first creation by God Also who is ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo Surely someone lsquocreated firstrsquo in the universe would be honored with the title lsquothe firstborn of all creationrsquo Is there any other way to express such event The Bible simply points to Christ as such of which is said ldquoThese things saith the Amen the faithful and true witness the beginning of the creation of Godrdquo Whatdoes lsquothe beginning of Gods creationrsquo really mean Another Bible translation puts it this way ldquoThe one who is in the origin of things created by God [El que estaacute en el origen de las cosas creadas por Dios]rdquo (Biblia de Ameacuterica approved by various Episcopalian dioceses in Central and South America Casa de la Biblia Madrid) No ldquomysteryrdquo here Its that simple

Could there be any ldquosaviorrdquo other than God

The Sovereign Lord God is the main Savior but he may allow others to act as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo on his behalf in certain situations We find that the term is applied to Christ as the prime agent of salvation (2 Peter 220 1 John 414 Titus 14) We are told that men too like Othniel and Ehud were used as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo of their people (Judges 216 3915 Hebrew moshia same word used for God at Isaiah Compare with Isaiah 452 Hebrew u˙moshia Nehemiah 927 Hebrew moshiim plural of moshia) Would this mean then that those men called ldquosaviorsrdquo in Scripture form a part of the Supreme Divinity No there is a better explanation as found in the NIV

The NIV Study Bible has this to say of Israels leaders or judges ldquoTheir principal purpose is best expressed in [Judges] 216 lsquoThen the LORD raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of hellip raidersrsquo Since it was God who permitted the oppressions and raised up deliverers [saviors] he himself was Israels ultimate Judge and Deliverer [Savior] (1127 see 823 where Gideon a judge insists that the Lord is Israels true rulerrdquo (p 325) The Bible uses the same original words (ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo) for God Christ and men Does it mean they all are the same person or co-equal The context then iswhat determines the correct application for each occurrence of those terms

Who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo

In contrast to others who were called ldquosaviorsrdquo of the people of Israel Jesus is called ldquoSavior of the worldrdquo Jesus can potentially save not only Israel but all of mankind from bondage to sin and from death itself (John 316 1 John 414) Although Christ is undoubtedly a greater Savior than any man heis still subject to the Grandest Savior of all (Isaiah 4311 Acts 412 1 Corinthians 1528) Christ himself came to be in a situation where he had to cry out with a loud voice for salvation Right before his death he implored ldquoMy God my God why hast thou forsaken merdquo He had to be saved by God (Matthew 2746 Hebrews 57 Psalm 288)

Acts 531 tells us who was the One who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquoGod exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israelrdquo (NRSV) According to this scripture whatever capacity Jesus had as ldquosaviorrdquo was due to God To insist that Jesus is ldquoGodrdquo because of his description as ldquosaviorrdquo then we could reason all the same that men such as Othniel and Ehud were alsoldquoGodrdquo because they too were called saviors Overall ldquocontextrdquo should be the guiding principle for the

right comprehension of biblical terms

Jesus as ldquoSon of manrdquo

Jesus made reference to himself in the Gospels nearly 80 times as ldquothe Son of manrdquo an expression indicating he was truly a ldquomanrdquo while on earth not a God-man (Matthew 820 etc) According to Hebrews 29 Jesus ldquowas made a little lower than the angelsrdquo so he could taste death for everyone God cannot ever become ldquolower than the angelsrdquo he created John 114 tells us that it was lsquothe Word who became fleshrsquo not God The doctrine of the ldquoincarnationrdquo as commonly taught actually twists the meaning of John 114 because the text does not say at all that lsquoGod became fleshrsquo Instead it says ldquothe Wordrdquo did Plain and simple 2 John 7 only confirms this In other words the Logos Jesus Christ became ldquohumanrdquo or ldquoa human beingrdquo One scripture often misused to prove that God was made flesh is 1 Timothy 316 but this text did not originally say ldquoGod was manifest in the fleshrdquo as it reads in a few Bible versions since such reading is defective Other translations of the Bible have corrected this error in translation saying instead ldquoHe [or ldquoWhordquo] was manifested in the fleshrdquo allowing for lsquoChrist as the One being manifested in the fleshrsquo For a consideration of 1 Tim 316 see httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

In an effort to simplify the meaning of the expression ldquoSon of manrdquo in reference to Christ in our culture a modern Bible version used the expression ldquothe Human Onerdquo repeatedly (Common English Bible) ldquoThe general use of lsquoson of manrsquo occurs in poetic texts in which the phrase functions as a synonym for lsquomanrsquo or lsquohuman beingrsquo rdquo (The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary) The NIV at Daniel 713 confirms the meaning of the expression ldquoson of manrdquo in a footnote ldquoThe Aramaic phrase bar enash [son of man]means human being The phrase son of man is retained here because of its use in the New Testament as a title of Jesus probably based largely on this verserdquo (2011 Edition) The apostle was very familiar withthis much used expression of Jesus If ldquoSon of manrdquo meant he was a ldquohuman beingrdquo on earth then John would use the similar expression a son of God (or Gods Son) in a way humans would naturally understand it That is lsquoof divine originrsquo (ldquoa godrdquo) without any foreign trinitarian speculation of a later era which Jesus disciples were unaware of (John 1033-36) Jesus divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship As noted the expression may also refer to lsquoone who shares a close relationship with Godrsquo As future co-heirs in the kingdom of Christ human creatures too are designated as ldquosons of Godrdquo but never become identical to the Sovereign God Again polytheism is not an issue here No need to make this into a ldquomysteryrdquo

Why does the Bible speak sometimes as if Jesus Christ himself was ldquoGodrdquo

The Jewish nation already believed and sought lsquoto honorrsquo the Father of Abraham Isaac and Jacob This monotheistic culture adhered to the Mosaic Law as they worshiped the true God But many prophecies which appeared in the Hebrew code identified the Messiah as lsquoemancipatorrsquo of their bondage to sin Themajority of the Jews where hoping the foretold Messiah would rescue them from the Roman yoke Instead of getting involved in earthly politics Jesus repeatedly spoke of lsquoGods kingdomrsquo hence comparatively few exercised faith in him In contrast to the few who believed in Jesus as being ldquosentrdquo by God the majority of Jews could look no further from the man they considered their Father AbrahamThey were blind in their self-sufficiency

There was thus an urgent need to communicate to the Jewish people that exercising faith in Christ was essential to their salvation But how would one do that To start by making them see that Jesus Christ

La Parola egrave Vita) The first Italian version lacks the indefinite article and the second one adds it Both renderings are acceptable One stresses the qualitative aspect and the other the indefinite status of the predicate noun Even Wallace acknowledged ldquoIt is nevertheless difficult to distinguish indefinite from qualitative nouns at times (just as at other times it is difficult to distinguish qualitative from definite nouns) The very fact that any member of a class is mentioned highlights to some degree that particular classndashhence making some kind of qualitative statementrdquo (op cit Wallace p 266 footnote)Wallace adds ldquoAlthough the translation [of John 419] is most naturally lsquoSir I perceive that you are a prophetrsquo the sense may be better characterized as indefinite-qualitativerdquo The same can be said of John 11c (Ibid page 266)

At John 419 natural spoken English requires the use of the ldquoardquo before prophet to bring out the Greek sense in our language and most English Bibles do so To be consistent Bible versions which render John 419 in an indefinite sense (a prophet) or with a lowercase letter ldquoprophetrdquo could do the very same thing in John 11c with its similar grammatical construction One really has to wonder why some individuals who claim to have competence in the Greek fail to understand or acknowledge publicly that in translation work there is often more than one way to render some biblical passages They let religious feelings get in the way clouding their judgment This is made obvious when they seek to convey to others that those who render a certain passage differently from the norm are being ldquoignorantrdquoin the Greek department

5th Example (John 101)

Greek ἐκεῖνος κλέπτης ἐστὶν καὶ λῃστής that (one) thief is and robber

Here Jesus initiates dissertation about how he as a fine shepherd protects his sheep from dangerous individuals that resemble wolves The man who does not enter the sheepfold through the door but climbs in by some other way is a

ldquothe same is a thief and a robberrdquo (William Tyndales NT 1534 Daniell edition) ldquothe same is a thief and a robberrdquo (DouayndashRheims Bible) ldquothe same is a thief and a robberrdquo (New King James Version) ldquois a thief and a banditrdquo (New Jerusalem Bible) ldquois a thief and an outlawrdquo (Common English Bible) ldquothat one is a thief and robberrdquo (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot) ldquothat man is a thief and a robberrdquo (English Standard Version) ldquois a thief and a robberrdquo (New American Bible) ldquothat one is a thief and a robberrdquo (Greek and English Interlinear NT Mounce) ldquothat man is a thief and a robberrdquo (Revised Standard Bible) ldquois a thief and a roguerdquo (Phillips Modern English) ldquohe is a thief and a brigandrdquo (A New Translation by William Barclay) ldquois nothing but a thief or a robberrdquo (New English Bible) ldquohe is either a robber or a banditrdquo (The New Testament in Plain English) ldquois a thief and a robberrdquo (William F Beck-NT) ldquothat one is a thief and a robberrdquo (Literal Translation Version)

Smooth English requires the use of the indefinite article (a) before either thief and robber or both

Most English translations do this Again to be consistent with this syntactical construction these translations could have used the indefinite article (a) at John 11c and have it read ldquothe Word was a godrdquo And if Bible translators are reluctant to use the indefinite article at John 11c they could have at least rendered the anarthrous noun ldquoGodrdquo in such way that brings out the descriptive nature (as an adjective) of such nouns by rendering it ldquoand the Word was god (or divine)rdquo to be consistent with theirother renderings which follow this pattern By the way some translations render it this way

ldquoand the Word was godrdquo (Professor Charles C Torrey Yale University 1947) ldquoand the Logos was god [eacutetait dieu]rdquo (Herbert Pernot 1925 Paris) ldquoand the Word was divinerdquo (E J Goodspeed) ldquoand the Word was god [eacutetait dieu]rdquo (Traduction du monde nouveau 1987) ldquoThe Word was god [eacutetait dieu]rdquo (Marc J H Oltramare 1872 University Professor Geneva) ldquoSo the Word was divinerdquo (Hugh J Schonfield) ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo (Reijnier Rooleeuw MD) ldquoand god was the Word [y dios era la Palabra]rdquo (J J Bartolomeacute Madrid 2002)

6th Example (1 Kings 1827 Septuagint LXX)

Greek ὅτι θεός ἐστιν Hebrew ההו א ההה םים א אל כהכ םי ־ for god is (he) he god for lt ldquoFor he is a godrdquo (Sir Lancelot C L Brentons translation from the Greek LXX) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Septuagint LXX Charles Thomson) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (The Apostles Bible A Modern English Translation of the Greek Septuagint by Paul W Esposito 2004) ldquoFor he is a godrdquo (New English Translation of the Septuagint [NETS] 2007) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (The Orthodox Study Bible St Athanasius Academy Septuagint 2008 LXX) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Orthodox England Michael Asser 2001-2010 based on the Greek text [LXX] of the version published by the Greek Orthodox Church Apostoliki Diakonia) ldquofor a god herdquo (Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament) ldquofor god herdquo (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Jewish Publication Society 1917 Translated from the Hebrew) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts [tr Syriac] George M Lamsa) ldquofor he is godrdquo [pues eacutel es dios] (La Biblia Peshitta en Espantildeol translated from the AramaicSyriac)

ldquobecause god (he) is [porque dios es]rdquo (La Sagrada Biblia G Juumlnemann B 1992 Greek LXX) ldquofor Baal is youre god [for Baal is your god]rdquo (John Wycliffes Translation transl f Latin c 1384) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Douay-Rheims Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate ldquodeus enim estrdquo)

In this account we read of Elijah mocking Baal a false god The Greek construction is similar to that ofJohn 11c Just as in the other instances of theos without the article (ldquotherdquo) and preceding the verb translators find it necessary in English to add the indefinite article (a) to complete the sense in our language Had the speaker used the article before theos it could be taken then as a reference to Baal being ldquoGodrdquo not ldquoa godrdquo Would it not Observe that John Wycliffes Translation from Latin did not capitalize the ldquogrdquo in ldquogodrdquo Also the two Spanish translations above one from the Greek LXX by

Juumlnemann and the other a Peshitta from the Aramaic do not capitalize the ldquogrdquo in ldquogodrdquo Actually in Spanish it is not required to use the indefinite article (a) in this construction to obtain nearly the same effect as the English statement ldquofor he is a godrdquo Surely the translators of this Spanish version were not suggesting that Elijah was calling Baal ldquoGodrdquo In Hebrew we find the reading ההו א ההה םים א אל כהכ םי־ (ki-elohim hu Literally because god [is] he) likewise translated in our English versions as ldquoFor he isa godrdquo Thus Bible translations from both the Hebrew and Greek (LXX ) texts here and from the Latin and Syriac versions as well all reflect indefinite or qualitative renderings ndash good indicators which show how John 11c with similar syntax should be translated

If you have carefully followed this discussion to this point you may have observed that the indefinite translation of anarthrous predicate nouns (using ldquoardquo) similar in construction to John 11c is a valid option to consider Why is this significant to mention Because Trinitarian scholars try so hard to disengage the likelihood of the indefinite notion in the discussion of John 11c They keep saying that a grammatical construction such as we find in John 11 should be rendered qualitatively usually ignoring or denying the possible indefinite nuance of anarthrous nouns before the verb However in these samples we see a pattern where translators freely use one of those two aspects (indefinite or qualitative)in the translations sometimes alternating between the two It appears then that theology is a factor in their denial of this fact

7th Example (Xenophons Anabasis 146)

Greek εμπoacuteριον δrsquo ην το χωρiacuteον market and was the place

(A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey had this to say (under the heading ldquoWith the Subject in a Copulative Sentencerdquo) ldquoThe article sometimes distinguishes the subjectfrom the predicate in a copulative sentence In Xenophons Anabasis 146 εμπoacuteριον δrsquo ην το χωρiacuteον and the place was a market we have a parallel case to what we have in John 11 καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος and the word was deity The article points out the subject in these examples Neither was the place the only market nor was the word all of God as it would mean if the article were also used with θεός As it stands the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo (Page 148 paragraph laquo3raquo Italics theirs) I agree with the above comment However I feel that the last statement about ldquothe other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo is superfluous This is clearly a case of two Baptist grammarians reading far more into the text than is warranted John chapter 1 is not speaking of three persons in the Godhead Actually the whole Gospel of John makes no mention whatsoever of three persons in one God This language is totally foreign to the New Testament

To run more parallel with Xenophons statement and the place was a market this Grammar could have translated John 11c and the word was a god I am aware that Dr Julius R Mantey has been openly opposed (to put it mildly) to the NW translation ldquothe Word was a godrdquo Nevertheless the example theyset forth seems to contradict Manteys statements Compare the literal Greek reading of Xenophons statement with the suggested translation by Dana and Mantey of which Mantey says is ldquoa parallel caserdquo to John 11c and see for yourself

ldquoand the place was market rdquo (Literal reading in English order Anabasis 146) ldquoand the word was god rdquo (Literal reading in English order John 11c)

ldquoand the place was a market rdquo (Suggested translation by Dana and Mantey) ldquoand the Word was a god rdquo (Controversial translation criticized by Mantey)

The translation offered by Dr Dana and Dr Mantey ldquoand the place was a marketrdquo as indicated above is an unintended admission that ldquothe Word was a godrdquo is a proper translation even though as Trinitarians they prefer another and the word was deity Note too that their suggested translation of John 11c and the word was deity is not the same thing as saying that the word was entirely God for they said ldquonor was the word all of Godrdquo Additionally the use of the word ldquomayrdquo in the statement ldquothe three persons may be impliedrdquo reveals a theological speculation not a fact The truth is that Jesus himself spoke of his Father God as ldquothe only Godrdquo (NIV New King James Version John 544) If Jesus is not ldquothe only Godrdquo who is he then Christ is time and again described as ldquoGods Sonrdquo hence a reflection of Gods glory ldquogodlikerdquo ldquodivinerdquo The Bible itself says ldquoThe Son reflects Gods own gloryand everything about him represents God exactlyrdquo (Hebrews 13 New Living Translation) This focus on Christ by Christian Writers throughout the New Testament led William Barclay to caution ldquoTo say that the Word was God is too much to say that the Word was Divine is too littlerdquo (ldquoGreat Themes of the New Testament II John 11-14rdquo Expository Times 70 (1958-59) 114)

Much has been made of the publication of a letter Mantey wrote to the publishers of the NWT (WT Society) where Mantey asked the WTS to stop quoting him by name since he felt they were misquotingtheir Grammar Many have seized this incident to lash out slanderous statements at the WTS for alleged ldquoscholastic dishonestyrdquo I feel this attack has not much merit It is in the main a theological objection For the benefit of those who do not have these two publications I will reproduce here what the NWT said right before and after quoting the Grammar of Dana and Mantey ldquoCareful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity a personality whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about someone That is what A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey remarks on page 140 paragraph vii [ldquoThe articular construction emphasizes identity the anarthrous construction emphasizes characterrdquo] Accordingly on page 148 paragraph (3) this same publication says about the subject of a copulative sentence [hellip quoted above at beginning of this section] Instead of translating John 11 and the word was deity thisGrammar could have translated it and the word was a god to run more parallel with Xenophons statement and the place was a marketrdquo (NWT Appendix page 774)

In my opinion the NWT quote of the Grammar was accurate enough with one exception The NWT Committee omitted this sentence ldquoAs it stands the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo And it is this omission which Dr Mantey most likely objected to I too believe this sentence was not critical in the context of the grammar being considered to prove the authors point but whether they were ldquodishonestrdquo or not by omitting this one sentence in their quote I leave it for the reader to decide Apparently the NW translators intended to avoid the dogmatic Trinity subject in their Appendix at that point When quoting Dana and Mantey the NWT Committee could certainly have been more explicit by implying for example that in their opinion the authors used an argument that in effect allowed the reading ldquothe word was a godrdquo as a ldquoparallel caserdquo to Xenophons statement ldquothe place was a marketrdquo instead of insinuating by mode of silence that the trinitarian authors approved of such reading (To readmore about the practice of WTS ldquoquoting sourcesrdquo see Note 1 at the end of the article)

Interestingly Dana and Manteys Grammar says on pages 138 139 140 ldquoWhen identity is prominent we find the article and when quality or character is stressed the construction is anarthrous [without thearticle]rdquo And ldquoThe use of the articular and anarthrous constructions of θεός is highly instructive A

study of the uses of the term as given in Moulton and Gedens Concordance convinces one that without the article θεός signifies divine essence while with the article divine personality is chiefly in viewrdquo Furthermore on page 140 on the use of the article in the Greek text it says ldquoThe articular constructionemphasizes identity the anarthrous construction emphasizes characterrdquo

Dr Julius R Mantey did include this statement in his letter of repudiation to the WTS mentioned earlierldquoProf Harner Vol 921 in JBL has gone beyond Colwells research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subjectrdquo (July 11 1974) Instead of advocating a trinity this statement of Mantey quoting Professor Harner oddlysupports some of the arguments published in the 1950 and the 1984 NWT Editions

Going by grammar alone one could say that the renderings ldquothe place was a marketrdquo ldquothe Word was agod [divine]rdquo and ldquothe word was deityrdquo all three potentially agree with the grammar principles expounded by Dana amp Mantey on the articular and the anarthrous constructions of θεός on pages 138-140 and on page 148 though they may not admit to it Again let us not forget their clear message ldquoNeither was the place the only market [the place was a market] nor was the word all of Godrdquo

Coming back to translation issues we can see that generally modern translations do make an effort to convey a difference in translation between predicate nouns with and without the article preceding the verb If we take a look at John 151 where John uses the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the verb ldquo(ho georgoacutes estin) the farmer isrdquo we will find that translators generally reflect that fact in translation However here in John 11 they are reluctant to produce a translation which shows the fact that the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo in this verse lacks the article Why Is it because Greek grammar demands the rendering ldquoGodrdquo Not at all The seven (7) submitted samples clearly indicate that it is not grammar but ldquotheologyrdquo for the reluctance Even Greek scholars teach that ldquowhen a Greek noun lacksthe definite article it normally will be translated as indefiniterdquo (A Primer of Biblical Greek by N Clayton Croy assistant professor of NT at Trinity Luther Seminary Columbus Ohio p 15) At John 11 translators in their drive to make Jesus appear identical to God will use a capital G when Jesus is spoken of Patterns of Greek grammar as seen in the above examples and elsewhere are ignored to sustain their theology (Note the use of ldquonormallyrdquo here because the author is aware that there is lsquono hard rulersquo that can be applied at all times in regards to the use of the article or lack of But his statement holds generally true as in here)

John 12 would be pointless tautology if John meant that the Logos was identical to God as some translations suggest It is also misleading to translate John 11 ldquothe Word was fully Godrdquo as the NET Bible does If we were to use the NET Bibles reasoning which appears in their note of John 11 and apply it to samples discussed above with similar syntax we would get the following translations ldquoThis man [Paul] must be fully Murdererrdquo ldquoThat one [climbing over the fence] is fully Thief and fully Robberrdquo ldquofor he (Baal) is fully Godrdquo ldquoand the place was fully Marketrdquo

Does that make sense Baal a pagan god was certainly not lsquofully Godrsquo in the sense of him being the Supreme God But Elijah could depict Baal as ldquoa godrdquo for he was not lsquothe only godrsquo among the heathens And to say ldquothe place was fully Marketrdquo is meaningless In fact Dana and Mantey argued against the place being The Market the only market They conclude that the Greek construction demands ldquothe place was a marketrdquo And Dana and Mantey pointed out that the Greek construction of John 11 tells us that lsquothe word was deity [ldquodivinerdquo but] not all of Godrsquo

In Marks gospel (649) where Jesus appeared walking over the waters next to the disciples boat duringa storm in which they became terrified after seeing an ldquoapparitionrdquo or ldquophantomrdquo of some sort (since they were unaware it was Jesus) they screamed ldquoIts a ghostrdquo according to some Bible versions (Or ldquoa spiritrdquo KJV) The grammatical structure of Mark 649 and John 11 are similar so how do Bible translations deal with this Do they have the disciples crying out ldquoHe is fully Ghost Or would they scream instead ldquoHe is Phantomrdquo No Most Bibles have the disciples believing or saying it was ldquoa ghostrdquoor ldquoa phantomrdquo or ldquoan apparitionrdquo of some sort At no time do translators argue that it should be translated as they do at John 11c by capitalizing the predicate noun and omitting the indefinite article ldquoardquo John 11 is no exception to the norm Bible translators follow the pattern described by Professor Clayton Croy ldquoWhen a Greek noun lacks the definite article it normally will be translated as indefiniterdquo (op cit A Primer) In the examples above Bible translators have shown us how they really deal with syntax similar to John 11c We have ldquoa hard saying a murderer a devil a prophet a thief a robber a god a market a ghost etc At John 1837 we have ldquoa kingrdquo twice English Bibles do not have Pilate asking Jesus if he was the ldquoKingrdquo Instead English translations followthe pattern described above and render Pilates question as ldquoArt thou a king thenrdquo

In all these cases a predicate noun without the Greek article precedes a verb just as we have in John 11c Accordingly then why not reflect this pattern at John 11 especially so when two entities are being spoken of in the verse and the second occurrence of θεός lacks the article Let us not miss the previous statement by a distinguished grammarian A ldquomost common userdquo of the Greek article is to point out hellip ldquoIndividual from Other Individualsrdquo (op cit Short Grammar p 275)

Although grammarian David Alan Black a Trinitarian objects to the ldquoa Godrdquo rendering at John 11 he takes a page from Dana and Manteys Grammar when he writes ldquoIf the article were also used with θεός the statement would mean that all of God was expressed in the Word As it is the Word is neither lsquoa Godrsquo nor equal with the sum total of Godrdquo (Its Still Greek to Me p 79) This statement by Black appears to contradict the NET Bibles translation of John 11c Blacks conclusion is similar to Danas and Manteys that is ldquothe Word was Deity [θεός]rdquo (Brackets his) In similar vein The New Testament in Plain English translates John 11c as ldquothe Word was Godrdquo However a footnote says ldquoOr Deity Divine (which is actually a better translation because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word)rdquo (Underline added 2003) Now this footnote begs the question If the rendering ldquothe Word was Deity Divinerdquo is actually a ldquobetter translationrdquo why not use that in the main text It seems that trinitarian translators have difficulty in displaying a rendering other than ldquothe Word was Godrdquo even when they acknowledge there are lsquobetter translationsrsquo for the anarthrous θεός in John 11c

In English using a capital letter in ldquofully Godrdquo is misleading to someone brought up in trinitarian teaching A trinitarian believer would likely take that rendering as conveying that Christ is Almighty God himself a concept in conflict with what Christ himself stated at John 173 and John 2017 Daniel Wallace previously quoted and author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics wrote a most interesting comment which reveals how theology plays a big role at the time of translating John 11 ldquoAlthough I believe that θεός in 11c is qualitative I think the simplest and most straightforward translation is lsquoand the Word was Godrsquo It may be better to clearly affirm the NT teaching of the deity of Christ and then explain that he is not the Father than to sound ambiguous on his deity and explain that he is God but is not the Fatherrdquo (Ibid p 269 italics his) What Is he serious

Whats the point of claiming that θεός in 11c is ldquoqualitativerdquo in John 11c as Wallace does emphatically in his Grammar and then suggest to use the rendering lsquothe Word was Godrsquo which implies ldquoidentityrdquo a

ldquopersonalityrdquo the opposite of ldquocharacterrdquo or ldquoqualityrdquo) and be forced to explain that it does not mean what it actually says The end result would then be no less ldquoambiguousrdquo than the alternatives he is obviously trying to avoid Would you not rather have a ldquobetter translationrdquo such as ldquothe Word was divinerdquo which requires no additional explanation The NET Bible (Wallace senior editor) prefers a rendering other than ldquodivinerdquo because he states that ldquodivinerdquo ldquoas a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of Godrdquo However on the word ldquodivinerdquo Murray J Harris responds ldquoBut if θεὸς bears a qualitative sense the rendering lsquodivinersquo should not be dismissed as altogether inappropriate Only if lsquodivinersquo is taken to mean lsquohaving the very nature of Godrsquo does the word accurately convey Johns meaningrdquo (op cit Jesus as God p 68) The argument that ldquodivinerdquo is too generic is weak because really the same argument could be made of the term ldquogodrdquo Jesus applied the term ldquogodsrdquo to humans (John 1034-36) and Paul acknowledged that ldquothere are many gods and many lordsrdquo (1 Corinthians 85) So Wallaces objection is more likely an effort to equate Christ with God at John 11

Truly the Greek Text does not say that Christ wasis the one-and-only God What the Greek does say is that ldquothe Word was with the [True] God and the Word [himself] was a divine beingrdquo thus able to perfectly represent the character of God (Hebrews 13) The only way one could justify the rendering ldquoGodrdquo with a big ldquoGrdquo at John 11c is if the original text had the article before the second instance of theos as well Why Because John is talking about two individuals and deliberately differentiates between the two instances of ldquotheosrdquo by placing the article before the first instance of ldquotheosrdquo and not with the second Max Zerwick (SJ) wrote in this regard ldquoὁ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος [if John would have written ldquothe God was the Logosrdquo] at least in NT usage would signify personal identity of the Word with the Father since the latter [the Father] is ὁ Θεὸς [the God]rdquo (Biblical Greek p 55 Rome)

John wrote the words appearing in verse two to clear any potential misunderstanding that could arise from his bold statement in verse one Marinus de Jonge remarks ldquoThe author of this Prologue clearly wants to identify lsquothe Wordrsquo and God as closely as possible without infringing the belief in the One Godrdquo (Christology in Context The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus Philadelphia Westminster 1988 p 198 Jonge is Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands) So in effect John was saying that the Logos was like God in every imaginable way Hence the New English Bible rendering lsquoWhat God was the Word wasrsquo

Dr Jason BeDuhn explains ldquoIn John 11 the Word is not the one-and-only God but it is a god or divine being I know that sounds strange and even seems impossible coming from the pen of a Christian writer But the fact remains that that is what John wrote His purpose in doing so was at least in part to avoid the notion that God the Father himself incarnated as Christ The one who incarnated was somehow distinct from lsquoGodrsquo while still being lsquoa godrsquo rdquo (op cit Truth in Translation pp 122 123)

Why then are translators unwilling to render John 11c ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo A few reasons could be given Translators mention grammar as one problem an issue addressed throughout this article Others view the rendering ldquoa godrdquo as polytheistic I will further mention two others First is the domino effect of the Trinity doctrine developed centuries after Christ as a means to clamp down raging Christological debates to the point that the doctrine has been taken for granted as ldquotruthrdquo by most ldquoChristianrdquo people since Secondly the role in tradition played by the Latin Vulgate must be mentioned This Latin translation has greatly influenced many translators since its inception from c 405 CE It is well known that the Vulgate heavily influenced early translations of the 16th and 17th Century In fact back then translators were more likely to be familiar with the Latin Vulgate than with the Greek

The Latin Vulgate used no articles (as seen below) and that in conjunction with the Greek lacking the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) and we can see why so many have misunderstood John 11 The Christological debates of past centuries did not improve this state of confusion it made it worse I kindly ask the reader to consider the following Latin and Greek readings as helpful pointers in our discussion Notice in particular the bold letters relevant to our discussion

ndash LATIN (John 11)ldquoIn principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbumrdquo In beginning was Verb and Verb was with God and God was Verb

ndash GREEK (John 11)

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος In beginning was the logos and the logos was toward the god and god was the logos

First of all please notice that Latin makes no distinction between the two occurrences of ldquoGodrdquo in the text (ie both without the article) However Greek being a more specific descriptive language does And it does so by using the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the first occurrence and omitting it before the second Keep in mind what The Translatorrsquos New Testament previously quoted said ldquoIt is difficult to believe that the omission [of the Greek article before the second theos in John 11] is not significantrdquo (p 451) As A T Robertson pointed out ldquoThe article is never meaningless in Greek though it often fails to correspond with the English idiom [hellip] Its free use leads to exactness and finesserdquo (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research p 756) And Buttmann The use of the article [ho ldquotherdquo] has everywhere its positive reasonrdquo (Buttmanns Grammar of NewTestament Greek Bt 88) And another ldquoFor the present the presence or absence of the Greek article should always be carefully indicated in the English translationrdquo (New Testament Greek For Beginners by J Gresham Machen DD LITTD p 35 67) It is the responsibility of the translator to transmit whenever possible this existing difference in the Greek text into the English translation

Which reading of the two languages above (Latin and Greek) shows the greater similarity with the traditional rendering of John 11c Its Latin is it not In fact some Bible translations in other languages have even borrowed the latin word ldquoVerbumrdquo from the Latin Vulgate at John 11 such as the ubiquitous Spanish Reina-Valera which uses ldquoVerbordquo (Verb) instead of ldquoWordrdquo used in English versionsAlso using ldquoVerbordquo Sciacuteo de San Miguel Versioacuten Moderna Goacutemez 2010 Nueva Biblia Latinoamericana de Hoy and the Nueva Versioacuten Internacional Other international versions following the Latin Vulgate at John 11c French Darby Crampon German Luther Bible Italian Diodati and the Portuguese Almeida

It is evident that most English Bibles at John 11 are translating in the spirit of the Latin Vulgate rather than the Greek text regardless of what they claim Surprisingly as you will see in the submitted list of alternate readings at the end of this paper there are some translations though not as popular that are actually closer to the Greek above than the best-selling versions which end up following the Latin Vulgate instead Although John 11 has long been a favorite text by traditionalists to quote in the English world it may be surprise many that a modern Greek Bible reader will not likely appeal to such scripture in support of the traditional view Notwithstanding some Bible translators either disagree with the traditional viewpoint of the Logos as

ldquoGodrdquo or may simply feel that the message conveyed by the original Greek language (as demonstrated by the 7 samples above) demands a different translation at John 11c Some would have you believe that only a few insane unschooled translators with diabolical intentions would ever attempt to deviate from the traditionalist reading That is not simply true I believe most translators offering a different version of John 11 are most sincere in their effort to get to the core of the Greek meaning and to adequately transmit the intended message of the biblical author The submitted list of alternate readings at the end is not intended to be a complete list but to show a variety of renderings and viewpoints Keep in mind too that because of its theological significance other Scriptures do not have as many variant translation renderings as this one does

________________________________________

A careful review of the alternate readings list of John 11 and other related material at the end of the article would lead to this question Could anyone legitimately exclude as a valid option the rendering ldquoagodrdquo found in some Bible versions We have seen that grammar alone cannot condemn the use of such translation though many will keep trying Seven examples were provided which clearly show how translators render predicate nouns without the article occurring before the verb In addition note that these seven examples make reference to one person or one thing while John 11 is speaking of ldquotwordquo entities With greater reason then translators should render this grammatical structure in John 11c in away that brings out the indefinite-qualitative aspect rather than convey identification with the Supreme God

A Grammar states ldquoJohn was not saying that lsquothe word was the Fatherrsquo but that lsquothe word was God (divine)rsquordquo (Gramaacutetica Griega-Sintaxis del Nuevo Testamento [Greek Grammar-Syntax of the NT] by Daniel B Wallace amp Daniel S Steffen Parentheses theirs p 182) Consequently if the translation ldquothe word was Godrdquo must be understood in the adjectival sense as ldquodivinerdquo why not translate it that way Itis therefore reasonable to make a distinction between the term ldquotheosrdquo with and without the article here

In all the more accurate Bible translations do make a distinction between ldquotheosrdquo (God) with and without the article in John 11 Does yours Some argue that John did not have to employ the article before the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo to imply that the Word was ldquoGodrdquo Do you believe that If so why then was the Greek article used with the nominal predicate before the verb in John 151 which literally says ldquoThe father of me the farmer isrdquo And in John 651 ldquoThe bread but which I shall give the flesh of me isrdquo It is evident that Bible writers usually employed the article with specific intention and when they omitted it it was equally significant as well

Is it not better to just follow along with the majority view and thus free oneself from religious tension that may accompany those who sustain a minority view First of all it is dangerous to adopt a majority view if this one is in error A majority view held by ldquoscholarsrdquo of itself does not automatically make a matter ldquotruerdquo Why Because scholars are not infallible nor immune to human tradition Were they in Jesus day They were not Scholars today may find themselves in error just as many scribes were in Jesus day as Matthew chapter 23 clearly demonstrate (Matthew 159) We are warned that ldquothe whole world lies under the power of the evil onerdquo (1 John 519 New Revised Standard Bible) We should not dismiss ldquoreligionrdquo as being beyond the reach or interest of Satan We all need to be in guard of evil influence at all times being careful of not becoming ldquostone-blindrdquo by ldquothe god of this worldrdquo (2 Cor 44 The Message) Again a majority view does not always represent the truth Thus the doctrinal foundation for Christians should be based not on what the majority believe but rather on what the Bible

itself teaches

What does the Bible really say about Jesus Christ

Simply put Jesus is ldquoSon of Godrdquo not ldquoGod the Sonrdquo (Luke 135 NRSV) There is a vast difference in meaning between those two expressions There are more than two hundred references (200x) in the New Testament that explicitly declare that Jesus Christ is the ldquoSon of Godrdquo or that lsquoGod is the Father of Jesus Christrsquo (For a list of instances see The Preachers Outline and Sermon Bible ldquoJohnrdquo p 27) Yet Christendom prefers to dwell on a handful of texts which are said to describe Jesus as God None of those texts are explicit in declaring Jesus equality with God In Scripture Jesus place in the broad picture is one of sonship that is as Son of God not God Furthermore the word ldquosonrdquo is never used to describe God or the ldquoholy spiritrdquo

Christ is also described as ldquothe image of the invisible God [not God] the firstborn of all creationrdquo (Colossians 115) the ldquomediator between God and menrdquo (1 Timothy 25) Yes it is possible to spin these clear statements to make them say something else but is this what we seek One who plays the role of ldquomediatorrdquo cannot in the name of justice be one and the same person as one of the two parts that he is said to represent Otherwise such individual could not be truly impartial in his judgment Moses as a separate entity was able to really serve as ldquomediatorrdquo between God and Israel Now if Jesus the greater Moses was really one-and-the-same ldquoGodrdquo what ldquojusticerdquo could he convey acting as ldquomediatorrdquo between himself and mankind But no Jesus spoke of his Father as ldquomy Godrdquo and as lsquothe God of everyone elsersquo (John 2017) It was this God (ldquothe only Godrdquo John 544 NKJV NIV) according to Jesus himself who lsquorevealedrsquo things to Christ (Mark 1332 Revelation 11) Any statementwhich says that lsquoGod gave Jesus Christ a revelationrsquo would sound very odd to anyone taught to believe that Christ is the equal of God in every sense Scripture calls Christ ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 1913) And the record shows that it was this Word who was ldquowith God in the beginning not that he was ldquoGodrdquo but like God (Others render ldquoa Godrdquo ldquodivinerdquo - Tomanek Schonfield Heb 13)

Bible writers always speak of Jesus Christ in a subordinate role as in Ephesians 13 ldquoBlessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christrdquo 1 Corinthians 1528 ldquoThe Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him [God] who put all things in subjection to him that God may be all in allrdquo (Darby) In Colossians 31 we read ldquoKeep on seeking the things above where Christ is seated at the right hand of Godrdquo (Williams) Jesus himself made it clear to others ldquoI seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which hath sent merdquo (John 530)

Do Scriptures allow for a secondary sense of the words ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo

In the Scriptures the term lsquogodrsquo has various connotations and cannot be narrowed to one single meaning as some try to do A few scholars sustain that the notion of Jesus Christ as ldquoa godrdquo as if there were other gods beside God is incompatible with Jewish ldquomonotheismrdquo which is the belief in only one God and that it implies polytheism Nevertheless the concept itself that God as an entity is composed of three coequal persons runs counter with Jewish monotheism ldquoThe Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheismrdquo so states the Jewish Encyclopedia (ldquoTrinityrdquo) The teaching of the ldquoShemardquo consisted as has been noted in that ldquoJehovah our God is one Jehovahrdquo (Deuteronomy 64 ASV) What purpose would there be for the ldquoShemardquo to stress that Jehovah is ldquoonerdquo and then confound the matter by stating that that

must mean the Divine One is ldquothree personsrdquo in ldquoonerdquo It is explained frequently that the teaching of theTrinity is a ldquomysteryrdquo The problem with such reasoning is that nowhere does Scripture gives us reason to believe in such a concept It is possible that a person who has been exposed to this doctrine for a long time may see ldquoinsinuationsrdquo of it in the Bible However those individuals must in sincerity ask themselves whether their belief is based on ldquofactsrdquo or instead on emotional ldquofancyrdquo

Certain Scriptures are frequently cited as proof by supporters of the Trinity doctrine that Christ is God Isaiah 446 and Hosea 134 are two such Scriptures which have God Jehovah saying ldquoI am the first and I am the last and beside me there is no Godrdquo ldquoAnd thou shalt know no god but me for there is nosavior [Hebrew עע שהש םי beside merdquo These words are strictly taken literally out of their [(u˙moshia) וומוsetting to mean that there can be no ldquogodrdquo or ldquosaviorrdquo but God almighty In the context in which these words were pronounced Israel Gods people were inclined to worship vain hand-made idols (Isaiah 4217) Hence Gods warning in Isaiah and Hosea People brought up in trinitarian dogma tend to restrict the meaning of the term ldquoGodrdquo to those statements found within the context of Isaiah and Hosea leading them to the conclusion that anyone other than the True God must be a ldquofalserdquo god They define the word God within the context of modern trinitarian mentality instead of ancient Scriptural doctrine Trinitarians reason that if the appellative ldquoGodrdquo is applied to Jesus Christ then reasonably Jesus could be no other than the Lord God himself

However such trinitarian reasonings are missing an important element It has to do with the fact that the word ldquogodrdquo can be applied to others since the term itself seems to be related to someone with power and authority The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explains ldquoThis word [rsquoelōhicircm] can in fact be used for other gods (Gen 3130) and even for men (cf Ex 416 71 cf BDB p43)The derivation [of rsquoelōhicircm] is obscure but the implied sense seems to be that of strength or authorityrdquo (Vol II pg 497 italics added) The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words says ldquoThe word itself [אא ל (rsquoēl) Hebrew word for God] derives from a root term meaning lsquopowerrsquo lsquostrengthrsquo orlsquomightrsquo (Stephen D Renn p 439) And the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible states ldquoCommon to these four suggested root meanings [of El God] is the idea of strength power and of supreme excellence and greatnessrdquo (Vol 1 p 881) This may explain why various Bible versions at John 11c describe the Logos as ldquoa powerful divine beingrdquo or the like instead of saying ldquoGodrdquo When the whole context of Scripture is considered it is evident that the words spoken by God found in Isaiah and Hosea are very true in a specific sense namely that there is but one Supreme God and one Main Savior This truth does not rule out the existence of lsquogodlike onesrsquo under God (Job 387 Psalms 291 896)

Is it possible to speak of divine beings (ldquogodsrdquo) existing alongside God

Scholar John Macquarrie in Jesus Christ in Modern Thought claims that the Jewish monotheistic culturewould never tolerate the idea of the Logos belonging to a class of divine beings (P 110) Not quite Other scholars have a different view Ernst Haenchen for example claims the opposite in accord with Scripture ldquoIn the period in which the hymn [at John 11] took its rise it was quite possible in Jewishand Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him Phil 26-10 proves thatrdquo (A Commentary on the Gospel of John John 1Transl by Robert W Funk from Das Johannesevangelium Ein Kommentar p 109)

Another source has this to say ldquoOn the other hand it was a matter of general knowledge and one which the Bible itself shares and does not attempt to conceal that recognition and worship have often been extended to others than the Jewish-Christian God and the term lsquogodrsquo or lsquogodsrsquo is used for them

also as are the respective Greek and Hebrew words It is the custom to use a capital letter G for the God of the Jewish- Christian tradition and a small letter for the othersrdquo (Dictionary of the Bible JamesHastings Revised Edition 1963 Page 333 Grant amp Rowley Charles Scribners Sons New York)

Lets briefly look at how the Bible itself employs the words for ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture At Exodus 71 we read that God made a man Moses ldquoa godrdquo (Hebrew elohim) before Pharaoh God said to Moses ldquoSee I have made thee a god [Others ldquoa Godrdquo ldquoGodrdquo] to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophetrdquo Would this mean then that Moses himself did become an intrinsic part of the Great Divinity by the mere fact of him being called ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo by the Lord Jehovah himself Of coursenot Other translations clarify the meaning of ldquoGodrdquo used here by the LORD The English Standard Version expresses it this way ldquoSee I have made you like God to Pharaohrdquo And the International Standard Version has the LORD saying ldquoListen Ive put you in the role of God to Pharaohrdquo

And in Exodus 416 God making reference to Aaron tells Moses ldquoYou shall be as God to himrdquo (ESV NAB Hebrew lelohim ldquoas Godrdquo Darby ldquoGodrdquo Leeser ldquoa Godrdquo LXX theon ldquoGodrdquo Vulgate Deum)rdquo Moses was simply given a powerful role as Gods emissary who represented his will In Psalm 456 a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) when he became lsquoking of Israelrsquo was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo Obviously this human king was not in fact the One True God Neither was he a false God as trinitarian reasonings would lead one to believe Simply put Solomons throne was ldquodivinerdquo in the sense that he represented God in a position of authority over others

In the Scriptures we find that Jesus is described in Isaiah 96 as ldquoMighty Godrdquo and as ldquoSon of Godrdquo in other places (John 134) What about angels What do we call them Humans Not Angels are in nature heavenly beings closer to God than to men They are powerful divine spirits that reflect Gods glory and Godship They are ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 16) They are ldquogodsrdquo themselves What do we call aldquosonrdquo of a ldquohumanrdquo This ldquosonrdquo is himself a ldquohumanrdquo is he not Just as there is a family of human beings sharing ldquohumanityrdquo there is also a family of celestial beings yes ldquodivine beingsrdquo or ldquogodsrdquo sharing ldquodivinityrdquo A ldquosonrdquo of ldquoGodrdquo is ldquoa godrdquo or a lsquoreflectionrsquo of God Or it could simply refer to ldquoOne who shares a close relationship with Godrdquo (The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary) Notwithstanding the expression ldquoson of Godrdquo is never synonymous with God ( Some argue that the expression ldquoAlmightyrdquo in Revelation 18 applies to Christ but there is no concrete evidence for the claim)

Psalm 821 tells us that ldquoGod standeth in the congregation of the mighty [Brenton ldquogodsrdquo] he judgeth among the godsrdquo The Syriac Peshitta here has ldquoangelsrdquo instead of ldquogodsrdquo while Tanakh has ldquodivine beingsrdquo The Targums offer the alternate reading of ldquojudgesrdquo Whether we apply the term ldquogodsrdquo in verse one of this psalm (Psalm 821) to angels or human judges as Gods representatives (as in verse 6) as the Targums do it still proves that in the Bible other living beings other than God Almighty are spoken of as ldquogodsrdquo or ldquosons of Godrdquo with no hint of polytheism by such use The Andrews Study Bible explains under Psalm 821 ldquogods Term designates earthly rulers leaders mighty ones judges andor princes (v 7) who were Gods representatives and whose work was divinely appointed (Ex 2228 Deut 117 1618 2 Chr 196 compare with Heb 137)rdquo And The NIV Study Bible has this footnote on Psalm 821 ldquogods See v 6 In the language of the OTmdashand in accordance with the conceptual world of the ancient Near Eastmdashrulers and judges as deputies of the heavenly King could be given the honorific title lsquogodrsquo [hellip] or be called lsquoson of Godrsquo []rdquo See also the Psalm 821 footnotes of The Believers Study Bible The Wesley Bible and the HCSB Study Bible

Mighty angels and powerful human rulers or judges called ldquogodsrdquo in Scripture were considered ldquodivinerdquo or ldquogodlikerdquo when they acted on behalf of God As the Lord told Moses ldquoI will make you seem like God to Pharaohrdquo (Exodus 71 NLT) Even people of biblical times used the term ldquoGodrdquo freely in reference to powerful human leaders or people who displayed ldquosupernaturalrdquo feats Acts 1222informs us that when king Herod gave a public speech in royal robes the crowd cheered him on shouting ldquoIt is the voice of a god and not of a manrdquo On another occasion the people of a small island called Paul theos that is ldquoa godrdquo when they witnessed his superhuman powers (Acts 286 Compare with Acts 1411) With this information at hand Robert Young a master of various ancient languages concluded ldquoGodmdashis used of any one (professedly) mighty whether truly so or not and is applied not only to the true God but to false gods Magistratesjudges angels prophets etc eg Ex 71 John 11 1033 34 35 2028 rdquo ndash Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible Eerdmans Publ 1978

Then why do religious writers out there act like no one but God can be referred to as ldquodivinerdquo or ldquoa godrdquo For them anyone else but the true God is a false god They are confining themselves within a box with the Scriptural context of Isaiah chapter 43 44 and 45 discussed above where they refuse to seethe term ldquogodrdquo being used elsewhere in Scripture in a more broadly manner than their biased narrowed definition allows them to In fact even Satan is called ldquothe god [Gr ὁ θεὸς] of this worldrdquo because he actually lsquorulesrsquo this wicked world by the power he exerts over mankind (2 Cor 44 John 1231 1 John 519) Was calling Satan ldquothe god of this worldrdquo meant to promote polytheism Thus the original words for ldquogodrdquo of themselves do not signal whether a god is true or false With some exceptions the Inspired Scriptures commonly affixes the definite article (ldquotherdquo) before the word ldquoGodrdquo to distinguish the Supreme God from other gods This holds true for both the Hebrew and Greek Bible portions

It is clear from the biblical record that in ancient Jewish culture people saw no problem speaking of ldquodivine beingsrdquo under the Supreme God To them it was not exclusively a matter of whether they were true or false ldquogodsrdquo In their cultural mindset the term ldquogodsrdquo when applied positively to others beside the Most High God meant that they were powerful representatives of God whether it was Christ spokenof angels or human judges When speaking of powerful heavenly beings in glory the term ldquosons of Godrdquo was fully acceptable There is no record of Jesus displaying any feelings of disgust when claiming he was ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 1036 NIV) Why should we then

Hence anyone else other than God labeled ldquogodrdquo in Scripture in a positive light are simply divine beings created in the image of the True God belonging to the heavenly family of ldquogodlikerdquo ones The term ldquogodrdquo may also be Scripturally used to describe human beings holding a position of power and authority when appointed by God When the term is used this way polytheism is not an issue

What about the Christ

At John 1033-36 Christ himself appealed to Psalm 82 where the term ldquogodsrdquo was applied to persons other than God Jesus was refuting the charge of blasphemy that he was making himself ldquoGgodrdquo as invalid because he was only claiming to be not God but ldquoGods Sonrdquo which is totally different Jesus had an excellent opportunity here to claim once and for all that he was ldquoGodrdquo but once again he did not do so Jesus Christ holds a much higher position than any angel or man but is still subordinate to his Father God (1 Corinthians 113 Hebrews 32 Colossians 13)

Angels were made subject to Christ after he himself was placed at Gods right hand (1 Peter 322) Although both angels and Christ are described as lsquosons of Godrsquo only Jesus Christ is distinctively called

ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo according to some manuscripts (John 118 Murdock Noyes Concordant Literal Version) Or ldquothe one-begotten Godrdquo (Etheridge) The Word Study Greek-English New Testament describes the Logos as the ldquoonly born Godrdquo (John 118 Paul R McReynolds) Only Christ is called ldquothe firstborn of all creationrdquo a term never used for the lsquoSuperiorityrsquo of God or the holy spirit (Colossians 115) Could Trinitarians ever answer the following question If Christ was not created as some claim who then was the first creation by God Also who is ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo Surely someone lsquocreated firstrsquo in the universe would be honored with the title lsquothe firstborn of all creationrsquo Is there any other way to express such event The Bible simply points to Christ as such of which is said ldquoThese things saith the Amen the faithful and true witness the beginning of the creation of Godrdquo Whatdoes lsquothe beginning of Gods creationrsquo really mean Another Bible translation puts it this way ldquoThe one who is in the origin of things created by God [El que estaacute en el origen de las cosas creadas por Dios]rdquo (Biblia de Ameacuterica approved by various Episcopalian dioceses in Central and South America Casa de la Biblia Madrid) No ldquomysteryrdquo here Its that simple

Could there be any ldquosaviorrdquo other than God

The Sovereign Lord God is the main Savior but he may allow others to act as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo on his behalf in certain situations We find that the term is applied to Christ as the prime agent of salvation (2 Peter 220 1 John 414 Titus 14) We are told that men too like Othniel and Ehud were used as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo of their people (Judges 216 3915 Hebrew moshia same word used for God at Isaiah Compare with Isaiah 452 Hebrew u˙moshia Nehemiah 927 Hebrew moshiim plural of moshia) Would this mean then that those men called ldquosaviorsrdquo in Scripture form a part of the Supreme Divinity No there is a better explanation as found in the NIV

The NIV Study Bible has this to say of Israels leaders or judges ldquoTheir principal purpose is best expressed in [Judges] 216 lsquoThen the LORD raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of hellip raidersrsquo Since it was God who permitted the oppressions and raised up deliverers [saviors] he himself was Israels ultimate Judge and Deliverer [Savior] (1127 see 823 where Gideon a judge insists that the Lord is Israels true rulerrdquo (p 325) The Bible uses the same original words (ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo) for God Christ and men Does it mean they all are the same person or co-equal The context then iswhat determines the correct application for each occurrence of those terms

Who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo

In contrast to others who were called ldquosaviorsrdquo of the people of Israel Jesus is called ldquoSavior of the worldrdquo Jesus can potentially save not only Israel but all of mankind from bondage to sin and from death itself (John 316 1 John 414) Although Christ is undoubtedly a greater Savior than any man heis still subject to the Grandest Savior of all (Isaiah 4311 Acts 412 1 Corinthians 1528) Christ himself came to be in a situation where he had to cry out with a loud voice for salvation Right before his death he implored ldquoMy God my God why hast thou forsaken merdquo He had to be saved by God (Matthew 2746 Hebrews 57 Psalm 288)

Acts 531 tells us who was the One who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquoGod exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israelrdquo (NRSV) According to this scripture whatever capacity Jesus had as ldquosaviorrdquo was due to God To insist that Jesus is ldquoGodrdquo because of his description as ldquosaviorrdquo then we could reason all the same that men such as Othniel and Ehud were alsoldquoGodrdquo because they too were called saviors Overall ldquocontextrdquo should be the guiding principle for the

right comprehension of biblical terms

Jesus as ldquoSon of manrdquo

Jesus made reference to himself in the Gospels nearly 80 times as ldquothe Son of manrdquo an expression indicating he was truly a ldquomanrdquo while on earth not a God-man (Matthew 820 etc) According to Hebrews 29 Jesus ldquowas made a little lower than the angelsrdquo so he could taste death for everyone God cannot ever become ldquolower than the angelsrdquo he created John 114 tells us that it was lsquothe Word who became fleshrsquo not God The doctrine of the ldquoincarnationrdquo as commonly taught actually twists the meaning of John 114 because the text does not say at all that lsquoGod became fleshrsquo Instead it says ldquothe Wordrdquo did Plain and simple 2 John 7 only confirms this In other words the Logos Jesus Christ became ldquohumanrdquo or ldquoa human beingrdquo One scripture often misused to prove that God was made flesh is 1 Timothy 316 but this text did not originally say ldquoGod was manifest in the fleshrdquo as it reads in a few Bible versions since such reading is defective Other translations of the Bible have corrected this error in translation saying instead ldquoHe [or ldquoWhordquo] was manifested in the fleshrdquo allowing for lsquoChrist as the One being manifested in the fleshrsquo For a consideration of 1 Tim 316 see httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

In an effort to simplify the meaning of the expression ldquoSon of manrdquo in reference to Christ in our culture a modern Bible version used the expression ldquothe Human Onerdquo repeatedly (Common English Bible) ldquoThe general use of lsquoson of manrsquo occurs in poetic texts in which the phrase functions as a synonym for lsquomanrsquo or lsquohuman beingrsquo rdquo (The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary) The NIV at Daniel 713 confirms the meaning of the expression ldquoson of manrdquo in a footnote ldquoThe Aramaic phrase bar enash [son of man]means human being The phrase son of man is retained here because of its use in the New Testament as a title of Jesus probably based largely on this verserdquo (2011 Edition) The apostle was very familiar withthis much used expression of Jesus If ldquoSon of manrdquo meant he was a ldquohuman beingrdquo on earth then John would use the similar expression a son of God (or Gods Son) in a way humans would naturally understand it That is lsquoof divine originrsquo (ldquoa godrdquo) without any foreign trinitarian speculation of a later era which Jesus disciples were unaware of (John 1033-36) Jesus divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship As noted the expression may also refer to lsquoone who shares a close relationship with Godrsquo As future co-heirs in the kingdom of Christ human creatures too are designated as ldquosons of Godrdquo but never become identical to the Sovereign God Again polytheism is not an issue here No need to make this into a ldquomysteryrdquo

Why does the Bible speak sometimes as if Jesus Christ himself was ldquoGodrdquo

The Jewish nation already believed and sought lsquoto honorrsquo the Father of Abraham Isaac and Jacob This monotheistic culture adhered to the Mosaic Law as they worshiped the true God But many prophecies which appeared in the Hebrew code identified the Messiah as lsquoemancipatorrsquo of their bondage to sin Themajority of the Jews where hoping the foretold Messiah would rescue them from the Roman yoke Instead of getting involved in earthly politics Jesus repeatedly spoke of lsquoGods kingdomrsquo hence comparatively few exercised faith in him In contrast to the few who believed in Jesus as being ldquosentrdquo by God the majority of Jews could look no further from the man they considered their Father AbrahamThey were blind in their self-sufficiency

There was thus an urgent need to communicate to the Jewish people that exercising faith in Christ was essential to their salvation But how would one do that To start by making them see that Jesus Christ

Most English translations do this Again to be consistent with this syntactical construction these translations could have used the indefinite article (a) at John 11c and have it read ldquothe Word was a godrdquo And if Bible translators are reluctant to use the indefinite article at John 11c they could have at least rendered the anarthrous noun ldquoGodrdquo in such way that brings out the descriptive nature (as an adjective) of such nouns by rendering it ldquoand the Word was god (or divine)rdquo to be consistent with theirother renderings which follow this pattern By the way some translations render it this way

ldquoand the Word was godrdquo (Professor Charles C Torrey Yale University 1947) ldquoand the Logos was god [eacutetait dieu]rdquo (Herbert Pernot 1925 Paris) ldquoand the Word was divinerdquo (E J Goodspeed) ldquoand the Word was god [eacutetait dieu]rdquo (Traduction du monde nouveau 1987) ldquoThe Word was god [eacutetait dieu]rdquo (Marc J H Oltramare 1872 University Professor Geneva) ldquoSo the Word was divinerdquo (Hugh J Schonfield) ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo (Reijnier Rooleeuw MD) ldquoand god was the Word [y dios era la Palabra]rdquo (J J Bartolomeacute Madrid 2002)

6th Example (1 Kings 1827 Septuagint LXX)

Greek ὅτι θεός ἐστιν Hebrew ההו א ההה םים א אל כהכ םי ־ for god is (he) he god for lt ldquoFor he is a godrdquo (Sir Lancelot C L Brentons translation from the Greek LXX) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Septuagint LXX Charles Thomson) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (The Apostles Bible A Modern English Translation of the Greek Septuagint by Paul W Esposito 2004) ldquoFor he is a godrdquo (New English Translation of the Septuagint [NETS] 2007) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (The Orthodox Study Bible St Athanasius Academy Septuagint 2008 LXX) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Orthodox England Michael Asser 2001-2010 based on the Greek text [LXX] of the version published by the Greek Orthodox Church Apostoliki Diakonia) ldquofor a god herdquo (Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament) ldquofor god herdquo (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Jewish Publication Society 1917 Translated from the Hebrew) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts [tr Syriac] George M Lamsa) ldquofor he is godrdquo [pues eacutel es dios] (La Biblia Peshitta en Espantildeol translated from the AramaicSyriac)

ldquobecause god (he) is [porque dios es]rdquo (La Sagrada Biblia G Juumlnemann B 1992 Greek LXX) ldquofor Baal is youre god [for Baal is your god]rdquo (John Wycliffes Translation transl f Latin c 1384) ldquofor he is a godrdquo (Douay-Rheims Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate ldquodeus enim estrdquo)

In this account we read of Elijah mocking Baal a false god The Greek construction is similar to that ofJohn 11c Just as in the other instances of theos without the article (ldquotherdquo) and preceding the verb translators find it necessary in English to add the indefinite article (a) to complete the sense in our language Had the speaker used the article before theos it could be taken then as a reference to Baal being ldquoGodrdquo not ldquoa godrdquo Would it not Observe that John Wycliffes Translation from Latin did not capitalize the ldquogrdquo in ldquogodrdquo Also the two Spanish translations above one from the Greek LXX by

Juumlnemann and the other a Peshitta from the Aramaic do not capitalize the ldquogrdquo in ldquogodrdquo Actually in Spanish it is not required to use the indefinite article (a) in this construction to obtain nearly the same effect as the English statement ldquofor he is a godrdquo Surely the translators of this Spanish version were not suggesting that Elijah was calling Baal ldquoGodrdquo In Hebrew we find the reading ההו א ההה םים א אל כהכ םי־ (ki-elohim hu Literally because god [is] he) likewise translated in our English versions as ldquoFor he isa godrdquo Thus Bible translations from both the Hebrew and Greek (LXX ) texts here and from the Latin and Syriac versions as well all reflect indefinite or qualitative renderings ndash good indicators which show how John 11c with similar syntax should be translated

If you have carefully followed this discussion to this point you may have observed that the indefinite translation of anarthrous predicate nouns (using ldquoardquo) similar in construction to John 11c is a valid option to consider Why is this significant to mention Because Trinitarian scholars try so hard to disengage the likelihood of the indefinite notion in the discussion of John 11c They keep saying that a grammatical construction such as we find in John 11 should be rendered qualitatively usually ignoring or denying the possible indefinite nuance of anarthrous nouns before the verb However in these samples we see a pattern where translators freely use one of those two aspects (indefinite or qualitative)in the translations sometimes alternating between the two It appears then that theology is a factor in their denial of this fact

7th Example (Xenophons Anabasis 146)

Greek εμπoacuteριον δrsquo ην το χωρiacuteον market and was the place

(A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey had this to say (under the heading ldquoWith the Subject in a Copulative Sentencerdquo) ldquoThe article sometimes distinguishes the subjectfrom the predicate in a copulative sentence In Xenophons Anabasis 146 εμπoacuteριον δrsquo ην το χωρiacuteον and the place was a market we have a parallel case to what we have in John 11 καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος and the word was deity The article points out the subject in these examples Neither was the place the only market nor was the word all of God as it would mean if the article were also used with θεός As it stands the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo (Page 148 paragraph laquo3raquo Italics theirs) I agree with the above comment However I feel that the last statement about ldquothe other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo is superfluous This is clearly a case of two Baptist grammarians reading far more into the text than is warranted John chapter 1 is not speaking of three persons in the Godhead Actually the whole Gospel of John makes no mention whatsoever of three persons in one God This language is totally foreign to the New Testament

To run more parallel with Xenophons statement and the place was a market this Grammar could have translated John 11c and the word was a god I am aware that Dr Julius R Mantey has been openly opposed (to put it mildly) to the NW translation ldquothe Word was a godrdquo Nevertheless the example theyset forth seems to contradict Manteys statements Compare the literal Greek reading of Xenophons statement with the suggested translation by Dana and Mantey of which Mantey says is ldquoa parallel caserdquo to John 11c and see for yourself

ldquoand the place was market rdquo (Literal reading in English order Anabasis 146) ldquoand the word was god rdquo (Literal reading in English order John 11c)

ldquoand the place was a market rdquo (Suggested translation by Dana and Mantey) ldquoand the Word was a god rdquo (Controversial translation criticized by Mantey)

The translation offered by Dr Dana and Dr Mantey ldquoand the place was a marketrdquo as indicated above is an unintended admission that ldquothe Word was a godrdquo is a proper translation even though as Trinitarians they prefer another and the word was deity Note too that their suggested translation of John 11c and the word was deity is not the same thing as saying that the word was entirely God for they said ldquonor was the word all of Godrdquo Additionally the use of the word ldquomayrdquo in the statement ldquothe three persons may be impliedrdquo reveals a theological speculation not a fact The truth is that Jesus himself spoke of his Father God as ldquothe only Godrdquo (NIV New King James Version John 544) If Jesus is not ldquothe only Godrdquo who is he then Christ is time and again described as ldquoGods Sonrdquo hence a reflection of Gods glory ldquogodlikerdquo ldquodivinerdquo The Bible itself says ldquoThe Son reflects Gods own gloryand everything about him represents God exactlyrdquo (Hebrews 13 New Living Translation) This focus on Christ by Christian Writers throughout the New Testament led William Barclay to caution ldquoTo say that the Word was God is too much to say that the Word was Divine is too littlerdquo (ldquoGreat Themes of the New Testament II John 11-14rdquo Expository Times 70 (1958-59) 114)

Much has been made of the publication of a letter Mantey wrote to the publishers of the NWT (WT Society) where Mantey asked the WTS to stop quoting him by name since he felt they were misquotingtheir Grammar Many have seized this incident to lash out slanderous statements at the WTS for alleged ldquoscholastic dishonestyrdquo I feel this attack has not much merit It is in the main a theological objection For the benefit of those who do not have these two publications I will reproduce here what the NWT said right before and after quoting the Grammar of Dana and Mantey ldquoCareful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity a personality whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about someone That is what A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey remarks on page 140 paragraph vii [ldquoThe articular construction emphasizes identity the anarthrous construction emphasizes characterrdquo] Accordingly on page 148 paragraph (3) this same publication says about the subject of a copulative sentence [hellip quoted above at beginning of this section] Instead of translating John 11 and the word was deity thisGrammar could have translated it and the word was a god to run more parallel with Xenophons statement and the place was a marketrdquo (NWT Appendix page 774)

In my opinion the NWT quote of the Grammar was accurate enough with one exception The NWT Committee omitted this sentence ldquoAs it stands the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo And it is this omission which Dr Mantey most likely objected to I too believe this sentence was not critical in the context of the grammar being considered to prove the authors point but whether they were ldquodishonestrdquo or not by omitting this one sentence in their quote I leave it for the reader to decide Apparently the NW translators intended to avoid the dogmatic Trinity subject in their Appendix at that point When quoting Dana and Mantey the NWT Committee could certainly have been more explicit by implying for example that in their opinion the authors used an argument that in effect allowed the reading ldquothe word was a godrdquo as a ldquoparallel caserdquo to Xenophons statement ldquothe place was a marketrdquo instead of insinuating by mode of silence that the trinitarian authors approved of such reading (To readmore about the practice of WTS ldquoquoting sourcesrdquo see Note 1 at the end of the article)

Interestingly Dana and Manteys Grammar says on pages 138 139 140 ldquoWhen identity is prominent we find the article and when quality or character is stressed the construction is anarthrous [without thearticle]rdquo And ldquoThe use of the articular and anarthrous constructions of θεός is highly instructive A

study of the uses of the term as given in Moulton and Gedens Concordance convinces one that without the article θεός signifies divine essence while with the article divine personality is chiefly in viewrdquo Furthermore on page 140 on the use of the article in the Greek text it says ldquoThe articular constructionemphasizes identity the anarthrous construction emphasizes characterrdquo

Dr Julius R Mantey did include this statement in his letter of repudiation to the WTS mentioned earlierldquoProf Harner Vol 921 in JBL has gone beyond Colwells research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subjectrdquo (July 11 1974) Instead of advocating a trinity this statement of Mantey quoting Professor Harner oddlysupports some of the arguments published in the 1950 and the 1984 NWT Editions

Going by grammar alone one could say that the renderings ldquothe place was a marketrdquo ldquothe Word was agod [divine]rdquo and ldquothe word was deityrdquo all three potentially agree with the grammar principles expounded by Dana amp Mantey on the articular and the anarthrous constructions of θεός on pages 138-140 and on page 148 though they may not admit to it Again let us not forget their clear message ldquoNeither was the place the only market [the place was a market] nor was the word all of Godrdquo

Coming back to translation issues we can see that generally modern translations do make an effort to convey a difference in translation between predicate nouns with and without the article preceding the verb If we take a look at John 151 where John uses the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the verb ldquo(ho georgoacutes estin) the farmer isrdquo we will find that translators generally reflect that fact in translation However here in John 11 they are reluctant to produce a translation which shows the fact that the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo in this verse lacks the article Why Is it because Greek grammar demands the rendering ldquoGodrdquo Not at all The seven (7) submitted samples clearly indicate that it is not grammar but ldquotheologyrdquo for the reluctance Even Greek scholars teach that ldquowhen a Greek noun lacksthe definite article it normally will be translated as indefiniterdquo (A Primer of Biblical Greek by N Clayton Croy assistant professor of NT at Trinity Luther Seminary Columbus Ohio p 15) At John 11 translators in their drive to make Jesus appear identical to God will use a capital G when Jesus is spoken of Patterns of Greek grammar as seen in the above examples and elsewhere are ignored to sustain their theology (Note the use of ldquonormallyrdquo here because the author is aware that there is lsquono hard rulersquo that can be applied at all times in regards to the use of the article or lack of But his statement holds generally true as in here)

John 12 would be pointless tautology if John meant that the Logos was identical to God as some translations suggest It is also misleading to translate John 11 ldquothe Word was fully Godrdquo as the NET Bible does If we were to use the NET Bibles reasoning which appears in their note of John 11 and apply it to samples discussed above with similar syntax we would get the following translations ldquoThis man [Paul] must be fully Murdererrdquo ldquoThat one [climbing over the fence] is fully Thief and fully Robberrdquo ldquofor he (Baal) is fully Godrdquo ldquoand the place was fully Marketrdquo

Does that make sense Baal a pagan god was certainly not lsquofully Godrsquo in the sense of him being the Supreme God But Elijah could depict Baal as ldquoa godrdquo for he was not lsquothe only godrsquo among the heathens And to say ldquothe place was fully Marketrdquo is meaningless In fact Dana and Mantey argued against the place being The Market the only market They conclude that the Greek construction demands ldquothe place was a marketrdquo And Dana and Mantey pointed out that the Greek construction of John 11 tells us that lsquothe word was deity [ldquodivinerdquo but] not all of Godrsquo

In Marks gospel (649) where Jesus appeared walking over the waters next to the disciples boat duringa storm in which they became terrified after seeing an ldquoapparitionrdquo or ldquophantomrdquo of some sort (since they were unaware it was Jesus) they screamed ldquoIts a ghostrdquo according to some Bible versions (Or ldquoa spiritrdquo KJV) The grammatical structure of Mark 649 and John 11 are similar so how do Bible translations deal with this Do they have the disciples crying out ldquoHe is fully Ghost Or would they scream instead ldquoHe is Phantomrdquo No Most Bibles have the disciples believing or saying it was ldquoa ghostrdquoor ldquoa phantomrdquo or ldquoan apparitionrdquo of some sort At no time do translators argue that it should be translated as they do at John 11c by capitalizing the predicate noun and omitting the indefinite article ldquoardquo John 11 is no exception to the norm Bible translators follow the pattern described by Professor Clayton Croy ldquoWhen a Greek noun lacks the definite article it normally will be translated as indefiniterdquo (op cit A Primer) In the examples above Bible translators have shown us how they really deal with syntax similar to John 11c We have ldquoa hard saying a murderer a devil a prophet a thief a robber a god a market a ghost etc At John 1837 we have ldquoa kingrdquo twice English Bibles do not have Pilate asking Jesus if he was the ldquoKingrdquo Instead English translations followthe pattern described above and render Pilates question as ldquoArt thou a king thenrdquo

In all these cases a predicate noun without the Greek article precedes a verb just as we have in John 11c Accordingly then why not reflect this pattern at John 11 especially so when two entities are being spoken of in the verse and the second occurrence of θεός lacks the article Let us not miss the previous statement by a distinguished grammarian A ldquomost common userdquo of the Greek article is to point out hellip ldquoIndividual from Other Individualsrdquo (op cit Short Grammar p 275)

Although grammarian David Alan Black a Trinitarian objects to the ldquoa Godrdquo rendering at John 11 he takes a page from Dana and Manteys Grammar when he writes ldquoIf the article were also used with θεός the statement would mean that all of God was expressed in the Word As it is the Word is neither lsquoa Godrsquo nor equal with the sum total of Godrdquo (Its Still Greek to Me p 79) This statement by Black appears to contradict the NET Bibles translation of John 11c Blacks conclusion is similar to Danas and Manteys that is ldquothe Word was Deity [θεός]rdquo (Brackets his) In similar vein The New Testament in Plain English translates John 11c as ldquothe Word was Godrdquo However a footnote says ldquoOr Deity Divine (which is actually a better translation because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word)rdquo (Underline added 2003) Now this footnote begs the question If the rendering ldquothe Word was Deity Divinerdquo is actually a ldquobetter translationrdquo why not use that in the main text It seems that trinitarian translators have difficulty in displaying a rendering other than ldquothe Word was Godrdquo even when they acknowledge there are lsquobetter translationsrsquo for the anarthrous θεός in John 11c

In English using a capital letter in ldquofully Godrdquo is misleading to someone brought up in trinitarian teaching A trinitarian believer would likely take that rendering as conveying that Christ is Almighty God himself a concept in conflict with what Christ himself stated at John 173 and John 2017 Daniel Wallace previously quoted and author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics wrote a most interesting comment which reveals how theology plays a big role at the time of translating John 11 ldquoAlthough I believe that θεός in 11c is qualitative I think the simplest and most straightforward translation is lsquoand the Word was Godrsquo It may be better to clearly affirm the NT teaching of the deity of Christ and then explain that he is not the Father than to sound ambiguous on his deity and explain that he is God but is not the Fatherrdquo (Ibid p 269 italics his) What Is he serious

Whats the point of claiming that θεός in 11c is ldquoqualitativerdquo in John 11c as Wallace does emphatically in his Grammar and then suggest to use the rendering lsquothe Word was Godrsquo which implies ldquoidentityrdquo a

ldquopersonalityrdquo the opposite of ldquocharacterrdquo or ldquoqualityrdquo) and be forced to explain that it does not mean what it actually says The end result would then be no less ldquoambiguousrdquo than the alternatives he is obviously trying to avoid Would you not rather have a ldquobetter translationrdquo such as ldquothe Word was divinerdquo which requires no additional explanation The NET Bible (Wallace senior editor) prefers a rendering other than ldquodivinerdquo because he states that ldquodivinerdquo ldquoas a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of Godrdquo However on the word ldquodivinerdquo Murray J Harris responds ldquoBut if θεὸς bears a qualitative sense the rendering lsquodivinersquo should not be dismissed as altogether inappropriate Only if lsquodivinersquo is taken to mean lsquohaving the very nature of Godrsquo does the word accurately convey Johns meaningrdquo (op cit Jesus as God p 68) The argument that ldquodivinerdquo is too generic is weak because really the same argument could be made of the term ldquogodrdquo Jesus applied the term ldquogodsrdquo to humans (John 1034-36) and Paul acknowledged that ldquothere are many gods and many lordsrdquo (1 Corinthians 85) So Wallaces objection is more likely an effort to equate Christ with God at John 11

Truly the Greek Text does not say that Christ wasis the one-and-only God What the Greek does say is that ldquothe Word was with the [True] God and the Word [himself] was a divine beingrdquo thus able to perfectly represent the character of God (Hebrews 13) The only way one could justify the rendering ldquoGodrdquo with a big ldquoGrdquo at John 11c is if the original text had the article before the second instance of theos as well Why Because John is talking about two individuals and deliberately differentiates between the two instances of ldquotheosrdquo by placing the article before the first instance of ldquotheosrdquo and not with the second Max Zerwick (SJ) wrote in this regard ldquoὁ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος [if John would have written ldquothe God was the Logosrdquo] at least in NT usage would signify personal identity of the Word with the Father since the latter [the Father] is ὁ Θεὸς [the God]rdquo (Biblical Greek p 55 Rome)

John wrote the words appearing in verse two to clear any potential misunderstanding that could arise from his bold statement in verse one Marinus de Jonge remarks ldquoThe author of this Prologue clearly wants to identify lsquothe Wordrsquo and God as closely as possible without infringing the belief in the One Godrdquo (Christology in Context The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus Philadelphia Westminster 1988 p 198 Jonge is Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands) So in effect John was saying that the Logos was like God in every imaginable way Hence the New English Bible rendering lsquoWhat God was the Word wasrsquo

Dr Jason BeDuhn explains ldquoIn John 11 the Word is not the one-and-only God but it is a god or divine being I know that sounds strange and even seems impossible coming from the pen of a Christian writer But the fact remains that that is what John wrote His purpose in doing so was at least in part to avoid the notion that God the Father himself incarnated as Christ The one who incarnated was somehow distinct from lsquoGodrsquo while still being lsquoa godrsquo rdquo (op cit Truth in Translation pp 122 123)

Why then are translators unwilling to render John 11c ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo A few reasons could be given Translators mention grammar as one problem an issue addressed throughout this article Others view the rendering ldquoa godrdquo as polytheistic I will further mention two others First is the domino effect of the Trinity doctrine developed centuries after Christ as a means to clamp down raging Christological debates to the point that the doctrine has been taken for granted as ldquotruthrdquo by most ldquoChristianrdquo people since Secondly the role in tradition played by the Latin Vulgate must be mentioned This Latin translation has greatly influenced many translators since its inception from c 405 CE It is well known that the Vulgate heavily influenced early translations of the 16th and 17th Century In fact back then translators were more likely to be familiar with the Latin Vulgate than with the Greek

The Latin Vulgate used no articles (as seen below) and that in conjunction with the Greek lacking the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) and we can see why so many have misunderstood John 11 The Christological debates of past centuries did not improve this state of confusion it made it worse I kindly ask the reader to consider the following Latin and Greek readings as helpful pointers in our discussion Notice in particular the bold letters relevant to our discussion

ndash LATIN (John 11)ldquoIn principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbumrdquo In beginning was Verb and Verb was with God and God was Verb

ndash GREEK (John 11)

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος In beginning was the logos and the logos was toward the god and god was the logos

First of all please notice that Latin makes no distinction between the two occurrences of ldquoGodrdquo in the text (ie both without the article) However Greek being a more specific descriptive language does And it does so by using the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the first occurrence and omitting it before the second Keep in mind what The Translatorrsquos New Testament previously quoted said ldquoIt is difficult to believe that the omission [of the Greek article before the second theos in John 11] is not significantrdquo (p 451) As A T Robertson pointed out ldquoThe article is never meaningless in Greek though it often fails to correspond with the English idiom [hellip] Its free use leads to exactness and finesserdquo (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research p 756) And Buttmann The use of the article [ho ldquotherdquo] has everywhere its positive reasonrdquo (Buttmanns Grammar of NewTestament Greek Bt 88) And another ldquoFor the present the presence or absence of the Greek article should always be carefully indicated in the English translationrdquo (New Testament Greek For Beginners by J Gresham Machen DD LITTD p 35 67) It is the responsibility of the translator to transmit whenever possible this existing difference in the Greek text into the English translation

Which reading of the two languages above (Latin and Greek) shows the greater similarity with the traditional rendering of John 11c Its Latin is it not In fact some Bible translations in other languages have even borrowed the latin word ldquoVerbumrdquo from the Latin Vulgate at John 11 such as the ubiquitous Spanish Reina-Valera which uses ldquoVerbordquo (Verb) instead of ldquoWordrdquo used in English versionsAlso using ldquoVerbordquo Sciacuteo de San Miguel Versioacuten Moderna Goacutemez 2010 Nueva Biblia Latinoamericana de Hoy and the Nueva Versioacuten Internacional Other international versions following the Latin Vulgate at John 11c French Darby Crampon German Luther Bible Italian Diodati and the Portuguese Almeida

It is evident that most English Bibles at John 11 are translating in the spirit of the Latin Vulgate rather than the Greek text regardless of what they claim Surprisingly as you will see in the submitted list of alternate readings at the end of this paper there are some translations though not as popular that are actually closer to the Greek above than the best-selling versions which end up following the Latin Vulgate instead Although John 11 has long been a favorite text by traditionalists to quote in the English world it may be surprise many that a modern Greek Bible reader will not likely appeal to such scripture in support of the traditional view Notwithstanding some Bible translators either disagree with the traditional viewpoint of the Logos as

ldquoGodrdquo or may simply feel that the message conveyed by the original Greek language (as demonstrated by the 7 samples above) demands a different translation at John 11c Some would have you believe that only a few insane unschooled translators with diabolical intentions would ever attempt to deviate from the traditionalist reading That is not simply true I believe most translators offering a different version of John 11 are most sincere in their effort to get to the core of the Greek meaning and to adequately transmit the intended message of the biblical author The submitted list of alternate readings at the end is not intended to be a complete list but to show a variety of renderings and viewpoints Keep in mind too that because of its theological significance other Scriptures do not have as many variant translation renderings as this one does

________________________________________

A careful review of the alternate readings list of John 11 and other related material at the end of the article would lead to this question Could anyone legitimately exclude as a valid option the rendering ldquoagodrdquo found in some Bible versions We have seen that grammar alone cannot condemn the use of such translation though many will keep trying Seven examples were provided which clearly show how translators render predicate nouns without the article occurring before the verb In addition note that these seven examples make reference to one person or one thing while John 11 is speaking of ldquotwordquo entities With greater reason then translators should render this grammatical structure in John 11c in away that brings out the indefinite-qualitative aspect rather than convey identification with the Supreme God

A Grammar states ldquoJohn was not saying that lsquothe word was the Fatherrsquo but that lsquothe word was God (divine)rsquordquo (Gramaacutetica Griega-Sintaxis del Nuevo Testamento [Greek Grammar-Syntax of the NT] by Daniel B Wallace amp Daniel S Steffen Parentheses theirs p 182) Consequently if the translation ldquothe word was Godrdquo must be understood in the adjectival sense as ldquodivinerdquo why not translate it that way Itis therefore reasonable to make a distinction between the term ldquotheosrdquo with and without the article here

In all the more accurate Bible translations do make a distinction between ldquotheosrdquo (God) with and without the article in John 11 Does yours Some argue that John did not have to employ the article before the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo to imply that the Word was ldquoGodrdquo Do you believe that If so why then was the Greek article used with the nominal predicate before the verb in John 151 which literally says ldquoThe father of me the farmer isrdquo And in John 651 ldquoThe bread but which I shall give the flesh of me isrdquo It is evident that Bible writers usually employed the article with specific intention and when they omitted it it was equally significant as well

Is it not better to just follow along with the majority view and thus free oneself from religious tension that may accompany those who sustain a minority view First of all it is dangerous to adopt a majority view if this one is in error A majority view held by ldquoscholarsrdquo of itself does not automatically make a matter ldquotruerdquo Why Because scholars are not infallible nor immune to human tradition Were they in Jesus day They were not Scholars today may find themselves in error just as many scribes were in Jesus day as Matthew chapter 23 clearly demonstrate (Matthew 159) We are warned that ldquothe whole world lies under the power of the evil onerdquo (1 John 519 New Revised Standard Bible) We should not dismiss ldquoreligionrdquo as being beyond the reach or interest of Satan We all need to be in guard of evil influence at all times being careful of not becoming ldquostone-blindrdquo by ldquothe god of this worldrdquo (2 Cor 44 The Message) Again a majority view does not always represent the truth Thus the doctrinal foundation for Christians should be based not on what the majority believe but rather on what the Bible

itself teaches

What does the Bible really say about Jesus Christ

Simply put Jesus is ldquoSon of Godrdquo not ldquoGod the Sonrdquo (Luke 135 NRSV) There is a vast difference in meaning between those two expressions There are more than two hundred references (200x) in the New Testament that explicitly declare that Jesus Christ is the ldquoSon of Godrdquo or that lsquoGod is the Father of Jesus Christrsquo (For a list of instances see The Preachers Outline and Sermon Bible ldquoJohnrdquo p 27) Yet Christendom prefers to dwell on a handful of texts which are said to describe Jesus as God None of those texts are explicit in declaring Jesus equality with God In Scripture Jesus place in the broad picture is one of sonship that is as Son of God not God Furthermore the word ldquosonrdquo is never used to describe God or the ldquoholy spiritrdquo

Christ is also described as ldquothe image of the invisible God [not God] the firstborn of all creationrdquo (Colossians 115) the ldquomediator between God and menrdquo (1 Timothy 25) Yes it is possible to spin these clear statements to make them say something else but is this what we seek One who plays the role of ldquomediatorrdquo cannot in the name of justice be one and the same person as one of the two parts that he is said to represent Otherwise such individual could not be truly impartial in his judgment Moses as a separate entity was able to really serve as ldquomediatorrdquo between God and Israel Now if Jesus the greater Moses was really one-and-the-same ldquoGodrdquo what ldquojusticerdquo could he convey acting as ldquomediatorrdquo between himself and mankind But no Jesus spoke of his Father as ldquomy Godrdquo and as lsquothe God of everyone elsersquo (John 2017) It was this God (ldquothe only Godrdquo John 544 NKJV NIV) according to Jesus himself who lsquorevealedrsquo things to Christ (Mark 1332 Revelation 11) Any statementwhich says that lsquoGod gave Jesus Christ a revelationrsquo would sound very odd to anyone taught to believe that Christ is the equal of God in every sense Scripture calls Christ ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 1913) And the record shows that it was this Word who was ldquowith God in the beginning not that he was ldquoGodrdquo but like God (Others render ldquoa Godrdquo ldquodivinerdquo - Tomanek Schonfield Heb 13)

Bible writers always speak of Jesus Christ in a subordinate role as in Ephesians 13 ldquoBlessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christrdquo 1 Corinthians 1528 ldquoThe Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him [God] who put all things in subjection to him that God may be all in allrdquo (Darby) In Colossians 31 we read ldquoKeep on seeking the things above where Christ is seated at the right hand of Godrdquo (Williams) Jesus himself made it clear to others ldquoI seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which hath sent merdquo (John 530)

Do Scriptures allow for a secondary sense of the words ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo

In the Scriptures the term lsquogodrsquo has various connotations and cannot be narrowed to one single meaning as some try to do A few scholars sustain that the notion of Jesus Christ as ldquoa godrdquo as if there were other gods beside God is incompatible with Jewish ldquomonotheismrdquo which is the belief in only one God and that it implies polytheism Nevertheless the concept itself that God as an entity is composed of three coequal persons runs counter with Jewish monotheism ldquoThe Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheismrdquo so states the Jewish Encyclopedia (ldquoTrinityrdquo) The teaching of the ldquoShemardquo consisted as has been noted in that ldquoJehovah our God is one Jehovahrdquo (Deuteronomy 64 ASV) What purpose would there be for the ldquoShemardquo to stress that Jehovah is ldquoonerdquo and then confound the matter by stating that that

must mean the Divine One is ldquothree personsrdquo in ldquoonerdquo It is explained frequently that the teaching of theTrinity is a ldquomysteryrdquo The problem with such reasoning is that nowhere does Scripture gives us reason to believe in such a concept It is possible that a person who has been exposed to this doctrine for a long time may see ldquoinsinuationsrdquo of it in the Bible However those individuals must in sincerity ask themselves whether their belief is based on ldquofactsrdquo or instead on emotional ldquofancyrdquo

Certain Scriptures are frequently cited as proof by supporters of the Trinity doctrine that Christ is God Isaiah 446 and Hosea 134 are two such Scriptures which have God Jehovah saying ldquoI am the first and I am the last and beside me there is no Godrdquo ldquoAnd thou shalt know no god but me for there is nosavior [Hebrew עע שהש םי beside merdquo These words are strictly taken literally out of their [(u˙moshia) וומוsetting to mean that there can be no ldquogodrdquo or ldquosaviorrdquo but God almighty In the context in which these words were pronounced Israel Gods people were inclined to worship vain hand-made idols (Isaiah 4217) Hence Gods warning in Isaiah and Hosea People brought up in trinitarian dogma tend to restrict the meaning of the term ldquoGodrdquo to those statements found within the context of Isaiah and Hosea leading them to the conclusion that anyone other than the True God must be a ldquofalserdquo god They define the word God within the context of modern trinitarian mentality instead of ancient Scriptural doctrine Trinitarians reason that if the appellative ldquoGodrdquo is applied to Jesus Christ then reasonably Jesus could be no other than the Lord God himself

However such trinitarian reasonings are missing an important element It has to do with the fact that the word ldquogodrdquo can be applied to others since the term itself seems to be related to someone with power and authority The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explains ldquoThis word [rsquoelōhicircm] can in fact be used for other gods (Gen 3130) and even for men (cf Ex 416 71 cf BDB p43)The derivation [of rsquoelōhicircm] is obscure but the implied sense seems to be that of strength or authorityrdquo (Vol II pg 497 italics added) The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words says ldquoThe word itself [אא ל (rsquoēl) Hebrew word for God] derives from a root term meaning lsquopowerrsquo lsquostrengthrsquo orlsquomightrsquo (Stephen D Renn p 439) And the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible states ldquoCommon to these four suggested root meanings [of El God] is the idea of strength power and of supreme excellence and greatnessrdquo (Vol 1 p 881) This may explain why various Bible versions at John 11c describe the Logos as ldquoa powerful divine beingrdquo or the like instead of saying ldquoGodrdquo When the whole context of Scripture is considered it is evident that the words spoken by God found in Isaiah and Hosea are very true in a specific sense namely that there is but one Supreme God and one Main Savior This truth does not rule out the existence of lsquogodlike onesrsquo under God (Job 387 Psalms 291 896)

Is it possible to speak of divine beings (ldquogodsrdquo) existing alongside God

Scholar John Macquarrie in Jesus Christ in Modern Thought claims that the Jewish monotheistic culturewould never tolerate the idea of the Logos belonging to a class of divine beings (P 110) Not quite Other scholars have a different view Ernst Haenchen for example claims the opposite in accord with Scripture ldquoIn the period in which the hymn [at John 11] took its rise it was quite possible in Jewishand Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him Phil 26-10 proves thatrdquo (A Commentary on the Gospel of John John 1Transl by Robert W Funk from Das Johannesevangelium Ein Kommentar p 109)

Another source has this to say ldquoOn the other hand it was a matter of general knowledge and one which the Bible itself shares and does not attempt to conceal that recognition and worship have often been extended to others than the Jewish-Christian God and the term lsquogodrsquo or lsquogodsrsquo is used for them

also as are the respective Greek and Hebrew words It is the custom to use a capital letter G for the God of the Jewish- Christian tradition and a small letter for the othersrdquo (Dictionary of the Bible JamesHastings Revised Edition 1963 Page 333 Grant amp Rowley Charles Scribners Sons New York)

Lets briefly look at how the Bible itself employs the words for ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture At Exodus 71 we read that God made a man Moses ldquoa godrdquo (Hebrew elohim) before Pharaoh God said to Moses ldquoSee I have made thee a god [Others ldquoa Godrdquo ldquoGodrdquo] to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophetrdquo Would this mean then that Moses himself did become an intrinsic part of the Great Divinity by the mere fact of him being called ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo by the Lord Jehovah himself Of coursenot Other translations clarify the meaning of ldquoGodrdquo used here by the LORD The English Standard Version expresses it this way ldquoSee I have made you like God to Pharaohrdquo And the International Standard Version has the LORD saying ldquoListen Ive put you in the role of God to Pharaohrdquo

And in Exodus 416 God making reference to Aaron tells Moses ldquoYou shall be as God to himrdquo (ESV NAB Hebrew lelohim ldquoas Godrdquo Darby ldquoGodrdquo Leeser ldquoa Godrdquo LXX theon ldquoGodrdquo Vulgate Deum)rdquo Moses was simply given a powerful role as Gods emissary who represented his will In Psalm 456 a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) when he became lsquoking of Israelrsquo was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo Obviously this human king was not in fact the One True God Neither was he a false God as trinitarian reasonings would lead one to believe Simply put Solomons throne was ldquodivinerdquo in the sense that he represented God in a position of authority over others

In the Scriptures we find that Jesus is described in Isaiah 96 as ldquoMighty Godrdquo and as ldquoSon of Godrdquo in other places (John 134) What about angels What do we call them Humans Not Angels are in nature heavenly beings closer to God than to men They are powerful divine spirits that reflect Gods glory and Godship They are ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 16) They are ldquogodsrdquo themselves What do we call aldquosonrdquo of a ldquohumanrdquo This ldquosonrdquo is himself a ldquohumanrdquo is he not Just as there is a family of human beings sharing ldquohumanityrdquo there is also a family of celestial beings yes ldquodivine beingsrdquo or ldquogodsrdquo sharing ldquodivinityrdquo A ldquosonrdquo of ldquoGodrdquo is ldquoa godrdquo or a lsquoreflectionrsquo of God Or it could simply refer to ldquoOne who shares a close relationship with Godrdquo (The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary) Notwithstanding the expression ldquoson of Godrdquo is never synonymous with God ( Some argue that the expression ldquoAlmightyrdquo in Revelation 18 applies to Christ but there is no concrete evidence for the claim)

Psalm 821 tells us that ldquoGod standeth in the congregation of the mighty [Brenton ldquogodsrdquo] he judgeth among the godsrdquo The Syriac Peshitta here has ldquoangelsrdquo instead of ldquogodsrdquo while Tanakh has ldquodivine beingsrdquo The Targums offer the alternate reading of ldquojudgesrdquo Whether we apply the term ldquogodsrdquo in verse one of this psalm (Psalm 821) to angels or human judges as Gods representatives (as in verse 6) as the Targums do it still proves that in the Bible other living beings other than God Almighty are spoken of as ldquogodsrdquo or ldquosons of Godrdquo with no hint of polytheism by such use The Andrews Study Bible explains under Psalm 821 ldquogods Term designates earthly rulers leaders mighty ones judges andor princes (v 7) who were Gods representatives and whose work was divinely appointed (Ex 2228 Deut 117 1618 2 Chr 196 compare with Heb 137)rdquo And The NIV Study Bible has this footnote on Psalm 821 ldquogods See v 6 In the language of the OTmdashand in accordance with the conceptual world of the ancient Near Eastmdashrulers and judges as deputies of the heavenly King could be given the honorific title lsquogodrsquo [hellip] or be called lsquoson of Godrsquo []rdquo See also the Psalm 821 footnotes of The Believers Study Bible The Wesley Bible and the HCSB Study Bible

Mighty angels and powerful human rulers or judges called ldquogodsrdquo in Scripture were considered ldquodivinerdquo or ldquogodlikerdquo when they acted on behalf of God As the Lord told Moses ldquoI will make you seem like God to Pharaohrdquo (Exodus 71 NLT) Even people of biblical times used the term ldquoGodrdquo freely in reference to powerful human leaders or people who displayed ldquosupernaturalrdquo feats Acts 1222informs us that when king Herod gave a public speech in royal robes the crowd cheered him on shouting ldquoIt is the voice of a god and not of a manrdquo On another occasion the people of a small island called Paul theos that is ldquoa godrdquo when they witnessed his superhuman powers (Acts 286 Compare with Acts 1411) With this information at hand Robert Young a master of various ancient languages concluded ldquoGodmdashis used of any one (professedly) mighty whether truly so or not and is applied not only to the true God but to false gods Magistratesjudges angels prophets etc eg Ex 71 John 11 1033 34 35 2028 rdquo ndash Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible Eerdmans Publ 1978

Then why do religious writers out there act like no one but God can be referred to as ldquodivinerdquo or ldquoa godrdquo For them anyone else but the true God is a false god They are confining themselves within a box with the Scriptural context of Isaiah chapter 43 44 and 45 discussed above where they refuse to seethe term ldquogodrdquo being used elsewhere in Scripture in a more broadly manner than their biased narrowed definition allows them to In fact even Satan is called ldquothe god [Gr ὁ θεὸς] of this worldrdquo because he actually lsquorulesrsquo this wicked world by the power he exerts over mankind (2 Cor 44 John 1231 1 John 519) Was calling Satan ldquothe god of this worldrdquo meant to promote polytheism Thus the original words for ldquogodrdquo of themselves do not signal whether a god is true or false With some exceptions the Inspired Scriptures commonly affixes the definite article (ldquotherdquo) before the word ldquoGodrdquo to distinguish the Supreme God from other gods This holds true for both the Hebrew and Greek Bible portions

It is clear from the biblical record that in ancient Jewish culture people saw no problem speaking of ldquodivine beingsrdquo under the Supreme God To them it was not exclusively a matter of whether they were true or false ldquogodsrdquo In their cultural mindset the term ldquogodsrdquo when applied positively to others beside the Most High God meant that they were powerful representatives of God whether it was Christ spokenof angels or human judges When speaking of powerful heavenly beings in glory the term ldquosons of Godrdquo was fully acceptable There is no record of Jesus displaying any feelings of disgust when claiming he was ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 1036 NIV) Why should we then

Hence anyone else other than God labeled ldquogodrdquo in Scripture in a positive light are simply divine beings created in the image of the True God belonging to the heavenly family of ldquogodlikerdquo ones The term ldquogodrdquo may also be Scripturally used to describe human beings holding a position of power and authority when appointed by God When the term is used this way polytheism is not an issue

What about the Christ

At John 1033-36 Christ himself appealed to Psalm 82 where the term ldquogodsrdquo was applied to persons other than God Jesus was refuting the charge of blasphemy that he was making himself ldquoGgodrdquo as invalid because he was only claiming to be not God but ldquoGods Sonrdquo which is totally different Jesus had an excellent opportunity here to claim once and for all that he was ldquoGodrdquo but once again he did not do so Jesus Christ holds a much higher position than any angel or man but is still subordinate to his Father God (1 Corinthians 113 Hebrews 32 Colossians 13)

Angels were made subject to Christ after he himself was placed at Gods right hand (1 Peter 322) Although both angels and Christ are described as lsquosons of Godrsquo only Jesus Christ is distinctively called

ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo according to some manuscripts (John 118 Murdock Noyes Concordant Literal Version) Or ldquothe one-begotten Godrdquo (Etheridge) The Word Study Greek-English New Testament describes the Logos as the ldquoonly born Godrdquo (John 118 Paul R McReynolds) Only Christ is called ldquothe firstborn of all creationrdquo a term never used for the lsquoSuperiorityrsquo of God or the holy spirit (Colossians 115) Could Trinitarians ever answer the following question If Christ was not created as some claim who then was the first creation by God Also who is ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo Surely someone lsquocreated firstrsquo in the universe would be honored with the title lsquothe firstborn of all creationrsquo Is there any other way to express such event The Bible simply points to Christ as such of which is said ldquoThese things saith the Amen the faithful and true witness the beginning of the creation of Godrdquo Whatdoes lsquothe beginning of Gods creationrsquo really mean Another Bible translation puts it this way ldquoThe one who is in the origin of things created by God [El que estaacute en el origen de las cosas creadas por Dios]rdquo (Biblia de Ameacuterica approved by various Episcopalian dioceses in Central and South America Casa de la Biblia Madrid) No ldquomysteryrdquo here Its that simple

Could there be any ldquosaviorrdquo other than God

The Sovereign Lord God is the main Savior but he may allow others to act as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo on his behalf in certain situations We find that the term is applied to Christ as the prime agent of salvation (2 Peter 220 1 John 414 Titus 14) We are told that men too like Othniel and Ehud were used as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo of their people (Judges 216 3915 Hebrew moshia same word used for God at Isaiah Compare with Isaiah 452 Hebrew u˙moshia Nehemiah 927 Hebrew moshiim plural of moshia) Would this mean then that those men called ldquosaviorsrdquo in Scripture form a part of the Supreme Divinity No there is a better explanation as found in the NIV

The NIV Study Bible has this to say of Israels leaders or judges ldquoTheir principal purpose is best expressed in [Judges] 216 lsquoThen the LORD raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of hellip raidersrsquo Since it was God who permitted the oppressions and raised up deliverers [saviors] he himself was Israels ultimate Judge and Deliverer [Savior] (1127 see 823 where Gideon a judge insists that the Lord is Israels true rulerrdquo (p 325) The Bible uses the same original words (ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo) for God Christ and men Does it mean they all are the same person or co-equal The context then iswhat determines the correct application for each occurrence of those terms

Who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo

In contrast to others who were called ldquosaviorsrdquo of the people of Israel Jesus is called ldquoSavior of the worldrdquo Jesus can potentially save not only Israel but all of mankind from bondage to sin and from death itself (John 316 1 John 414) Although Christ is undoubtedly a greater Savior than any man heis still subject to the Grandest Savior of all (Isaiah 4311 Acts 412 1 Corinthians 1528) Christ himself came to be in a situation where he had to cry out with a loud voice for salvation Right before his death he implored ldquoMy God my God why hast thou forsaken merdquo He had to be saved by God (Matthew 2746 Hebrews 57 Psalm 288)

Acts 531 tells us who was the One who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquoGod exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israelrdquo (NRSV) According to this scripture whatever capacity Jesus had as ldquosaviorrdquo was due to God To insist that Jesus is ldquoGodrdquo because of his description as ldquosaviorrdquo then we could reason all the same that men such as Othniel and Ehud were alsoldquoGodrdquo because they too were called saviors Overall ldquocontextrdquo should be the guiding principle for the

right comprehension of biblical terms

Jesus as ldquoSon of manrdquo

Jesus made reference to himself in the Gospels nearly 80 times as ldquothe Son of manrdquo an expression indicating he was truly a ldquomanrdquo while on earth not a God-man (Matthew 820 etc) According to Hebrews 29 Jesus ldquowas made a little lower than the angelsrdquo so he could taste death for everyone God cannot ever become ldquolower than the angelsrdquo he created John 114 tells us that it was lsquothe Word who became fleshrsquo not God The doctrine of the ldquoincarnationrdquo as commonly taught actually twists the meaning of John 114 because the text does not say at all that lsquoGod became fleshrsquo Instead it says ldquothe Wordrdquo did Plain and simple 2 John 7 only confirms this In other words the Logos Jesus Christ became ldquohumanrdquo or ldquoa human beingrdquo One scripture often misused to prove that God was made flesh is 1 Timothy 316 but this text did not originally say ldquoGod was manifest in the fleshrdquo as it reads in a few Bible versions since such reading is defective Other translations of the Bible have corrected this error in translation saying instead ldquoHe [or ldquoWhordquo] was manifested in the fleshrdquo allowing for lsquoChrist as the One being manifested in the fleshrsquo For a consideration of 1 Tim 316 see httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

In an effort to simplify the meaning of the expression ldquoSon of manrdquo in reference to Christ in our culture a modern Bible version used the expression ldquothe Human Onerdquo repeatedly (Common English Bible) ldquoThe general use of lsquoson of manrsquo occurs in poetic texts in which the phrase functions as a synonym for lsquomanrsquo or lsquohuman beingrsquo rdquo (The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary) The NIV at Daniel 713 confirms the meaning of the expression ldquoson of manrdquo in a footnote ldquoThe Aramaic phrase bar enash [son of man]means human being The phrase son of man is retained here because of its use in the New Testament as a title of Jesus probably based largely on this verserdquo (2011 Edition) The apostle was very familiar withthis much used expression of Jesus If ldquoSon of manrdquo meant he was a ldquohuman beingrdquo on earth then John would use the similar expression a son of God (or Gods Son) in a way humans would naturally understand it That is lsquoof divine originrsquo (ldquoa godrdquo) without any foreign trinitarian speculation of a later era which Jesus disciples were unaware of (John 1033-36) Jesus divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship As noted the expression may also refer to lsquoone who shares a close relationship with Godrsquo As future co-heirs in the kingdom of Christ human creatures too are designated as ldquosons of Godrdquo but never become identical to the Sovereign God Again polytheism is not an issue here No need to make this into a ldquomysteryrdquo

Why does the Bible speak sometimes as if Jesus Christ himself was ldquoGodrdquo

The Jewish nation already believed and sought lsquoto honorrsquo the Father of Abraham Isaac and Jacob This monotheistic culture adhered to the Mosaic Law as they worshiped the true God But many prophecies which appeared in the Hebrew code identified the Messiah as lsquoemancipatorrsquo of their bondage to sin Themajority of the Jews where hoping the foretold Messiah would rescue them from the Roman yoke Instead of getting involved in earthly politics Jesus repeatedly spoke of lsquoGods kingdomrsquo hence comparatively few exercised faith in him In contrast to the few who believed in Jesus as being ldquosentrdquo by God the majority of Jews could look no further from the man they considered their Father AbrahamThey were blind in their self-sufficiency

There was thus an urgent need to communicate to the Jewish people that exercising faith in Christ was essential to their salvation But how would one do that To start by making them see that Jesus Christ

Juumlnemann and the other a Peshitta from the Aramaic do not capitalize the ldquogrdquo in ldquogodrdquo Actually in Spanish it is not required to use the indefinite article (a) in this construction to obtain nearly the same effect as the English statement ldquofor he is a godrdquo Surely the translators of this Spanish version were not suggesting that Elijah was calling Baal ldquoGodrdquo In Hebrew we find the reading ההו א ההה םים א אל כהכ םי־ (ki-elohim hu Literally because god [is] he) likewise translated in our English versions as ldquoFor he isa godrdquo Thus Bible translations from both the Hebrew and Greek (LXX ) texts here and from the Latin and Syriac versions as well all reflect indefinite or qualitative renderings ndash good indicators which show how John 11c with similar syntax should be translated

If you have carefully followed this discussion to this point you may have observed that the indefinite translation of anarthrous predicate nouns (using ldquoardquo) similar in construction to John 11c is a valid option to consider Why is this significant to mention Because Trinitarian scholars try so hard to disengage the likelihood of the indefinite notion in the discussion of John 11c They keep saying that a grammatical construction such as we find in John 11 should be rendered qualitatively usually ignoring or denying the possible indefinite nuance of anarthrous nouns before the verb However in these samples we see a pattern where translators freely use one of those two aspects (indefinite or qualitative)in the translations sometimes alternating between the two It appears then that theology is a factor in their denial of this fact

7th Example (Xenophons Anabasis 146)

Greek εμπoacuteριον δrsquo ην το χωρiacuteον market and was the place

(A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey had this to say (under the heading ldquoWith the Subject in a Copulative Sentencerdquo) ldquoThe article sometimes distinguishes the subjectfrom the predicate in a copulative sentence In Xenophons Anabasis 146 εμπoacuteριον δrsquo ην το χωρiacuteον and the place was a market we have a parallel case to what we have in John 11 καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος and the word was deity The article points out the subject in these examples Neither was the place the only market nor was the word all of God as it would mean if the article were also used with θεός As it stands the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo (Page 148 paragraph laquo3raquo Italics theirs) I agree with the above comment However I feel that the last statement about ldquothe other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo is superfluous This is clearly a case of two Baptist grammarians reading far more into the text than is warranted John chapter 1 is not speaking of three persons in the Godhead Actually the whole Gospel of John makes no mention whatsoever of three persons in one God This language is totally foreign to the New Testament

To run more parallel with Xenophons statement and the place was a market this Grammar could have translated John 11c and the word was a god I am aware that Dr Julius R Mantey has been openly opposed (to put it mildly) to the NW translation ldquothe Word was a godrdquo Nevertheless the example theyset forth seems to contradict Manteys statements Compare the literal Greek reading of Xenophons statement with the suggested translation by Dana and Mantey of which Mantey says is ldquoa parallel caserdquo to John 11c and see for yourself

ldquoand the place was market rdquo (Literal reading in English order Anabasis 146) ldquoand the word was god rdquo (Literal reading in English order John 11c)

ldquoand the place was a market rdquo (Suggested translation by Dana and Mantey) ldquoand the Word was a god rdquo (Controversial translation criticized by Mantey)

The translation offered by Dr Dana and Dr Mantey ldquoand the place was a marketrdquo as indicated above is an unintended admission that ldquothe Word was a godrdquo is a proper translation even though as Trinitarians they prefer another and the word was deity Note too that their suggested translation of John 11c and the word was deity is not the same thing as saying that the word was entirely God for they said ldquonor was the word all of Godrdquo Additionally the use of the word ldquomayrdquo in the statement ldquothe three persons may be impliedrdquo reveals a theological speculation not a fact The truth is that Jesus himself spoke of his Father God as ldquothe only Godrdquo (NIV New King James Version John 544) If Jesus is not ldquothe only Godrdquo who is he then Christ is time and again described as ldquoGods Sonrdquo hence a reflection of Gods glory ldquogodlikerdquo ldquodivinerdquo The Bible itself says ldquoThe Son reflects Gods own gloryand everything about him represents God exactlyrdquo (Hebrews 13 New Living Translation) This focus on Christ by Christian Writers throughout the New Testament led William Barclay to caution ldquoTo say that the Word was God is too much to say that the Word was Divine is too littlerdquo (ldquoGreat Themes of the New Testament II John 11-14rdquo Expository Times 70 (1958-59) 114)

Much has been made of the publication of a letter Mantey wrote to the publishers of the NWT (WT Society) where Mantey asked the WTS to stop quoting him by name since he felt they were misquotingtheir Grammar Many have seized this incident to lash out slanderous statements at the WTS for alleged ldquoscholastic dishonestyrdquo I feel this attack has not much merit It is in the main a theological objection For the benefit of those who do not have these two publications I will reproduce here what the NWT said right before and after quoting the Grammar of Dana and Mantey ldquoCareful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity a personality whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about someone That is what A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey remarks on page 140 paragraph vii [ldquoThe articular construction emphasizes identity the anarthrous construction emphasizes characterrdquo] Accordingly on page 148 paragraph (3) this same publication says about the subject of a copulative sentence [hellip quoted above at beginning of this section] Instead of translating John 11 and the word was deity thisGrammar could have translated it and the word was a god to run more parallel with Xenophons statement and the place was a marketrdquo (NWT Appendix page 774)

In my opinion the NWT quote of the Grammar was accurate enough with one exception The NWT Committee omitted this sentence ldquoAs it stands the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo And it is this omission which Dr Mantey most likely objected to I too believe this sentence was not critical in the context of the grammar being considered to prove the authors point but whether they were ldquodishonestrdquo or not by omitting this one sentence in their quote I leave it for the reader to decide Apparently the NW translators intended to avoid the dogmatic Trinity subject in their Appendix at that point When quoting Dana and Mantey the NWT Committee could certainly have been more explicit by implying for example that in their opinion the authors used an argument that in effect allowed the reading ldquothe word was a godrdquo as a ldquoparallel caserdquo to Xenophons statement ldquothe place was a marketrdquo instead of insinuating by mode of silence that the trinitarian authors approved of such reading (To readmore about the practice of WTS ldquoquoting sourcesrdquo see Note 1 at the end of the article)

Interestingly Dana and Manteys Grammar says on pages 138 139 140 ldquoWhen identity is prominent we find the article and when quality or character is stressed the construction is anarthrous [without thearticle]rdquo And ldquoThe use of the articular and anarthrous constructions of θεός is highly instructive A

study of the uses of the term as given in Moulton and Gedens Concordance convinces one that without the article θεός signifies divine essence while with the article divine personality is chiefly in viewrdquo Furthermore on page 140 on the use of the article in the Greek text it says ldquoThe articular constructionemphasizes identity the anarthrous construction emphasizes characterrdquo

Dr Julius R Mantey did include this statement in his letter of repudiation to the WTS mentioned earlierldquoProf Harner Vol 921 in JBL has gone beyond Colwells research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subjectrdquo (July 11 1974) Instead of advocating a trinity this statement of Mantey quoting Professor Harner oddlysupports some of the arguments published in the 1950 and the 1984 NWT Editions

Going by grammar alone one could say that the renderings ldquothe place was a marketrdquo ldquothe Word was agod [divine]rdquo and ldquothe word was deityrdquo all three potentially agree with the grammar principles expounded by Dana amp Mantey on the articular and the anarthrous constructions of θεός on pages 138-140 and on page 148 though they may not admit to it Again let us not forget their clear message ldquoNeither was the place the only market [the place was a market] nor was the word all of Godrdquo

Coming back to translation issues we can see that generally modern translations do make an effort to convey a difference in translation between predicate nouns with and without the article preceding the verb If we take a look at John 151 where John uses the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the verb ldquo(ho georgoacutes estin) the farmer isrdquo we will find that translators generally reflect that fact in translation However here in John 11 they are reluctant to produce a translation which shows the fact that the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo in this verse lacks the article Why Is it because Greek grammar demands the rendering ldquoGodrdquo Not at all The seven (7) submitted samples clearly indicate that it is not grammar but ldquotheologyrdquo for the reluctance Even Greek scholars teach that ldquowhen a Greek noun lacksthe definite article it normally will be translated as indefiniterdquo (A Primer of Biblical Greek by N Clayton Croy assistant professor of NT at Trinity Luther Seminary Columbus Ohio p 15) At John 11 translators in their drive to make Jesus appear identical to God will use a capital G when Jesus is spoken of Patterns of Greek grammar as seen in the above examples and elsewhere are ignored to sustain their theology (Note the use of ldquonormallyrdquo here because the author is aware that there is lsquono hard rulersquo that can be applied at all times in regards to the use of the article or lack of But his statement holds generally true as in here)

John 12 would be pointless tautology if John meant that the Logos was identical to God as some translations suggest It is also misleading to translate John 11 ldquothe Word was fully Godrdquo as the NET Bible does If we were to use the NET Bibles reasoning which appears in their note of John 11 and apply it to samples discussed above with similar syntax we would get the following translations ldquoThis man [Paul] must be fully Murdererrdquo ldquoThat one [climbing over the fence] is fully Thief and fully Robberrdquo ldquofor he (Baal) is fully Godrdquo ldquoand the place was fully Marketrdquo

Does that make sense Baal a pagan god was certainly not lsquofully Godrsquo in the sense of him being the Supreme God But Elijah could depict Baal as ldquoa godrdquo for he was not lsquothe only godrsquo among the heathens And to say ldquothe place was fully Marketrdquo is meaningless In fact Dana and Mantey argued against the place being The Market the only market They conclude that the Greek construction demands ldquothe place was a marketrdquo And Dana and Mantey pointed out that the Greek construction of John 11 tells us that lsquothe word was deity [ldquodivinerdquo but] not all of Godrsquo

In Marks gospel (649) where Jesus appeared walking over the waters next to the disciples boat duringa storm in which they became terrified after seeing an ldquoapparitionrdquo or ldquophantomrdquo of some sort (since they were unaware it was Jesus) they screamed ldquoIts a ghostrdquo according to some Bible versions (Or ldquoa spiritrdquo KJV) The grammatical structure of Mark 649 and John 11 are similar so how do Bible translations deal with this Do they have the disciples crying out ldquoHe is fully Ghost Or would they scream instead ldquoHe is Phantomrdquo No Most Bibles have the disciples believing or saying it was ldquoa ghostrdquoor ldquoa phantomrdquo or ldquoan apparitionrdquo of some sort At no time do translators argue that it should be translated as they do at John 11c by capitalizing the predicate noun and omitting the indefinite article ldquoardquo John 11 is no exception to the norm Bible translators follow the pattern described by Professor Clayton Croy ldquoWhen a Greek noun lacks the definite article it normally will be translated as indefiniterdquo (op cit A Primer) In the examples above Bible translators have shown us how they really deal with syntax similar to John 11c We have ldquoa hard saying a murderer a devil a prophet a thief a robber a god a market a ghost etc At John 1837 we have ldquoa kingrdquo twice English Bibles do not have Pilate asking Jesus if he was the ldquoKingrdquo Instead English translations followthe pattern described above and render Pilates question as ldquoArt thou a king thenrdquo

In all these cases a predicate noun without the Greek article precedes a verb just as we have in John 11c Accordingly then why not reflect this pattern at John 11 especially so when two entities are being spoken of in the verse and the second occurrence of θεός lacks the article Let us not miss the previous statement by a distinguished grammarian A ldquomost common userdquo of the Greek article is to point out hellip ldquoIndividual from Other Individualsrdquo (op cit Short Grammar p 275)

Although grammarian David Alan Black a Trinitarian objects to the ldquoa Godrdquo rendering at John 11 he takes a page from Dana and Manteys Grammar when he writes ldquoIf the article were also used with θεός the statement would mean that all of God was expressed in the Word As it is the Word is neither lsquoa Godrsquo nor equal with the sum total of Godrdquo (Its Still Greek to Me p 79) This statement by Black appears to contradict the NET Bibles translation of John 11c Blacks conclusion is similar to Danas and Manteys that is ldquothe Word was Deity [θεός]rdquo (Brackets his) In similar vein The New Testament in Plain English translates John 11c as ldquothe Word was Godrdquo However a footnote says ldquoOr Deity Divine (which is actually a better translation because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word)rdquo (Underline added 2003) Now this footnote begs the question If the rendering ldquothe Word was Deity Divinerdquo is actually a ldquobetter translationrdquo why not use that in the main text It seems that trinitarian translators have difficulty in displaying a rendering other than ldquothe Word was Godrdquo even when they acknowledge there are lsquobetter translationsrsquo for the anarthrous θεός in John 11c

In English using a capital letter in ldquofully Godrdquo is misleading to someone brought up in trinitarian teaching A trinitarian believer would likely take that rendering as conveying that Christ is Almighty God himself a concept in conflict with what Christ himself stated at John 173 and John 2017 Daniel Wallace previously quoted and author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics wrote a most interesting comment which reveals how theology plays a big role at the time of translating John 11 ldquoAlthough I believe that θεός in 11c is qualitative I think the simplest and most straightforward translation is lsquoand the Word was Godrsquo It may be better to clearly affirm the NT teaching of the deity of Christ and then explain that he is not the Father than to sound ambiguous on his deity and explain that he is God but is not the Fatherrdquo (Ibid p 269 italics his) What Is he serious

Whats the point of claiming that θεός in 11c is ldquoqualitativerdquo in John 11c as Wallace does emphatically in his Grammar and then suggest to use the rendering lsquothe Word was Godrsquo which implies ldquoidentityrdquo a

ldquopersonalityrdquo the opposite of ldquocharacterrdquo or ldquoqualityrdquo) and be forced to explain that it does not mean what it actually says The end result would then be no less ldquoambiguousrdquo than the alternatives he is obviously trying to avoid Would you not rather have a ldquobetter translationrdquo such as ldquothe Word was divinerdquo which requires no additional explanation The NET Bible (Wallace senior editor) prefers a rendering other than ldquodivinerdquo because he states that ldquodivinerdquo ldquoas a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of Godrdquo However on the word ldquodivinerdquo Murray J Harris responds ldquoBut if θεὸς bears a qualitative sense the rendering lsquodivinersquo should not be dismissed as altogether inappropriate Only if lsquodivinersquo is taken to mean lsquohaving the very nature of Godrsquo does the word accurately convey Johns meaningrdquo (op cit Jesus as God p 68) The argument that ldquodivinerdquo is too generic is weak because really the same argument could be made of the term ldquogodrdquo Jesus applied the term ldquogodsrdquo to humans (John 1034-36) and Paul acknowledged that ldquothere are many gods and many lordsrdquo (1 Corinthians 85) So Wallaces objection is more likely an effort to equate Christ with God at John 11

Truly the Greek Text does not say that Christ wasis the one-and-only God What the Greek does say is that ldquothe Word was with the [True] God and the Word [himself] was a divine beingrdquo thus able to perfectly represent the character of God (Hebrews 13) The only way one could justify the rendering ldquoGodrdquo with a big ldquoGrdquo at John 11c is if the original text had the article before the second instance of theos as well Why Because John is talking about two individuals and deliberately differentiates between the two instances of ldquotheosrdquo by placing the article before the first instance of ldquotheosrdquo and not with the second Max Zerwick (SJ) wrote in this regard ldquoὁ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος [if John would have written ldquothe God was the Logosrdquo] at least in NT usage would signify personal identity of the Word with the Father since the latter [the Father] is ὁ Θεὸς [the God]rdquo (Biblical Greek p 55 Rome)

John wrote the words appearing in verse two to clear any potential misunderstanding that could arise from his bold statement in verse one Marinus de Jonge remarks ldquoThe author of this Prologue clearly wants to identify lsquothe Wordrsquo and God as closely as possible without infringing the belief in the One Godrdquo (Christology in Context The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus Philadelphia Westminster 1988 p 198 Jonge is Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands) So in effect John was saying that the Logos was like God in every imaginable way Hence the New English Bible rendering lsquoWhat God was the Word wasrsquo

Dr Jason BeDuhn explains ldquoIn John 11 the Word is not the one-and-only God but it is a god or divine being I know that sounds strange and even seems impossible coming from the pen of a Christian writer But the fact remains that that is what John wrote His purpose in doing so was at least in part to avoid the notion that God the Father himself incarnated as Christ The one who incarnated was somehow distinct from lsquoGodrsquo while still being lsquoa godrsquo rdquo (op cit Truth in Translation pp 122 123)

Why then are translators unwilling to render John 11c ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo A few reasons could be given Translators mention grammar as one problem an issue addressed throughout this article Others view the rendering ldquoa godrdquo as polytheistic I will further mention two others First is the domino effect of the Trinity doctrine developed centuries after Christ as a means to clamp down raging Christological debates to the point that the doctrine has been taken for granted as ldquotruthrdquo by most ldquoChristianrdquo people since Secondly the role in tradition played by the Latin Vulgate must be mentioned This Latin translation has greatly influenced many translators since its inception from c 405 CE It is well known that the Vulgate heavily influenced early translations of the 16th and 17th Century In fact back then translators were more likely to be familiar with the Latin Vulgate than with the Greek

The Latin Vulgate used no articles (as seen below) and that in conjunction with the Greek lacking the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) and we can see why so many have misunderstood John 11 The Christological debates of past centuries did not improve this state of confusion it made it worse I kindly ask the reader to consider the following Latin and Greek readings as helpful pointers in our discussion Notice in particular the bold letters relevant to our discussion

ndash LATIN (John 11)ldquoIn principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbumrdquo In beginning was Verb and Verb was with God and God was Verb

ndash GREEK (John 11)

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος In beginning was the logos and the logos was toward the god and god was the logos

First of all please notice that Latin makes no distinction between the two occurrences of ldquoGodrdquo in the text (ie both without the article) However Greek being a more specific descriptive language does And it does so by using the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the first occurrence and omitting it before the second Keep in mind what The Translatorrsquos New Testament previously quoted said ldquoIt is difficult to believe that the omission [of the Greek article before the second theos in John 11] is not significantrdquo (p 451) As A T Robertson pointed out ldquoThe article is never meaningless in Greek though it often fails to correspond with the English idiom [hellip] Its free use leads to exactness and finesserdquo (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research p 756) And Buttmann The use of the article [ho ldquotherdquo] has everywhere its positive reasonrdquo (Buttmanns Grammar of NewTestament Greek Bt 88) And another ldquoFor the present the presence or absence of the Greek article should always be carefully indicated in the English translationrdquo (New Testament Greek For Beginners by J Gresham Machen DD LITTD p 35 67) It is the responsibility of the translator to transmit whenever possible this existing difference in the Greek text into the English translation

Which reading of the two languages above (Latin and Greek) shows the greater similarity with the traditional rendering of John 11c Its Latin is it not In fact some Bible translations in other languages have even borrowed the latin word ldquoVerbumrdquo from the Latin Vulgate at John 11 such as the ubiquitous Spanish Reina-Valera which uses ldquoVerbordquo (Verb) instead of ldquoWordrdquo used in English versionsAlso using ldquoVerbordquo Sciacuteo de San Miguel Versioacuten Moderna Goacutemez 2010 Nueva Biblia Latinoamericana de Hoy and the Nueva Versioacuten Internacional Other international versions following the Latin Vulgate at John 11c French Darby Crampon German Luther Bible Italian Diodati and the Portuguese Almeida

It is evident that most English Bibles at John 11 are translating in the spirit of the Latin Vulgate rather than the Greek text regardless of what they claim Surprisingly as you will see in the submitted list of alternate readings at the end of this paper there are some translations though not as popular that are actually closer to the Greek above than the best-selling versions which end up following the Latin Vulgate instead Although John 11 has long been a favorite text by traditionalists to quote in the English world it may be surprise many that a modern Greek Bible reader will not likely appeal to such scripture in support of the traditional view Notwithstanding some Bible translators either disagree with the traditional viewpoint of the Logos as

ldquoGodrdquo or may simply feel that the message conveyed by the original Greek language (as demonstrated by the 7 samples above) demands a different translation at John 11c Some would have you believe that only a few insane unschooled translators with diabolical intentions would ever attempt to deviate from the traditionalist reading That is not simply true I believe most translators offering a different version of John 11 are most sincere in their effort to get to the core of the Greek meaning and to adequately transmit the intended message of the biblical author The submitted list of alternate readings at the end is not intended to be a complete list but to show a variety of renderings and viewpoints Keep in mind too that because of its theological significance other Scriptures do not have as many variant translation renderings as this one does

________________________________________

A careful review of the alternate readings list of John 11 and other related material at the end of the article would lead to this question Could anyone legitimately exclude as a valid option the rendering ldquoagodrdquo found in some Bible versions We have seen that grammar alone cannot condemn the use of such translation though many will keep trying Seven examples were provided which clearly show how translators render predicate nouns without the article occurring before the verb In addition note that these seven examples make reference to one person or one thing while John 11 is speaking of ldquotwordquo entities With greater reason then translators should render this grammatical structure in John 11c in away that brings out the indefinite-qualitative aspect rather than convey identification with the Supreme God

A Grammar states ldquoJohn was not saying that lsquothe word was the Fatherrsquo but that lsquothe word was God (divine)rsquordquo (Gramaacutetica Griega-Sintaxis del Nuevo Testamento [Greek Grammar-Syntax of the NT] by Daniel B Wallace amp Daniel S Steffen Parentheses theirs p 182) Consequently if the translation ldquothe word was Godrdquo must be understood in the adjectival sense as ldquodivinerdquo why not translate it that way Itis therefore reasonable to make a distinction between the term ldquotheosrdquo with and without the article here

In all the more accurate Bible translations do make a distinction between ldquotheosrdquo (God) with and without the article in John 11 Does yours Some argue that John did not have to employ the article before the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo to imply that the Word was ldquoGodrdquo Do you believe that If so why then was the Greek article used with the nominal predicate before the verb in John 151 which literally says ldquoThe father of me the farmer isrdquo And in John 651 ldquoThe bread but which I shall give the flesh of me isrdquo It is evident that Bible writers usually employed the article with specific intention and when they omitted it it was equally significant as well

Is it not better to just follow along with the majority view and thus free oneself from religious tension that may accompany those who sustain a minority view First of all it is dangerous to adopt a majority view if this one is in error A majority view held by ldquoscholarsrdquo of itself does not automatically make a matter ldquotruerdquo Why Because scholars are not infallible nor immune to human tradition Were they in Jesus day They were not Scholars today may find themselves in error just as many scribes were in Jesus day as Matthew chapter 23 clearly demonstrate (Matthew 159) We are warned that ldquothe whole world lies under the power of the evil onerdquo (1 John 519 New Revised Standard Bible) We should not dismiss ldquoreligionrdquo as being beyond the reach or interest of Satan We all need to be in guard of evil influence at all times being careful of not becoming ldquostone-blindrdquo by ldquothe god of this worldrdquo (2 Cor 44 The Message) Again a majority view does not always represent the truth Thus the doctrinal foundation for Christians should be based not on what the majority believe but rather on what the Bible

itself teaches

What does the Bible really say about Jesus Christ

Simply put Jesus is ldquoSon of Godrdquo not ldquoGod the Sonrdquo (Luke 135 NRSV) There is a vast difference in meaning between those two expressions There are more than two hundred references (200x) in the New Testament that explicitly declare that Jesus Christ is the ldquoSon of Godrdquo or that lsquoGod is the Father of Jesus Christrsquo (For a list of instances see The Preachers Outline and Sermon Bible ldquoJohnrdquo p 27) Yet Christendom prefers to dwell on a handful of texts which are said to describe Jesus as God None of those texts are explicit in declaring Jesus equality with God In Scripture Jesus place in the broad picture is one of sonship that is as Son of God not God Furthermore the word ldquosonrdquo is never used to describe God or the ldquoholy spiritrdquo

Christ is also described as ldquothe image of the invisible God [not God] the firstborn of all creationrdquo (Colossians 115) the ldquomediator between God and menrdquo (1 Timothy 25) Yes it is possible to spin these clear statements to make them say something else but is this what we seek One who plays the role of ldquomediatorrdquo cannot in the name of justice be one and the same person as one of the two parts that he is said to represent Otherwise such individual could not be truly impartial in his judgment Moses as a separate entity was able to really serve as ldquomediatorrdquo between God and Israel Now if Jesus the greater Moses was really one-and-the-same ldquoGodrdquo what ldquojusticerdquo could he convey acting as ldquomediatorrdquo between himself and mankind But no Jesus spoke of his Father as ldquomy Godrdquo and as lsquothe God of everyone elsersquo (John 2017) It was this God (ldquothe only Godrdquo John 544 NKJV NIV) according to Jesus himself who lsquorevealedrsquo things to Christ (Mark 1332 Revelation 11) Any statementwhich says that lsquoGod gave Jesus Christ a revelationrsquo would sound very odd to anyone taught to believe that Christ is the equal of God in every sense Scripture calls Christ ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 1913) And the record shows that it was this Word who was ldquowith God in the beginning not that he was ldquoGodrdquo but like God (Others render ldquoa Godrdquo ldquodivinerdquo - Tomanek Schonfield Heb 13)

Bible writers always speak of Jesus Christ in a subordinate role as in Ephesians 13 ldquoBlessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christrdquo 1 Corinthians 1528 ldquoThe Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him [God] who put all things in subjection to him that God may be all in allrdquo (Darby) In Colossians 31 we read ldquoKeep on seeking the things above where Christ is seated at the right hand of Godrdquo (Williams) Jesus himself made it clear to others ldquoI seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which hath sent merdquo (John 530)

Do Scriptures allow for a secondary sense of the words ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo

In the Scriptures the term lsquogodrsquo has various connotations and cannot be narrowed to one single meaning as some try to do A few scholars sustain that the notion of Jesus Christ as ldquoa godrdquo as if there were other gods beside God is incompatible with Jewish ldquomonotheismrdquo which is the belief in only one God and that it implies polytheism Nevertheless the concept itself that God as an entity is composed of three coequal persons runs counter with Jewish monotheism ldquoThe Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheismrdquo so states the Jewish Encyclopedia (ldquoTrinityrdquo) The teaching of the ldquoShemardquo consisted as has been noted in that ldquoJehovah our God is one Jehovahrdquo (Deuteronomy 64 ASV) What purpose would there be for the ldquoShemardquo to stress that Jehovah is ldquoonerdquo and then confound the matter by stating that that

must mean the Divine One is ldquothree personsrdquo in ldquoonerdquo It is explained frequently that the teaching of theTrinity is a ldquomysteryrdquo The problem with such reasoning is that nowhere does Scripture gives us reason to believe in such a concept It is possible that a person who has been exposed to this doctrine for a long time may see ldquoinsinuationsrdquo of it in the Bible However those individuals must in sincerity ask themselves whether their belief is based on ldquofactsrdquo or instead on emotional ldquofancyrdquo

Certain Scriptures are frequently cited as proof by supporters of the Trinity doctrine that Christ is God Isaiah 446 and Hosea 134 are two such Scriptures which have God Jehovah saying ldquoI am the first and I am the last and beside me there is no Godrdquo ldquoAnd thou shalt know no god but me for there is nosavior [Hebrew עע שהש םי beside merdquo These words are strictly taken literally out of their [(u˙moshia) וומוsetting to mean that there can be no ldquogodrdquo or ldquosaviorrdquo but God almighty In the context in which these words were pronounced Israel Gods people were inclined to worship vain hand-made idols (Isaiah 4217) Hence Gods warning in Isaiah and Hosea People brought up in trinitarian dogma tend to restrict the meaning of the term ldquoGodrdquo to those statements found within the context of Isaiah and Hosea leading them to the conclusion that anyone other than the True God must be a ldquofalserdquo god They define the word God within the context of modern trinitarian mentality instead of ancient Scriptural doctrine Trinitarians reason that if the appellative ldquoGodrdquo is applied to Jesus Christ then reasonably Jesus could be no other than the Lord God himself

However such trinitarian reasonings are missing an important element It has to do with the fact that the word ldquogodrdquo can be applied to others since the term itself seems to be related to someone with power and authority The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explains ldquoThis word [rsquoelōhicircm] can in fact be used for other gods (Gen 3130) and even for men (cf Ex 416 71 cf BDB p43)The derivation [of rsquoelōhicircm] is obscure but the implied sense seems to be that of strength or authorityrdquo (Vol II pg 497 italics added) The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words says ldquoThe word itself [אא ל (rsquoēl) Hebrew word for God] derives from a root term meaning lsquopowerrsquo lsquostrengthrsquo orlsquomightrsquo (Stephen D Renn p 439) And the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible states ldquoCommon to these four suggested root meanings [of El God] is the idea of strength power and of supreme excellence and greatnessrdquo (Vol 1 p 881) This may explain why various Bible versions at John 11c describe the Logos as ldquoa powerful divine beingrdquo or the like instead of saying ldquoGodrdquo When the whole context of Scripture is considered it is evident that the words spoken by God found in Isaiah and Hosea are very true in a specific sense namely that there is but one Supreme God and one Main Savior This truth does not rule out the existence of lsquogodlike onesrsquo under God (Job 387 Psalms 291 896)

Is it possible to speak of divine beings (ldquogodsrdquo) existing alongside God

Scholar John Macquarrie in Jesus Christ in Modern Thought claims that the Jewish monotheistic culturewould never tolerate the idea of the Logos belonging to a class of divine beings (P 110) Not quite Other scholars have a different view Ernst Haenchen for example claims the opposite in accord with Scripture ldquoIn the period in which the hymn [at John 11] took its rise it was quite possible in Jewishand Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him Phil 26-10 proves thatrdquo (A Commentary on the Gospel of John John 1Transl by Robert W Funk from Das Johannesevangelium Ein Kommentar p 109)

Another source has this to say ldquoOn the other hand it was a matter of general knowledge and one which the Bible itself shares and does not attempt to conceal that recognition and worship have often been extended to others than the Jewish-Christian God and the term lsquogodrsquo or lsquogodsrsquo is used for them

also as are the respective Greek and Hebrew words It is the custom to use a capital letter G for the God of the Jewish- Christian tradition and a small letter for the othersrdquo (Dictionary of the Bible JamesHastings Revised Edition 1963 Page 333 Grant amp Rowley Charles Scribners Sons New York)

Lets briefly look at how the Bible itself employs the words for ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture At Exodus 71 we read that God made a man Moses ldquoa godrdquo (Hebrew elohim) before Pharaoh God said to Moses ldquoSee I have made thee a god [Others ldquoa Godrdquo ldquoGodrdquo] to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophetrdquo Would this mean then that Moses himself did become an intrinsic part of the Great Divinity by the mere fact of him being called ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo by the Lord Jehovah himself Of coursenot Other translations clarify the meaning of ldquoGodrdquo used here by the LORD The English Standard Version expresses it this way ldquoSee I have made you like God to Pharaohrdquo And the International Standard Version has the LORD saying ldquoListen Ive put you in the role of God to Pharaohrdquo

And in Exodus 416 God making reference to Aaron tells Moses ldquoYou shall be as God to himrdquo (ESV NAB Hebrew lelohim ldquoas Godrdquo Darby ldquoGodrdquo Leeser ldquoa Godrdquo LXX theon ldquoGodrdquo Vulgate Deum)rdquo Moses was simply given a powerful role as Gods emissary who represented his will In Psalm 456 a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) when he became lsquoking of Israelrsquo was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo Obviously this human king was not in fact the One True God Neither was he a false God as trinitarian reasonings would lead one to believe Simply put Solomons throne was ldquodivinerdquo in the sense that he represented God in a position of authority over others

In the Scriptures we find that Jesus is described in Isaiah 96 as ldquoMighty Godrdquo and as ldquoSon of Godrdquo in other places (John 134) What about angels What do we call them Humans Not Angels are in nature heavenly beings closer to God than to men They are powerful divine spirits that reflect Gods glory and Godship They are ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 16) They are ldquogodsrdquo themselves What do we call aldquosonrdquo of a ldquohumanrdquo This ldquosonrdquo is himself a ldquohumanrdquo is he not Just as there is a family of human beings sharing ldquohumanityrdquo there is also a family of celestial beings yes ldquodivine beingsrdquo or ldquogodsrdquo sharing ldquodivinityrdquo A ldquosonrdquo of ldquoGodrdquo is ldquoa godrdquo or a lsquoreflectionrsquo of God Or it could simply refer to ldquoOne who shares a close relationship with Godrdquo (The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary) Notwithstanding the expression ldquoson of Godrdquo is never synonymous with God ( Some argue that the expression ldquoAlmightyrdquo in Revelation 18 applies to Christ but there is no concrete evidence for the claim)

Psalm 821 tells us that ldquoGod standeth in the congregation of the mighty [Brenton ldquogodsrdquo] he judgeth among the godsrdquo The Syriac Peshitta here has ldquoangelsrdquo instead of ldquogodsrdquo while Tanakh has ldquodivine beingsrdquo The Targums offer the alternate reading of ldquojudgesrdquo Whether we apply the term ldquogodsrdquo in verse one of this psalm (Psalm 821) to angels or human judges as Gods representatives (as in verse 6) as the Targums do it still proves that in the Bible other living beings other than God Almighty are spoken of as ldquogodsrdquo or ldquosons of Godrdquo with no hint of polytheism by such use The Andrews Study Bible explains under Psalm 821 ldquogods Term designates earthly rulers leaders mighty ones judges andor princes (v 7) who were Gods representatives and whose work was divinely appointed (Ex 2228 Deut 117 1618 2 Chr 196 compare with Heb 137)rdquo And The NIV Study Bible has this footnote on Psalm 821 ldquogods See v 6 In the language of the OTmdashand in accordance with the conceptual world of the ancient Near Eastmdashrulers and judges as deputies of the heavenly King could be given the honorific title lsquogodrsquo [hellip] or be called lsquoson of Godrsquo []rdquo See also the Psalm 821 footnotes of The Believers Study Bible The Wesley Bible and the HCSB Study Bible

Mighty angels and powerful human rulers or judges called ldquogodsrdquo in Scripture were considered ldquodivinerdquo or ldquogodlikerdquo when they acted on behalf of God As the Lord told Moses ldquoI will make you seem like God to Pharaohrdquo (Exodus 71 NLT) Even people of biblical times used the term ldquoGodrdquo freely in reference to powerful human leaders or people who displayed ldquosupernaturalrdquo feats Acts 1222informs us that when king Herod gave a public speech in royal robes the crowd cheered him on shouting ldquoIt is the voice of a god and not of a manrdquo On another occasion the people of a small island called Paul theos that is ldquoa godrdquo when they witnessed his superhuman powers (Acts 286 Compare with Acts 1411) With this information at hand Robert Young a master of various ancient languages concluded ldquoGodmdashis used of any one (professedly) mighty whether truly so or not and is applied not only to the true God but to false gods Magistratesjudges angels prophets etc eg Ex 71 John 11 1033 34 35 2028 rdquo ndash Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible Eerdmans Publ 1978

Then why do religious writers out there act like no one but God can be referred to as ldquodivinerdquo or ldquoa godrdquo For them anyone else but the true God is a false god They are confining themselves within a box with the Scriptural context of Isaiah chapter 43 44 and 45 discussed above where they refuse to seethe term ldquogodrdquo being used elsewhere in Scripture in a more broadly manner than their biased narrowed definition allows them to In fact even Satan is called ldquothe god [Gr ὁ θεὸς] of this worldrdquo because he actually lsquorulesrsquo this wicked world by the power he exerts over mankind (2 Cor 44 John 1231 1 John 519) Was calling Satan ldquothe god of this worldrdquo meant to promote polytheism Thus the original words for ldquogodrdquo of themselves do not signal whether a god is true or false With some exceptions the Inspired Scriptures commonly affixes the definite article (ldquotherdquo) before the word ldquoGodrdquo to distinguish the Supreme God from other gods This holds true for both the Hebrew and Greek Bible portions

It is clear from the biblical record that in ancient Jewish culture people saw no problem speaking of ldquodivine beingsrdquo under the Supreme God To them it was not exclusively a matter of whether they were true or false ldquogodsrdquo In their cultural mindset the term ldquogodsrdquo when applied positively to others beside the Most High God meant that they were powerful representatives of God whether it was Christ spokenof angels or human judges When speaking of powerful heavenly beings in glory the term ldquosons of Godrdquo was fully acceptable There is no record of Jesus displaying any feelings of disgust when claiming he was ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 1036 NIV) Why should we then

Hence anyone else other than God labeled ldquogodrdquo in Scripture in a positive light are simply divine beings created in the image of the True God belonging to the heavenly family of ldquogodlikerdquo ones The term ldquogodrdquo may also be Scripturally used to describe human beings holding a position of power and authority when appointed by God When the term is used this way polytheism is not an issue

What about the Christ

At John 1033-36 Christ himself appealed to Psalm 82 where the term ldquogodsrdquo was applied to persons other than God Jesus was refuting the charge of blasphemy that he was making himself ldquoGgodrdquo as invalid because he was only claiming to be not God but ldquoGods Sonrdquo which is totally different Jesus had an excellent opportunity here to claim once and for all that he was ldquoGodrdquo but once again he did not do so Jesus Christ holds a much higher position than any angel or man but is still subordinate to his Father God (1 Corinthians 113 Hebrews 32 Colossians 13)

Angels were made subject to Christ after he himself was placed at Gods right hand (1 Peter 322) Although both angels and Christ are described as lsquosons of Godrsquo only Jesus Christ is distinctively called

ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo according to some manuscripts (John 118 Murdock Noyes Concordant Literal Version) Or ldquothe one-begotten Godrdquo (Etheridge) The Word Study Greek-English New Testament describes the Logos as the ldquoonly born Godrdquo (John 118 Paul R McReynolds) Only Christ is called ldquothe firstborn of all creationrdquo a term never used for the lsquoSuperiorityrsquo of God or the holy spirit (Colossians 115) Could Trinitarians ever answer the following question If Christ was not created as some claim who then was the first creation by God Also who is ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo Surely someone lsquocreated firstrsquo in the universe would be honored with the title lsquothe firstborn of all creationrsquo Is there any other way to express such event The Bible simply points to Christ as such of which is said ldquoThese things saith the Amen the faithful and true witness the beginning of the creation of Godrdquo Whatdoes lsquothe beginning of Gods creationrsquo really mean Another Bible translation puts it this way ldquoThe one who is in the origin of things created by God [El que estaacute en el origen de las cosas creadas por Dios]rdquo (Biblia de Ameacuterica approved by various Episcopalian dioceses in Central and South America Casa de la Biblia Madrid) No ldquomysteryrdquo here Its that simple

Could there be any ldquosaviorrdquo other than God

The Sovereign Lord God is the main Savior but he may allow others to act as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo on his behalf in certain situations We find that the term is applied to Christ as the prime agent of salvation (2 Peter 220 1 John 414 Titus 14) We are told that men too like Othniel and Ehud were used as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo of their people (Judges 216 3915 Hebrew moshia same word used for God at Isaiah Compare with Isaiah 452 Hebrew u˙moshia Nehemiah 927 Hebrew moshiim plural of moshia) Would this mean then that those men called ldquosaviorsrdquo in Scripture form a part of the Supreme Divinity No there is a better explanation as found in the NIV

The NIV Study Bible has this to say of Israels leaders or judges ldquoTheir principal purpose is best expressed in [Judges] 216 lsquoThen the LORD raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of hellip raidersrsquo Since it was God who permitted the oppressions and raised up deliverers [saviors] he himself was Israels ultimate Judge and Deliverer [Savior] (1127 see 823 where Gideon a judge insists that the Lord is Israels true rulerrdquo (p 325) The Bible uses the same original words (ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo) for God Christ and men Does it mean they all are the same person or co-equal The context then iswhat determines the correct application for each occurrence of those terms

Who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo

In contrast to others who were called ldquosaviorsrdquo of the people of Israel Jesus is called ldquoSavior of the worldrdquo Jesus can potentially save not only Israel but all of mankind from bondage to sin and from death itself (John 316 1 John 414) Although Christ is undoubtedly a greater Savior than any man heis still subject to the Grandest Savior of all (Isaiah 4311 Acts 412 1 Corinthians 1528) Christ himself came to be in a situation where he had to cry out with a loud voice for salvation Right before his death he implored ldquoMy God my God why hast thou forsaken merdquo He had to be saved by God (Matthew 2746 Hebrews 57 Psalm 288)

Acts 531 tells us who was the One who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquoGod exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israelrdquo (NRSV) According to this scripture whatever capacity Jesus had as ldquosaviorrdquo was due to God To insist that Jesus is ldquoGodrdquo because of his description as ldquosaviorrdquo then we could reason all the same that men such as Othniel and Ehud were alsoldquoGodrdquo because they too were called saviors Overall ldquocontextrdquo should be the guiding principle for the

right comprehension of biblical terms

Jesus as ldquoSon of manrdquo

Jesus made reference to himself in the Gospels nearly 80 times as ldquothe Son of manrdquo an expression indicating he was truly a ldquomanrdquo while on earth not a God-man (Matthew 820 etc) According to Hebrews 29 Jesus ldquowas made a little lower than the angelsrdquo so he could taste death for everyone God cannot ever become ldquolower than the angelsrdquo he created John 114 tells us that it was lsquothe Word who became fleshrsquo not God The doctrine of the ldquoincarnationrdquo as commonly taught actually twists the meaning of John 114 because the text does not say at all that lsquoGod became fleshrsquo Instead it says ldquothe Wordrdquo did Plain and simple 2 John 7 only confirms this In other words the Logos Jesus Christ became ldquohumanrdquo or ldquoa human beingrdquo One scripture often misused to prove that God was made flesh is 1 Timothy 316 but this text did not originally say ldquoGod was manifest in the fleshrdquo as it reads in a few Bible versions since such reading is defective Other translations of the Bible have corrected this error in translation saying instead ldquoHe [or ldquoWhordquo] was manifested in the fleshrdquo allowing for lsquoChrist as the One being manifested in the fleshrsquo For a consideration of 1 Tim 316 see httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

In an effort to simplify the meaning of the expression ldquoSon of manrdquo in reference to Christ in our culture a modern Bible version used the expression ldquothe Human Onerdquo repeatedly (Common English Bible) ldquoThe general use of lsquoson of manrsquo occurs in poetic texts in which the phrase functions as a synonym for lsquomanrsquo or lsquohuman beingrsquo rdquo (The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary) The NIV at Daniel 713 confirms the meaning of the expression ldquoson of manrdquo in a footnote ldquoThe Aramaic phrase bar enash [son of man]means human being The phrase son of man is retained here because of its use in the New Testament as a title of Jesus probably based largely on this verserdquo (2011 Edition) The apostle was very familiar withthis much used expression of Jesus If ldquoSon of manrdquo meant he was a ldquohuman beingrdquo on earth then John would use the similar expression a son of God (or Gods Son) in a way humans would naturally understand it That is lsquoof divine originrsquo (ldquoa godrdquo) without any foreign trinitarian speculation of a later era which Jesus disciples were unaware of (John 1033-36) Jesus divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship As noted the expression may also refer to lsquoone who shares a close relationship with Godrsquo As future co-heirs in the kingdom of Christ human creatures too are designated as ldquosons of Godrdquo but never become identical to the Sovereign God Again polytheism is not an issue here No need to make this into a ldquomysteryrdquo

Why does the Bible speak sometimes as if Jesus Christ himself was ldquoGodrdquo

The Jewish nation already believed and sought lsquoto honorrsquo the Father of Abraham Isaac and Jacob This monotheistic culture adhered to the Mosaic Law as they worshiped the true God But many prophecies which appeared in the Hebrew code identified the Messiah as lsquoemancipatorrsquo of their bondage to sin Themajority of the Jews where hoping the foretold Messiah would rescue them from the Roman yoke Instead of getting involved in earthly politics Jesus repeatedly spoke of lsquoGods kingdomrsquo hence comparatively few exercised faith in him In contrast to the few who believed in Jesus as being ldquosentrdquo by God the majority of Jews could look no further from the man they considered their Father AbrahamThey were blind in their self-sufficiency

There was thus an urgent need to communicate to the Jewish people that exercising faith in Christ was essential to their salvation But how would one do that To start by making them see that Jesus Christ

ldquoand the place was a market rdquo (Suggested translation by Dana and Mantey) ldquoand the Word was a god rdquo (Controversial translation criticized by Mantey)

The translation offered by Dr Dana and Dr Mantey ldquoand the place was a marketrdquo as indicated above is an unintended admission that ldquothe Word was a godrdquo is a proper translation even though as Trinitarians they prefer another and the word was deity Note too that their suggested translation of John 11c and the word was deity is not the same thing as saying that the word was entirely God for they said ldquonor was the word all of Godrdquo Additionally the use of the word ldquomayrdquo in the statement ldquothe three persons may be impliedrdquo reveals a theological speculation not a fact The truth is that Jesus himself spoke of his Father God as ldquothe only Godrdquo (NIV New King James Version John 544) If Jesus is not ldquothe only Godrdquo who is he then Christ is time and again described as ldquoGods Sonrdquo hence a reflection of Gods glory ldquogodlikerdquo ldquodivinerdquo The Bible itself says ldquoThe Son reflects Gods own gloryand everything about him represents God exactlyrdquo (Hebrews 13 New Living Translation) This focus on Christ by Christian Writers throughout the New Testament led William Barclay to caution ldquoTo say that the Word was God is too much to say that the Word was Divine is too littlerdquo (ldquoGreat Themes of the New Testament II John 11-14rdquo Expository Times 70 (1958-59) 114)

Much has been made of the publication of a letter Mantey wrote to the publishers of the NWT (WT Society) where Mantey asked the WTS to stop quoting him by name since he felt they were misquotingtheir Grammar Many have seized this incident to lash out slanderous statements at the WTS for alleged ldquoscholastic dishonestyrdquo I feel this attack has not much merit It is in the main a theological objection For the benefit of those who do not have these two publications I will reproduce here what the NWT said right before and after quoting the Grammar of Dana and Mantey ldquoCareful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity a personality whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about someone That is what A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey remarks on page 140 paragraph vii [ldquoThe articular construction emphasizes identity the anarthrous construction emphasizes characterrdquo] Accordingly on page 148 paragraph (3) this same publication says about the subject of a copulative sentence [hellip quoted above at beginning of this section] Instead of translating John 11 and the word was deity thisGrammar could have translated it and the word was a god to run more parallel with Xenophons statement and the place was a marketrdquo (NWT Appendix page 774)

In my opinion the NWT quote of the Grammar was accurate enough with one exception The NWT Committee omitted this sentence ldquoAs it stands the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεόςrdquo And it is this omission which Dr Mantey most likely objected to I too believe this sentence was not critical in the context of the grammar being considered to prove the authors point but whether they were ldquodishonestrdquo or not by omitting this one sentence in their quote I leave it for the reader to decide Apparently the NW translators intended to avoid the dogmatic Trinity subject in their Appendix at that point When quoting Dana and Mantey the NWT Committee could certainly have been more explicit by implying for example that in their opinion the authors used an argument that in effect allowed the reading ldquothe word was a godrdquo as a ldquoparallel caserdquo to Xenophons statement ldquothe place was a marketrdquo instead of insinuating by mode of silence that the trinitarian authors approved of such reading (To readmore about the practice of WTS ldquoquoting sourcesrdquo see Note 1 at the end of the article)

Interestingly Dana and Manteys Grammar says on pages 138 139 140 ldquoWhen identity is prominent we find the article and when quality or character is stressed the construction is anarthrous [without thearticle]rdquo And ldquoThe use of the articular and anarthrous constructions of θεός is highly instructive A

study of the uses of the term as given in Moulton and Gedens Concordance convinces one that without the article θεός signifies divine essence while with the article divine personality is chiefly in viewrdquo Furthermore on page 140 on the use of the article in the Greek text it says ldquoThe articular constructionemphasizes identity the anarthrous construction emphasizes characterrdquo

Dr Julius R Mantey did include this statement in his letter of repudiation to the WTS mentioned earlierldquoProf Harner Vol 921 in JBL has gone beyond Colwells research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subjectrdquo (July 11 1974) Instead of advocating a trinity this statement of Mantey quoting Professor Harner oddlysupports some of the arguments published in the 1950 and the 1984 NWT Editions

Going by grammar alone one could say that the renderings ldquothe place was a marketrdquo ldquothe Word was agod [divine]rdquo and ldquothe word was deityrdquo all three potentially agree with the grammar principles expounded by Dana amp Mantey on the articular and the anarthrous constructions of θεός on pages 138-140 and on page 148 though they may not admit to it Again let us not forget their clear message ldquoNeither was the place the only market [the place was a market] nor was the word all of Godrdquo

Coming back to translation issues we can see that generally modern translations do make an effort to convey a difference in translation between predicate nouns with and without the article preceding the verb If we take a look at John 151 where John uses the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the verb ldquo(ho georgoacutes estin) the farmer isrdquo we will find that translators generally reflect that fact in translation However here in John 11 they are reluctant to produce a translation which shows the fact that the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo in this verse lacks the article Why Is it because Greek grammar demands the rendering ldquoGodrdquo Not at all The seven (7) submitted samples clearly indicate that it is not grammar but ldquotheologyrdquo for the reluctance Even Greek scholars teach that ldquowhen a Greek noun lacksthe definite article it normally will be translated as indefiniterdquo (A Primer of Biblical Greek by N Clayton Croy assistant professor of NT at Trinity Luther Seminary Columbus Ohio p 15) At John 11 translators in their drive to make Jesus appear identical to God will use a capital G when Jesus is spoken of Patterns of Greek grammar as seen in the above examples and elsewhere are ignored to sustain their theology (Note the use of ldquonormallyrdquo here because the author is aware that there is lsquono hard rulersquo that can be applied at all times in regards to the use of the article or lack of But his statement holds generally true as in here)

John 12 would be pointless tautology if John meant that the Logos was identical to God as some translations suggest It is also misleading to translate John 11 ldquothe Word was fully Godrdquo as the NET Bible does If we were to use the NET Bibles reasoning which appears in their note of John 11 and apply it to samples discussed above with similar syntax we would get the following translations ldquoThis man [Paul] must be fully Murdererrdquo ldquoThat one [climbing over the fence] is fully Thief and fully Robberrdquo ldquofor he (Baal) is fully Godrdquo ldquoand the place was fully Marketrdquo

Does that make sense Baal a pagan god was certainly not lsquofully Godrsquo in the sense of him being the Supreme God But Elijah could depict Baal as ldquoa godrdquo for he was not lsquothe only godrsquo among the heathens And to say ldquothe place was fully Marketrdquo is meaningless In fact Dana and Mantey argued against the place being The Market the only market They conclude that the Greek construction demands ldquothe place was a marketrdquo And Dana and Mantey pointed out that the Greek construction of John 11 tells us that lsquothe word was deity [ldquodivinerdquo but] not all of Godrsquo

In Marks gospel (649) where Jesus appeared walking over the waters next to the disciples boat duringa storm in which they became terrified after seeing an ldquoapparitionrdquo or ldquophantomrdquo of some sort (since they were unaware it was Jesus) they screamed ldquoIts a ghostrdquo according to some Bible versions (Or ldquoa spiritrdquo KJV) The grammatical structure of Mark 649 and John 11 are similar so how do Bible translations deal with this Do they have the disciples crying out ldquoHe is fully Ghost Or would they scream instead ldquoHe is Phantomrdquo No Most Bibles have the disciples believing or saying it was ldquoa ghostrdquoor ldquoa phantomrdquo or ldquoan apparitionrdquo of some sort At no time do translators argue that it should be translated as they do at John 11c by capitalizing the predicate noun and omitting the indefinite article ldquoardquo John 11 is no exception to the norm Bible translators follow the pattern described by Professor Clayton Croy ldquoWhen a Greek noun lacks the definite article it normally will be translated as indefiniterdquo (op cit A Primer) In the examples above Bible translators have shown us how they really deal with syntax similar to John 11c We have ldquoa hard saying a murderer a devil a prophet a thief a robber a god a market a ghost etc At John 1837 we have ldquoa kingrdquo twice English Bibles do not have Pilate asking Jesus if he was the ldquoKingrdquo Instead English translations followthe pattern described above and render Pilates question as ldquoArt thou a king thenrdquo

In all these cases a predicate noun without the Greek article precedes a verb just as we have in John 11c Accordingly then why not reflect this pattern at John 11 especially so when two entities are being spoken of in the verse and the second occurrence of θεός lacks the article Let us not miss the previous statement by a distinguished grammarian A ldquomost common userdquo of the Greek article is to point out hellip ldquoIndividual from Other Individualsrdquo (op cit Short Grammar p 275)

Although grammarian David Alan Black a Trinitarian objects to the ldquoa Godrdquo rendering at John 11 he takes a page from Dana and Manteys Grammar when he writes ldquoIf the article were also used with θεός the statement would mean that all of God was expressed in the Word As it is the Word is neither lsquoa Godrsquo nor equal with the sum total of Godrdquo (Its Still Greek to Me p 79) This statement by Black appears to contradict the NET Bibles translation of John 11c Blacks conclusion is similar to Danas and Manteys that is ldquothe Word was Deity [θεός]rdquo (Brackets his) In similar vein The New Testament in Plain English translates John 11c as ldquothe Word was Godrdquo However a footnote says ldquoOr Deity Divine (which is actually a better translation because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word)rdquo (Underline added 2003) Now this footnote begs the question If the rendering ldquothe Word was Deity Divinerdquo is actually a ldquobetter translationrdquo why not use that in the main text It seems that trinitarian translators have difficulty in displaying a rendering other than ldquothe Word was Godrdquo even when they acknowledge there are lsquobetter translationsrsquo for the anarthrous θεός in John 11c

In English using a capital letter in ldquofully Godrdquo is misleading to someone brought up in trinitarian teaching A trinitarian believer would likely take that rendering as conveying that Christ is Almighty God himself a concept in conflict with what Christ himself stated at John 173 and John 2017 Daniel Wallace previously quoted and author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics wrote a most interesting comment which reveals how theology plays a big role at the time of translating John 11 ldquoAlthough I believe that θεός in 11c is qualitative I think the simplest and most straightforward translation is lsquoand the Word was Godrsquo It may be better to clearly affirm the NT teaching of the deity of Christ and then explain that he is not the Father than to sound ambiguous on his deity and explain that he is God but is not the Fatherrdquo (Ibid p 269 italics his) What Is he serious

Whats the point of claiming that θεός in 11c is ldquoqualitativerdquo in John 11c as Wallace does emphatically in his Grammar and then suggest to use the rendering lsquothe Word was Godrsquo which implies ldquoidentityrdquo a

ldquopersonalityrdquo the opposite of ldquocharacterrdquo or ldquoqualityrdquo) and be forced to explain that it does not mean what it actually says The end result would then be no less ldquoambiguousrdquo than the alternatives he is obviously trying to avoid Would you not rather have a ldquobetter translationrdquo such as ldquothe Word was divinerdquo which requires no additional explanation The NET Bible (Wallace senior editor) prefers a rendering other than ldquodivinerdquo because he states that ldquodivinerdquo ldquoas a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of Godrdquo However on the word ldquodivinerdquo Murray J Harris responds ldquoBut if θεὸς bears a qualitative sense the rendering lsquodivinersquo should not be dismissed as altogether inappropriate Only if lsquodivinersquo is taken to mean lsquohaving the very nature of Godrsquo does the word accurately convey Johns meaningrdquo (op cit Jesus as God p 68) The argument that ldquodivinerdquo is too generic is weak because really the same argument could be made of the term ldquogodrdquo Jesus applied the term ldquogodsrdquo to humans (John 1034-36) and Paul acknowledged that ldquothere are many gods and many lordsrdquo (1 Corinthians 85) So Wallaces objection is more likely an effort to equate Christ with God at John 11

Truly the Greek Text does not say that Christ wasis the one-and-only God What the Greek does say is that ldquothe Word was with the [True] God and the Word [himself] was a divine beingrdquo thus able to perfectly represent the character of God (Hebrews 13) The only way one could justify the rendering ldquoGodrdquo with a big ldquoGrdquo at John 11c is if the original text had the article before the second instance of theos as well Why Because John is talking about two individuals and deliberately differentiates between the two instances of ldquotheosrdquo by placing the article before the first instance of ldquotheosrdquo and not with the second Max Zerwick (SJ) wrote in this regard ldquoὁ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος [if John would have written ldquothe God was the Logosrdquo] at least in NT usage would signify personal identity of the Word with the Father since the latter [the Father] is ὁ Θεὸς [the God]rdquo (Biblical Greek p 55 Rome)

John wrote the words appearing in verse two to clear any potential misunderstanding that could arise from his bold statement in verse one Marinus de Jonge remarks ldquoThe author of this Prologue clearly wants to identify lsquothe Wordrsquo and God as closely as possible without infringing the belief in the One Godrdquo (Christology in Context The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus Philadelphia Westminster 1988 p 198 Jonge is Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands) So in effect John was saying that the Logos was like God in every imaginable way Hence the New English Bible rendering lsquoWhat God was the Word wasrsquo

Dr Jason BeDuhn explains ldquoIn John 11 the Word is not the one-and-only God but it is a god or divine being I know that sounds strange and even seems impossible coming from the pen of a Christian writer But the fact remains that that is what John wrote His purpose in doing so was at least in part to avoid the notion that God the Father himself incarnated as Christ The one who incarnated was somehow distinct from lsquoGodrsquo while still being lsquoa godrsquo rdquo (op cit Truth in Translation pp 122 123)

Why then are translators unwilling to render John 11c ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo A few reasons could be given Translators mention grammar as one problem an issue addressed throughout this article Others view the rendering ldquoa godrdquo as polytheistic I will further mention two others First is the domino effect of the Trinity doctrine developed centuries after Christ as a means to clamp down raging Christological debates to the point that the doctrine has been taken for granted as ldquotruthrdquo by most ldquoChristianrdquo people since Secondly the role in tradition played by the Latin Vulgate must be mentioned This Latin translation has greatly influenced many translators since its inception from c 405 CE It is well known that the Vulgate heavily influenced early translations of the 16th and 17th Century In fact back then translators were more likely to be familiar with the Latin Vulgate than with the Greek

The Latin Vulgate used no articles (as seen below) and that in conjunction with the Greek lacking the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) and we can see why so many have misunderstood John 11 The Christological debates of past centuries did not improve this state of confusion it made it worse I kindly ask the reader to consider the following Latin and Greek readings as helpful pointers in our discussion Notice in particular the bold letters relevant to our discussion

ndash LATIN (John 11)ldquoIn principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbumrdquo In beginning was Verb and Verb was with God and God was Verb

ndash GREEK (John 11)

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος In beginning was the logos and the logos was toward the god and god was the logos

First of all please notice that Latin makes no distinction between the two occurrences of ldquoGodrdquo in the text (ie both without the article) However Greek being a more specific descriptive language does And it does so by using the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the first occurrence and omitting it before the second Keep in mind what The Translatorrsquos New Testament previously quoted said ldquoIt is difficult to believe that the omission [of the Greek article before the second theos in John 11] is not significantrdquo (p 451) As A T Robertson pointed out ldquoThe article is never meaningless in Greek though it often fails to correspond with the English idiom [hellip] Its free use leads to exactness and finesserdquo (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research p 756) And Buttmann The use of the article [ho ldquotherdquo] has everywhere its positive reasonrdquo (Buttmanns Grammar of NewTestament Greek Bt 88) And another ldquoFor the present the presence or absence of the Greek article should always be carefully indicated in the English translationrdquo (New Testament Greek For Beginners by J Gresham Machen DD LITTD p 35 67) It is the responsibility of the translator to transmit whenever possible this existing difference in the Greek text into the English translation

Which reading of the two languages above (Latin and Greek) shows the greater similarity with the traditional rendering of John 11c Its Latin is it not In fact some Bible translations in other languages have even borrowed the latin word ldquoVerbumrdquo from the Latin Vulgate at John 11 such as the ubiquitous Spanish Reina-Valera which uses ldquoVerbordquo (Verb) instead of ldquoWordrdquo used in English versionsAlso using ldquoVerbordquo Sciacuteo de San Miguel Versioacuten Moderna Goacutemez 2010 Nueva Biblia Latinoamericana de Hoy and the Nueva Versioacuten Internacional Other international versions following the Latin Vulgate at John 11c French Darby Crampon German Luther Bible Italian Diodati and the Portuguese Almeida

It is evident that most English Bibles at John 11 are translating in the spirit of the Latin Vulgate rather than the Greek text regardless of what they claim Surprisingly as you will see in the submitted list of alternate readings at the end of this paper there are some translations though not as popular that are actually closer to the Greek above than the best-selling versions which end up following the Latin Vulgate instead Although John 11 has long been a favorite text by traditionalists to quote in the English world it may be surprise many that a modern Greek Bible reader will not likely appeal to such scripture in support of the traditional view Notwithstanding some Bible translators either disagree with the traditional viewpoint of the Logos as

ldquoGodrdquo or may simply feel that the message conveyed by the original Greek language (as demonstrated by the 7 samples above) demands a different translation at John 11c Some would have you believe that only a few insane unschooled translators with diabolical intentions would ever attempt to deviate from the traditionalist reading That is not simply true I believe most translators offering a different version of John 11 are most sincere in their effort to get to the core of the Greek meaning and to adequately transmit the intended message of the biblical author The submitted list of alternate readings at the end is not intended to be a complete list but to show a variety of renderings and viewpoints Keep in mind too that because of its theological significance other Scriptures do not have as many variant translation renderings as this one does

________________________________________

A careful review of the alternate readings list of John 11 and other related material at the end of the article would lead to this question Could anyone legitimately exclude as a valid option the rendering ldquoagodrdquo found in some Bible versions We have seen that grammar alone cannot condemn the use of such translation though many will keep trying Seven examples were provided which clearly show how translators render predicate nouns without the article occurring before the verb In addition note that these seven examples make reference to one person or one thing while John 11 is speaking of ldquotwordquo entities With greater reason then translators should render this grammatical structure in John 11c in away that brings out the indefinite-qualitative aspect rather than convey identification with the Supreme God

A Grammar states ldquoJohn was not saying that lsquothe word was the Fatherrsquo but that lsquothe word was God (divine)rsquordquo (Gramaacutetica Griega-Sintaxis del Nuevo Testamento [Greek Grammar-Syntax of the NT] by Daniel B Wallace amp Daniel S Steffen Parentheses theirs p 182) Consequently if the translation ldquothe word was Godrdquo must be understood in the adjectival sense as ldquodivinerdquo why not translate it that way Itis therefore reasonable to make a distinction between the term ldquotheosrdquo with and without the article here

In all the more accurate Bible translations do make a distinction between ldquotheosrdquo (God) with and without the article in John 11 Does yours Some argue that John did not have to employ the article before the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo to imply that the Word was ldquoGodrdquo Do you believe that If so why then was the Greek article used with the nominal predicate before the verb in John 151 which literally says ldquoThe father of me the farmer isrdquo And in John 651 ldquoThe bread but which I shall give the flesh of me isrdquo It is evident that Bible writers usually employed the article with specific intention and when they omitted it it was equally significant as well

Is it not better to just follow along with the majority view and thus free oneself from religious tension that may accompany those who sustain a minority view First of all it is dangerous to adopt a majority view if this one is in error A majority view held by ldquoscholarsrdquo of itself does not automatically make a matter ldquotruerdquo Why Because scholars are not infallible nor immune to human tradition Were they in Jesus day They were not Scholars today may find themselves in error just as many scribes were in Jesus day as Matthew chapter 23 clearly demonstrate (Matthew 159) We are warned that ldquothe whole world lies under the power of the evil onerdquo (1 John 519 New Revised Standard Bible) We should not dismiss ldquoreligionrdquo as being beyond the reach or interest of Satan We all need to be in guard of evil influence at all times being careful of not becoming ldquostone-blindrdquo by ldquothe god of this worldrdquo (2 Cor 44 The Message) Again a majority view does not always represent the truth Thus the doctrinal foundation for Christians should be based not on what the majority believe but rather on what the Bible

itself teaches

What does the Bible really say about Jesus Christ

Simply put Jesus is ldquoSon of Godrdquo not ldquoGod the Sonrdquo (Luke 135 NRSV) There is a vast difference in meaning between those two expressions There are more than two hundred references (200x) in the New Testament that explicitly declare that Jesus Christ is the ldquoSon of Godrdquo or that lsquoGod is the Father of Jesus Christrsquo (For a list of instances see The Preachers Outline and Sermon Bible ldquoJohnrdquo p 27) Yet Christendom prefers to dwell on a handful of texts which are said to describe Jesus as God None of those texts are explicit in declaring Jesus equality with God In Scripture Jesus place in the broad picture is one of sonship that is as Son of God not God Furthermore the word ldquosonrdquo is never used to describe God or the ldquoholy spiritrdquo

Christ is also described as ldquothe image of the invisible God [not God] the firstborn of all creationrdquo (Colossians 115) the ldquomediator between God and menrdquo (1 Timothy 25) Yes it is possible to spin these clear statements to make them say something else but is this what we seek One who plays the role of ldquomediatorrdquo cannot in the name of justice be one and the same person as one of the two parts that he is said to represent Otherwise such individual could not be truly impartial in his judgment Moses as a separate entity was able to really serve as ldquomediatorrdquo between God and Israel Now if Jesus the greater Moses was really one-and-the-same ldquoGodrdquo what ldquojusticerdquo could he convey acting as ldquomediatorrdquo between himself and mankind But no Jesus spoke of his Father as ldquomy Godrdquo and as lsquothe God of everyone elsersquo (John 2017) It was this God (ldquothe only Godrdquo John 544 NKJV NIV) according to Jesus himself who lsquorevealedrsquo things to Christ (Mark 1332 Revelation 11) Any statementwhich says that lsquoGod gave Jesus Christ a revelationrsquo would sound very odd to anyone taught to believe that Christ is the equal of God in every sense Scripture calls Christ ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 1913) And the record shows that it was this Word who was ldquowith God in the beginning not that he was ldquoGodrdquo but like God (Others render ldquoa Godrdquo ldquodivinerdquo - Tomanek Schonfield Heb 13)

Bible writers always speak of Jesus Christ in a subordinate role as in Ephesians 13 ldquoBlessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christrdquo 1 Corinthians 1528 ldquoThe Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him [God] who put all things in subjection to him that God may be all in allrdquo (Darby) In Colossians 31 we read ldquoKeep on seeking the things above where Christ is seated at the right hand of Godrdquo (Williams) Jesus himself made it clear to others ldquoI seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which hath sent merdquo (John 530)

Do Scriptures allow for a secondary sense of the words ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo

In the Scriptures the term lsquogodrsquo has various connotations and cannot be narrowed to one single meaning as some try to do A few scholars sustain that the notion of Jesus Christ as ldquoa godrdquo as if there were other gods beside God is incompatible with Jewish ldquomonotheismrdquo which is the belief in only one God and that it implies polytheism Nevertheless the concept itself that God as an entity is composed of three coequal persons runs counter with Jewish monotheism ldquoThe Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheismrdquo so states the Jewish Encyclopedia (ldquoTrinityrdquo) The teaching of the ldquoShemardquo consisted as has been noted in that ldquoJehovah our God is one Jehovahrdquo (Deuteronomy 64 ASV) What purpose would there be for the ldquoShemardquo to stress that Jehovah is ldquoonerdquo and then confound the matter by stating that that

must mean the Divine One is ldquothree personsrdquo in ldquoonerdquo It is explained frequently that the teaching of theTrinity is a ldquomysteryrdquo The problem with such reasoning is that nowhere does Scripture gives us reason to believe in such a concept It is possible that a person who has been exposed to this doctrine for a long time may see ldquoinsinuationsrdquo of it in the Bible However those individuals must in sincerity ask themselves whether their belief is based on ldquofactsrdquo or instead on emotional ldquofancyrdquo

Certain Scriptures are frequently cited as proof by supporters of the Trinity doctrine that Christ is God Isaiah 446 and Hosea 134 are two such Scriptures which have God Jehovah saying ldquoI am the first and I am the last and beside me there is no Godrdquo ldquoAnd thou shalt know no god but me for there is nosavior [Hebrew עע שהש םי beside merdquo These words are strictly taken literally out of their [(u˙moshia) וומוsetting to mean that there can be no ldquogodrdquo or ldquosaviorrdquo but God almighty In the context in which these words were pronounced Israel Gods people were inclined to worship vain hand-made idols (Isaiah 4217) Hence Gods warning in Isaiah and Hosea People brought up in trinitarian dogma tend to restrict the meaning of the term ldquoGodrdquo to those statements found within the context of Isaiah and Hosea leading them to the conclusion that anyone other than the True God must be a ldquofalserdquo god They define the word God within the context of modern trinitarian mentality instead of ancient Scriptural doctrine Trinitarians reason that if the appellative ldquoGodrdquo is applied to Jesus Christ then reasonably Jesus could be no other than the Lord God himself

However such trinitarian reasonings are missing an important element It has to do with the fact that the word ldquogodrdquo can be applied to others since the term itself seems to be related to someone with power and authority The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explains ldquoThis word [rsquoelōhicircm] can in fact be used for other gods (Gen 3130) and even for men (cf Ex 416 71 cf BDB p43)The derivation [of rsquoelōhicircm] is obscure but the implied sense seems to be that of strength or authorityrdquo (Vol II pg 497 italics added) The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words says ldquoThe word itself [אא ל (rsquoēl) Hebrew word for God] derives from a root term meaning lsquopowerrsquo lsquostrengthrsquo orlsquomightrsquo (Stephen D Renn p 439) And the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible states ldquoCommon to these four suggested root meanings [of El God] is the idea of strength power and of supreme excellence and greatnessrdquo (Vol 1 p 881) This may explain why various Bible versions at John 11c describe the Logos as ldquoa powerful divine beingrdquo or the like instead of saying ldquoGodrdquo When the whole context of Scripture is considered it is evident that the words spoken by God found in Isaiah and Hosea are very true in a specific sense namely that there is but one Supreme God and one Main Savior This truth does not rule out the existence of lsquogodlike onesrsquo under God (Job 387 Psalms 291 896)

Is it possible to speak of divine beings (ldquogodsrdquo) existing alongside God

Scholar John Macquarrie in Jesus Christ in Modern Thought claims that the Jewish monotheistic culturewould never tolerate the idea of the Logos belonging to a class of divine beings (P 110) Not quite Other scholars have a different view Ernst Haenchen for example claims the opposite in accord with Scripture ldquoIn the period in which the hymn [at John 11] took its rise it was quite possible in Jewishand Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him Phil 26-10 proves thatrdquo (A Commentary on the Gospel of John John 1Transl by Robert W Funk from Das Johannesevangelium Ein Kommentar p 109)

Another source has this to say ldquoOn the other hand it was a matter of general knowledge and one which the Bible itself shares and does not attempt to conceal that recognition and worship have often been extended to others than the Jewish-Christian God and the term lsquogodrsquo or lsquogodsrsquo is used for them

also as are the respective Greek and Hebrew words It is the custom to use a capital letter G for the God of the Jewish- Christian tradition and a small letter for the othersrdquo (Dictionary of the Bible JamesHastings Revised Edition 1963 Page 333 Grant amp Rowley Charles Scribners Sons New York)

Lets briefly look at how the Bible itself employs the words for ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture At Exodus 71 we read that God made a man Moses ldquoa godrdquo (Hebrew elohim) before Pharaoh God said to Moses ldquoSee I have made thee a god [Others ldquoa Godrdquo ldquoGodrdquo] to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophetrdquo Would this mean then that Moses himself did become an intrinsic part of the Great Divinity by the mere fact of him being called ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo by the Lord Jehovah himself Of coursenot Other translations clarify the meaning of ldquoGodrdquo used here by the LORD The English Standard Version expresses it this way ldquoSee I have made you like God to Pharaohrdquo And the International Standard Version has the LORD saying ldquoListen Ive put you in the role of God to Pharaohrdquo

And in Exodus 416 God making reference to Aaron tells Moses ldquoYou shall be as God to himrdquo (ESV NAB Hebrew lelohim ldquoas Godrdquo Darby ldquoGodrdquo Leeser ldquoa Godrdquo LXX theon ldquoGodrdquo Vulgate Deum)rdquo Moses was simply given a powerful role as Gods emissary who represented his will In Psalm 456 a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) when he became lsquoking of Israelrsquo was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo Obviously this human king was not in fact the One True God Neither was he a false God as trinitarian reasonings would lead one to believe Simply put Solomons throne was ldquodivinerdquo in the sense that he represented God in a position of authority over others

In the Scriptures we find that Jesus is described in Isaiah 96 as ldquoMighty Godrdquo and as ldquoSon of Godrdquo in other places (John 134) What about angels What do we call them Humans Not Angels are in nature heavenly beings closer to God than to men They are powerful divine spirits that reflect Gods glory and Godship They are ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 16) They are ldquogodsrdquo themselves What do we call aldquosonrdquo of a ldquohumanrdquo This ldquosonrdquo is himself a ldquohumanrdquo is he not Just as there is a family of human beings sharing ldquohumanityrdquo there is also a family of celestial beings yes ldquodivine beingsrdquo or ldquogodsrdquo sharing ldquodivinityrdquo A ldquosonrdquo of ldquoGodrdquo is ldquoa godrdquo or a lsquoreflectionrsquo of God Or it could simply refer to ldquoOne who shares a close relationship with Godrdquo (The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary) Notwithstanding the expression ldquoson of Godrdquo is never synonymous with God ( Some argue that the expression ldquoAlmightyrdquo in Revelation 18 applies to Christ but there is no concrete evidence for the claim)

Psalm 821 tells us that ldquoGod standeth in the congregation of the mighty [Brenton ldquogodsrdquo] he judgeth among the godsrdquo The Syriac Peshitta here has ldquoangelsrdquo instead of ldquogodsrdquo while Tanakh has ldquodivine beingsrdquo The Targums offer the alternate reading of ldquojudgesrdquo Whether we apply the term ldquogodsrdquo in verse one of this psalm (Psalm 821) to angels or human judges as Gods representatives (as in verse 6) as the Targums do it still proves that in the Bible other living beings other than God Almighty are spoken of as ldquogodsrdquo or ldquosons of Godrdquo with no hint of polytheism by such use The Andrews Study Bible explains under Psalm 821 ldquogods Term designates earthly rulers leaders mighty ones judges andor princes (v 7) who were Gods representatives and whose work was divinely appointed (Ex 2228 Deut 117 1618 2 Chr 196 compare with Heb 137)rdquo And The NIV Study Bible has this footnote on Psalm 821 ldquogods See v 6 In the language of the OTmdashand in accordance with the conceptual world of the ancient Near Eastmdashrulers and judges as deputies of the heavenly King could be given the honorific title lsquogodrsquo [hellip] or be called lsquoson of Godrsquo []rdquo See also the Psalm 821 footnotes of The Believers Study Bible The Wesley Bible and the HCSB Study Bible

Mighty angels and powerful human rulers or judges called ldquogodsrdquo in Scripture were considered ldquodivinerdquo or ldquogodlikerdquo when they acted on behalf of God As the Lord told Moses ldquoI will make you seem like God to Pharaohrdquo (Exodus 71 NLT) Even people of biblical times used the term ldquoGodrdquo freely in reference to powerful human leaders or people who displayed ldquosupernaturalrdquo feats Acts 1222informs us that when king Herod gave a public speech in royal robes the crowd cheered him on shouting ldquoIt is the voice of a god and not of a manrdquo On another occasion the people of a small island called Paul theos that is ldquoa godrdquo when they witnessed his superhuman powers (Acts 286 Compare with Acts 1411) With this information at hand Robert Young a master of various ancient languages concluded ldquoGodmdashis used of any one (professedly) mighty whether truly so or not and is applied not only to the true God but to false gods Magistratesjudges angels prophets etc eg Ex 71 John 11 1033 34 35 2028 rdquo ndash Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible Eerdmans Publ 1978

Then why do religious writers out there act like no one but God can be referred to as ldquodivinerdquo or ldquoa godrdquo For them anyone else but the true God is a false god They are confining themselves within a box with the Scriptural context of Isaiah chapter 43 44 and 45 discussed above where they refuse to seethe term ldquogodrdquo being used elsewhere in Scripture in a more broadly manner than their biased narrowed definition allows them to In fact even Satan is called ldquothe god [Gr ὁ θεὸς] of this worldrdquo because he actually lsquorulesrsquo this wicked world by the power he exerts over mankind (2 Cor 44 John 1231 1 John 519) Was calling Satan ldquothe god of this worldrdquo meant to promote polytheism Thus the original words for ldquogodrdquo of themselves do not signal whether a god is true or false With some exceptions the Inspired Scriptures commonly affixes the definite article (ldquotherdquo) before the word ldquoGodrdquo to distinguish the Supreme God from other gods This holds true for both the Hebrew and Greek Bible portions

It is clear from the biblical record that in ancient Jewish culture people saw no problem speaking of ldquodivine beingsrdquo under the Supreme God To them it was not exclusively a matter of whether they were true or false ldquogodsrdquo In their cultural mindset the term ldquogodsrdquo when applied positively to others beside the Most High God meant that they were powerful representatives of God whether it was Christ spokenof angels or human judges When speaking of powerful heavenly beings in glory the term ldquosons of Godrdquo was fully acceptable There is no record of Jesus displaying any feelings of disgust when claiming he was ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 1036 NIV) Why should we then

Hence anyone else other than God labeled ldquogodrdquo in Scripture in a positive light are simply divine beings created in the image of the True God belonging to the heavenly family of ldquogodlikerdquo ones The term ldquogodrdquo may also be Scripturally used to describe human beings holding a position of power and authority when appointed by God When the term is used this way polytheism is not an issue

What about the Christ

At John 1033-36 Christ himself appealed to Psalm 82 where the term ldquogodsrdquo was applied to persons other than God Jesus was refuting the charge of blasphemy that he was making himself ldquoGgodrdquo as invalid because he was only claiming to be not God but ldquoGods Sonrdquo which is totally different Jesus had an excellent opportunity here to claim once and for all that he was ldquoGodrdquo but once again he did not do so Jesus Christ holds a much higher position than any angel or man but is still subordinate to his Father God (1 Corinthians 113 Hebrews 32 Colossians 13)

Angels were made subject to Christ after he himself was placed at Gods right hand (1 Peter 322) Although both angels and Christ are described as lsquosons of Godrsquo only Jesus Christ is distinctively called

ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo according to some manuscripts (John 118 Murdock Noyes Concordant Literal Version) Or ldquothe one-begotten Godrdquo (Etheridge) The Word Study Greek-English New Testament describes the Logos as the ldquoonly born Godrdquo (John 118 Paul R McReynolds) Only Christ is called ldquothe firstborn of all creationrdquo a term never used for the lsquoSuperiorityrsquo of God or the holy spirit (Colossians 115) Could Trinitarians ever answer the following question If Christ was not created as some claim who then was the first creation by God Also who is ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo Surely someone lsquocreated firstrsquo in the universe would be honored with the title lsquothe firstborn of all creationrsquo Is there any other way to express such event The Bible simply points to Christ as such of which is said ldquoThese things saith the Amen the faithful and true witness the beginning of the creation of Godrdquo Whatdoes lsquothe beginning of Gods creationrsquo really mean Another Bible translation puts it this way ldquoThe one who is in the origin of things created by God [El que estaacute en el origen de las cosas creadas por Dios]rdquo (Biblia de Ameacuterica approved by various Episcopalian dioceses in Central and South America Casa de la Biblia Madrid) No ldquomysteryrdquo here Its that simple

Could there be any ldquosaviorrdquo other than God

The Sovereign Lord God is the main Savior but he may allow others to act as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo on his behalf in certain situations We find that the term is applied to Christ as the prime agent of salvation (2 Peter 220 1 John 414 Titus 14) We are told that men too like Othniel and Ehud were used as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo of their people (Judges 216 3915 Hebrew moshia same word used for God at Isaiah Compare with Isaiah 452 Hebrew u˙moshia Nehemiah 927 Hebrew moshiim plural of moshia) Would this mean then that those men called ldquosaviorsrdquo in Scripture form a part of the Supreme Divinity No there is a better explanation as found in the NIV

The NIV Study Bible has this to say of Israels leaders or judges ldquoTheir principal purpose is best expressed in [Judges] 216 lsquoThen the LORD raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of hellip raidersrsquo Since it was God who permitted the oppressions and raised up deliverers [saviors] he himself was Israels ultimate Judge and Deliverer [Savior] (1127 see 823 where Gideon a judge insists that the Lord is Israels true rulerrdquo (p 325) The Bible uses the same original words (ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo) for God Christ and men Does it mean they all are the same person or co-equal The context then iswhat determines the correct application for each occurrence of those terms

Who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo

In contrast to others who were called ldquosaviorsrdquo of the people of Israel Jesus is called ldquoSavior of the worldrdquo Jesus can potentially save not only Israel but all of mankind from bondage to sin and from death itself (John 316 1 John 414) Although Christ is undoubtedly a greater Savior than any man heis still subject to the Grandest Savior of all (Isaiah 4311 Acts 412 1 Corinthians 1528) Christ himself came to be in a situation where he had to cry out with a loud voice for salvation Right before his death he implored ldquoMy God my God why hast thou forsaken merdquo He had to be saved by God (Matthew 2746 Hebrews 57 Psalm 288)

Acts 531 tells us who was the One who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquoGod exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israelrdquo (NRSV) According to this scripture whatever capacity Jesus had as ldquosaviorrdquo was due to God To insist that Jesus is ldquoGodrdquo because of his description as ldquosaviorrdquo then we could reason all the same that men such as Othniel and Ehud were alsoldquoGodrdquo because they too were called saviors Overall ldquocontextrdquo should be the guiding principle for the

right comprehension of biblical terms

Jesus as ldquoSon of manrdquo

Jesus made reference to himself in the Gospels nearly 80 times as ldquothe Son of manrdquo an expression indicating he was truly a ldquomanrdquo while on earth not a God-man (Matthew 820 etc) According to Hebrews 29 Jesus ldquowas made a little lower than the angelsrdquo so he could taste death for everyone God cannot ever become ldquolower than the angelsrdquo he created John 114 tells us that it was lsquothe Word who became fleshrsquo not God The doctrine of the ldquoincarnationrdquo as commonly taught actually twists the meaning of John 114 because the text does not say at all that lsquoGod became fleshrsquo Instead it says ldquothe Wordrdquo did Plain and simple 2 John 7 only confirms this In other words the Logos Jesus Christ became ldquohumanrdquo or ldquoa human beingrdquo One scripture often misused to prove that God was made flesh is 1 Timothy 316 but this text did not originally say ldquoGod was manifest in the fleshrdquo as it reads in a few Bible versions since such reading is defective Other translations of the Bible have corrected this error in translation saying instead ldquoHe [or ldquoWhordquo] was manifested in the fleshrdquo allowing for lsquoChrist as the One being manifested in the fleshrsquo For a consideration of 1 Tim 316 see httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

In an effort to simplify the meaning of the expression ldquoSon of manrdquo in reference to Christ in our culture a modern Bible version used the expression ldquothe Human Onerdquo repeatedly (Common English Bible) ldquoThe general use of lsquoson of manrsquo occurs in poetic texts in which the phrase functions as a synonym for lsquomanrsquo or lsquohuman beingrsquo rdquo (The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary) The NIV at Daniel 713 confirms the meaning of the expression ldquoson of manrdquo in a footnote ldquoThe Aramaic phrase bar enash [son of man]means human being The phrase son of man is retained here because of its use in the New Testament as a title of Jesus probably based largely on this verserdquo (2011 Edition) The apostle was very familiar withthis much used expression of Jesus If ldquoSon of manrdquo meant he was a ldquohuman beingrdquo on earth then John would use the similar expression a son of God (or Gods Son) in a way humans would naturally understand it That is lsquoof divine originrsquo (ldquoa godrdquo) without any foreign trinitarian speculation of a later era which Jesus disciples were unaware of (John 1033-36) Jesus divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship As noted the expression may also refer to lsquoone who shares a close relationship with Godrsquo As future co-heirs in the kingdom of Christ human creatures too are designated as ldquosons of Godrdquo but never become identical to the Sovereign God Again polytheism is not an issue here No need to make this into a ldquomysteryrdquo

Why does the Bible speak sometimes as if Jesus Christ himself was ldquoGodrdquo

The Jewish nation already believed and sought lsquoto honorrsquo the Father of Abraham Isaac and Jacob This monotheistic culture adhered to the Mosaic Law as they worshiped the true God But many prophecies which appeared in the Hebrew code identified the Messiah as lsquoemancipatorrsquo of their bondage to sin Themajority of the Jews where hoping the foretold Messiah would rescue them from the Roman yoke Instead of getting involved in earthly politics Jesus repeatedly spoke of lsquoGods kingdomrsquo hence comparatively few exercised faith in him In contrast to the few who believed in Jesus as being ldquosentrdquo by God the majority of Jews could look no further from the man they considered their Father AbrahamThey were blind in their self-sufficiency

There was thus an urgent need to communicate to the Jewish people that exercising faith in Christ was essential to their salvation But how would one do that To start by making them see that Jesus Christ

study of the uses of the term as given in Moulton and Gedens Concordance convinces one that without the article θεός signifies divine essence while with the article divine personality is chiefly in viewrdquo Furthermore on page 140 on the use of the article in the Greek text it says ldquoThe articular constructionemphasizes identity the anarthrous construction emphasizes characterrdquo

Dr Julius R Mantey did include this statement in his letter of repudiation to the WTS mentioned earlierldquoProf Harner Vol 921 in JBL has gone beyond Colwells research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subjectrdquo (July 11 1974) Instead of advocating a trinity this statement of Mantey quoting Professor Harner oddlysupports some of the arguments published in the 1950 and the 1984 NWT Editions

Going by grammar alone one could say that the renderings ldquothe place was a marketrdquo ldquothe Word was agod [divine]rdquo and ldquothe word was deityrdquo all three potentially agree with the grammar principles expounded by Dana amp Mantey on the articular and the anarthrous constructions of θεός on pages 138-140 and on page 148 though they may not admit to it Again let us not forget their clear message ldquoNeither was the place the only market [the place was a market] nor was the word all of Godrdquo

Coming back to translation issues we can see that generally modern translations do make an effort to convey a difference in translation between predicate nouns with and without the article preceding the verb If we take a look at John 151 where John uses the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the verb ldquo(ho georgoacutes estin) the farmer isrdquo we will find that translators generally reflect that fact in translation However here in John 11 they are reluctant to produce a translation which shows the fact that the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo in this verse lacks the article Why Is it because Greek grammar demands the rendering ldquoGodrdquo Not at all The seven (7) submitted samples clearly indicate that it is not grammar but ldquotheologyrdquo for the reluctance Even Greek scholars teach that ldquowhen a Greek noun lacksthe definite article it normally will be translated as indefiniterdquo (A Primer of Biblical Greek by N Clayton Croy assistant professor of NT at Trinity Luther Seminary Columbus Ohio p 15) At John 11 translators in their drive to make Jesus appear identical to God will use a capital G when Jesus is spoken of Patterns of Greek grammar as seen in the above examples and elsewhere are ignored to sustain their theology (Note the use of ldquonormallyrdquo here because the author is aware that there is lsquono hard rulersquo that can be applied at all times in regards to the use of the article or lack of But his statement holds generally true as in here)

John 12 would be pointless tautology if John meant that the Logos was identical to God as some translations suggest It is also misleading to translate John 11 ldquothe Word was fully Godrdquo as the NET Bible does If we were to use the NET Bibles reasoning which appears in their note of John 11 and apply it to samples discussed above with similar syntax we would get the following translations ldquoThis man [Paul] must be fully Murdererrdquo ldquoThat one [climbing over the fence] is fully Thief and fully Robberrdquo ldquofor he (Baal) is fully Godrdquo ldquoand the place was fully Marketrdquo

Does that make sense Baal a pagan god was certainly not lsquofully Godrsquo in the sense of him being the Supreme God But Elijah could depict Baal as ldquoa godrdquo for he was not lsquothe only godrsquo among the heathens And to say ldquothe place was fully Marketrdquo is meaningless In fact Dana and Mantey argued against the place being The Market the only market They conclude that the Greek construction demands ldquothe place was a marketrdquo And Dana and Mantey pointed out that the Greek construction of John 11 tells us that lsquothe word was deity [ldquodivinerdquo but] not all of Godrsquo

In Marks gospel (649) where Jesus appeared walking over the waters next to the disciples boat duringa storm in which they became terrified after seeing an ldquoapparitionrdquo or ldquophantomrdquo of some sort (since they were unaware it was Jesus) they screamed ldquoIts a ghostrdquo according to some Bible versions (Or ldquoa spiritrdquo KJV) The grammatical structure of Mark 649 and John 11 are similar so how do Bible translations deal with this Do they have the disciples crying out ldquoHe is fully Ghost Or would they scream instead ldquoHe is Phantomrdquo No Most Bibles have the disciples believing or saying it was ldquoa ghostrdquoor ldquoa phantomrdquo or ldquoan apparitionrdquo of some sort At no time do translators argue that it should be translated as they do at John 11c by capitalizing the predicate noun and omitting the indefinite article ldquoardquo John 11 is no exception to the norm Bible translators follow the pattern described by Professor Clayton Croy ldquoWhen a Greek noun lacks the definite article it normally will be translated as indefiniterdquo (op cit A Primer) In the examples above Bible translators have shown us how they really deal with syntax similar to John 11c We have ldquoa hard saying a murderer a devil a prophet a thief a robber a god a market a ghost etc At John 1837 we have ldquoa kingrdquo twice English Bibles do not have Pilate asking Jesus if he was the ldquoKingrdquo Instead English translations followthe pattern described above and render Pilates question as ldquoArt thou a king thenrdquo

In all these cases a predicate noun without the Greek article precedes a verb just as we have in John 11c Accordingly then why not reflect this pattern at John 11 especially so when two entities are being spoken of in the verse and the second occurrence of θεός lacks the article Let us not miss the previous statement by a distinguished grammarian A ldquomost common userdquo of the Greek article is to point out hellip ldquoIndividual from Other Individualsrdquo (op cit Short Grammar p 275)

Although grammarian David Alan Black a Trinitarian objects to the ldquoa Godrdquo rendering at John 11 he takes a page from Dana and Manteys Grammar when he writes ldquoIf the article were also used with θεός the statement would mean that all of God was expressed in the Word As it is the Word is neither lsquoa Godrsquo nor equal with the sum total of Godrdquo (Its Still Greek to Me p 79) This statement by Black appears to contradict the NET Bibles translation of John 11c Blacks conclusion is similar to Danas and Manteys that is ldquothe Word was Deity [θεός]rdquo (Brackets his) In similar vein The New Testament in Plain English translates John 11c as ldquothe Word was Godrdquo However a footnote says ldquoOr Deity Divine (which is actually a better translation because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word)rdquo (Underline added 2003) Now this footnote begs the question If the rendering ldquothe Word was Deity Divinerdquo is actually a ldquobetter translationrdquo why not use that in the main text It seems that trinitarian translators have difficulty in displaying a rendering other than ldquothe Word was Godrdquo even when they acknowledge there are lsquobetter translationsrsquo for the anarthrous θεός in John 11c

In English using a capital letter in ldquofully Godrdquo is misleading to someone brought up in trinitarian teaching A trinitarian believer would likely take that rendering as conveying that Christ is Almighty God himself a concept in conflict with what Christ himself stated at John 173 and John 2017 Daniel Wallace previously quoted and author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics wrote a most interesting comment which reveals how theology plays a big role at the time of translating John 11 ldquoAlthough I believe that θεός in 11c is qualitative I think the simplest and most straightforward translation is lsquoand the Word was Godrsquo It may be better to clearly affirm the NT teaching of the deity of Christ and then explain that he is not the Father than to sound ambiguous on his deity and explain that he is God but is not the Fatherrdquo (Ibid p 269 italics his) What Is he serious

Whats the point of claiming that θεός in 11c is ldquoqualitativerdquo in John 11c as Wallace does emphatically in his Grammar and then suggest to use the rendering lsquothe Word was Godrsquo which implies ldquoidentityrdquo a

ldquopersonalityrdquo the opposite of ldquocharacterrdquo or ldquoqualityrdquo) and be forced to explain that it does not mean what it actually says The end result would then be no less ldquoambiguousrdquo than the alternatives he is obviously trying to avoid Would you not rather have a ldquobetter translationrdquo such as ldquothe Word was divinerdquo which requires no additional explanation The NET Bible (Wallace senior editor) prefers a rendering other than ldquodivinerdquo because he states that ldquodivinerdquo ldquoas a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of Godrdquo However on the word ldquodivinerdquo Murray J Harris responds ldquoBut if θεὸς bears a qualitative sense the rendering lsquodivinersquo should not be dismissed as altogether inappropriate Only if lsquodivinersquo is taken to mean lsquohaving the very nature of Godrsquo does the word accurately convey Johns meaningrdquo (op cit Jesus as God p 68) The argument that ldquodivinerdquo is too generic is weak because really the same argument could be made of the term ldquogodrdquo Jesus applied the term ldquogodsrdquo to humans (John 1034-36) and Paul acknowledged that ldquothere are many gods and many lordsrdquo (1 Corinthians 85) So Wallaces objection is more likely an effort to equate Christ with God at John 11

Truly the Greek Text does not say that Christ wasis the one-and-only God What the Greek does say is that ldquothe Word was with the [True] God and the Word [himself] was a divine beingrdquo thus able to perfectly represent the character of God (Hebrews 13) The only way one could justify the rendering ldquoGodrdquo with a big ldquoGrdquo at John 11c is if the original text had the article before the second instance of theos as well Why Because John is talking about two individuals and deliberately differentiates between the two instances of ldquotheosrdquo by placing the article before the first instance of ldquotheosrdquo and not with the second Max Zerwick (SJ) wrote in this regard ldquoὁ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος [if John would have written ldquothe God was the Logosrdquo] at least in NT usage would signify personal identity of the Word with the Father since the latter [the Father] is ὁ Θεὸς [the God]rdquo (Biblical Greek p 55 Rome)

John wrote the words appearing in verse two to clear any potential misunderstanding that could arise from his bold statement in verse one Marinus de Jonge remarks ldquoThe author of this Prologue clearly wants to identify lsquothe Wordrsquo and God as closely as possible without infringing the belief in the One Godrdquo (Christology in Context The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus Philadelphia Westminster 1988 p 198 Jonge is Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands) So in effect John was saying that the Logos was like God in every imaginable way Hence the New English Bible rendering lsquoWhat God was the Word wasrsquo

Dr Jason BeDuhn explains ldquoIn John 11 the Word is not the one-and-only God but it is a god or divine being I know that sounds strange and even seems impossible coming from the pen of a Christian writer But the fact remains that that is what John wrote His purpose in doing so was at least in part to avoid the notion that God the Father himself incarnated as Christ The one who incarnated was somehow distinct from lsquoGodrsquo while still being lsquoa godrsquo rdquo (op cit Truth in Translation pp 122 123)

Why then are translators unwilling to render John 11c ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo A few reasons could be given Translators mention grammar as one problem an issue addressed throughout this article Others view the rendering ldquoa godrdquo as polytheistic I will further mention two others First is the domino effect of the Trinity doctrine developed centuries after Christ as a means to clamp down raging Christological debates to the point that the doctrine has been taken for granted as ldquotruthrdquo by most ldquoChristianrdquo people since Secondly the role in tradition played by the Latin Vulgate must be mentioned This Latin translation has greatly influenced many translators since its inception from c 405 CE It is well known that the Vulgate heavily influenced early translations of the 16th and 17th Century In fact back then translators were more likely to be familiar with the Latin Vulgate than with the Greek

The Latin Vulgate used no articles (as seen below) and that in conjunction with the Greek lacking the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) and we can see why so many have misunderstood John 11 The Christological debates of past centuries did not improve this state of confusion it made it worse I kindly ask the reader to consider the following Latin and Greek readings as helpful pointers in our discussion Notice in particular the bold letters relevant to our discussion

ndash LATIN (John 11)ldquoIn principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbumrdquo In beginning was Verb and Verb was with God and God was Verb

ndash GREEK (John 11)

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος In beginning was the logos and the logos was toward the god and god was the logos

First of all please notice that Latin makes no distinction between the two occurrences of ldquoGodrdquo in the text (ie both without the article) However Greek being a more specific descriptive language does And it does so by using the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the first occurrence and omitting it before the second Keep in mind what The Translatorrsquos New Testament previously quoted said ldquoIt is difficult to believe that the omission [of the Greek article before the second theos in John 11] is not significantrdquo (p 451) As A T Robertson pointed out ldquoThe article is never meaningless in Greek though it often fails to correspond with the English idiom [hellip] Its free use leads to exactness and finesserdquo (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research p 756) And Buttmann The use of the article [ho ldquotherdquo] has everywhere its positive reasonrdquo (Buttmanns Grammar of NewTestament Greek Bt 88) And another ldquoFor the present the presence or absence of the Greek article should always be carefully indicated in the English translationrdquo (New Testament Greek For Beginners by J Gresham Machen DD LITTD p 35 67) It is the responsibility of the translator to transmit whenever possible this existing difference in the Greek text into the English translation

Which reading of the two languages above (Latin and Greek) shows the greater similarity with the traditional rendering of John 11c Its Latin is it not In fact some Bible translations in other languages have even borrowed the latin word ldquoVerbumrdquo from the Latin Vulgate at John 11 such as the ubiquitous Spanish Reina-Valera which uses ldquoVerbordquo (Verb) instead of ldquoWordrdquo used in English versionsAlso using ldquoVerbordquo Sciacuteo de San Miguel Versioacuten Moderna Goacutemez 2010 Nueva Biblia Latinoamericana de Hoy and the Nueva Versioacuten Internacional Other international versions following the Latin Vulgate at John 11c French Darby Crampon German Luther Bible Italian Diodati and the Portuguese Almeida

It is evident that most English Bibles at John 11 are translating in the spirit of the Latin Vulgate rather than the Greek text regardless of what they claim Surprisingly as you will see in the submitted list of alternate readings at the end of this paper there are some translations though not as popular that are actually closer to the Greek above than the best-selling versions which end up following the Latin Vulgate instead Although John 11 has long been a favorite text by traditionalists to quote in the English world it may be surprise many that a modern Greek Bible reader will not likely appeal to such scripture in support of the traditional view Notwithstanding some Bible translators either disagree with the traditional viewpoint of the Logos as

ldquoGodrdquo or may simply feel that the message conveyed by the original Greek language (as demonstrated by the 7 samples above) demands a different translation at John 11c Some would have you believe that only a few insane unschooled translators with diabolical intentions would ever attempt to deviate from the traditionalist reading That is not simply true I believe most translators offering a different version of John 11 are most sincere in their effort to get to the core of the Greek meaning and to adequately transmit the intended message of the biblical author The submitted list of alternate readings at the end is not intended to be a complete list but to show a variety of renderings and viewpoints Keep in mind too that because of its theological significance other Scriptures do not have as many variant translation renderings as this one does

________________________________________

A careful review of the alternate readings list of John 11 and other related material at the end of the article would lead to this question Could anyone legitimately exclude as a valid option the rendering ldquoagodrdquo found in some Bible versions We have seen that grammar alone cannot condemn the use of such translation though many will keep trying Seven examples were provided which clearly show how translators render predicate nouns without the article occurring before the verb In addition note that these seven examples make reference to one person or one thing while John 11 is speaking of ldquotwordquo entities With greater reason then translators should render this grammatical structure in John 11c in away that brings out the indefinite-qualitative aspect rather than convey identification with the Supreme God

A Grammar states ldquoJohn was not saying that lsquothe word was the Fatherrsquo but that lsquothe word was God (divine)rsquordquo (Gramaacutetica Griega-Sintaxis del Nuevo Testamento [Greek Grammar-Syntax of the NT] by Daniel B Wallace amp Daniel S Steffen Parentheses theirs p 182) Consequently if the translation ldquothe word was Godrdquo must be understood in the adjectival sense as ldquodivinerdquo why not translate it that way Itis therefore reasonable to make a distinction between the term ldquotheosrdquo with and without the article here

In all the more accurate Bible translations do make a distinction between ldquotheosrdquo (God) with and without the article in John 11 Does yours Some argue that John did not have to employ the article before the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo to imply that the Word was ldquoGodrdquo Do you believe that If so why then was the Greek article used with the nominal predicate before the verb in John 151 which literally says ldquoThe father of me the farmer isrdquo And in John 651 ldquoThe bread but which I shall give the flesh of me isrdquo It is evident that Bible writers usually employed the article with specific intention and when they omitted it it was equally significant as well

Is it not better to just follow along with the majority view and thus free oneself from religious tension that may accompany those who sustain a minority view First of all it is dangerous to adopt a majority view if this one is in error A majority view held by ldquoscholarsrdquo of itself does not automatically make a matter ldquotruerdquo Why Because scholars are not infallible nor immune to human tradition Were they in Jesus day They were not Scholars today may find themselves in error just as many scribes were in Jesus day as Matthew chapter 23 clearly demonstrate (Matthew 159) We are warned that ldquothe whole world lies under the power of the evil onerdquo (1 John 519 New Revised Standard Bible) We should not dismiss ldquoreligionrdquo as being beyond the reach or interest of Satan We all need to be in guard of evil influence at all times being careful of not becoming ldquostone-blindrdquo by ldquothe god of this worldrdquo (2 Cor 44 The Message) Again a majority view does not always represent the truth Thus the doctrinal foundation for Christians should be based not on what the majority believe but rather on what the Bible

itself teaches

What does the Bible really say about Jesus Christ

Simply put Jesus is ldquoSon of Godrdquo not ldquoGod the Sonrdquo (Luke 135 NRSV) There is a vast difference in meaning between those two expressions There are more than two hundred references (200x) in the New Testament that explicitly declare that Jesus Christ is the ldquoSon of Godrdquo or that lsquoGod is the Father of Jesus Christrsquo (For a list of instances see The Preachers Outline and Sermon Bible ldquoJohnrdquo p 27) Yet Christendom prefers to dwell on a handful of texts which are said to describe Jesus as God None of those texts are explicit in declaring Jesus equality with God In Scripture Jesus place in the broad picture is one of sonship that is as Son of God not God Furthermore the word ldquosonrdquo is never used to describe God or the ldquoholy spiritrdquo

Christ is also described as ldquothe image of the invisible God [not God] the firstborn of all creationrdquo (Colossians 115) the ldquomediator between God and menrdquo (1 Timothy 25) Yes it is possible to spin these clear statements to make them say something else but is this what we seek One who plays the role of ldquomediatorrdquo cannot in the name of justice be one and the same person as one of the two parts that he is said to represent Otherwise such individual could not be truly impartial in his judgment Moses as a separate entity was able to really serve as ldquomediatorrdquo between God and Israel Now if Jesus the greater Moses was really one-and-the-same ldquoGodrdquo what ldquojusticerdquo could he convey acting as ldquomediatorrdquo between himself and mankind But no Jesus spoke of his Father as ldquomy Godrdquo and as lsquothe God of everyone elsersquo (John 2017) It was this God (ldquothe only Godrdquo John 544 NKJV NIV) according to Jesus himself who lsquorevealedrsquo things to Christ (Mark 1332 Revelation 11) Any statementwhich says that lsquoGod gave Jesus Christ a revelationrsquo would sound very odd to anyone taught to believe that Christ is the equal of God in every sense Scripture calls Christ ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 1913) And the record shows that it was this Word who was ldquowith God in the beginning not that he was ldquoGodrdquo but like God (Others render ldquoa Godrdquo ldquodivinerdquo - Tomanek Schonfield Heb 13)

Bible writers always speak of Jesus Christ in a subordinate role as in Ephesians 13 ldquoBlessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christrdquo 1 Corinthians 1528 ldquoThe Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him [God] who put all things in subjection to him that God may be all in allrdquo (Darby) In Colossians 31 we read ldquoKeep on seeking the things above where Christ is seated at the right hand of Godrdquo (Williams) Jesus himself made it clear to others ldquoI seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which hath sent merdquo (John 530)

Do Scriptures allow for a secondary sense of the words ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo

In the Scriptures the term lsquogodrsquo has various connotations and cannot be narrowed to one single meaning as some try to do A few scholars sustain that the notion of Jesus Christ as ldquoa godrdquo as if there were other gods beside God is incompatible with Jewish ldquomonotheismrdquo which is the belief in only one God and that it implies polytheism Nevertheless the concept itself that God as an entity is composed of three coequal persons runs counter with Jewish monotheism ldquoThe Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheismrdquo so states the Jewish Encyclopedia (ldquoTrinityrdquo) The teaching of the ldquoShemardquo consisted as has been noted in that ldquoJehovah our God is one Jehovahrdquo (Deuteronomy 64 ASV) What purpose would there be for the ldquoShemardquo to stress that Jehovah is ldquoonerdquo and then confound the matter by stating that that

must mean the Divine One is ldquothree personsrdquo in ldquoonerdquo It is explained frequently that the teaching of theTrinity is a ldquomysteryrdquo The problem with such reasoning is that nowhere does Scripture gives us reason to believe in such a concept It is possible that a person who has been exposed to this doctrine for a long time may see ldquoinsinuationsrdquo of it in the Bible However those individuals must in sincerity ask themselves whether their belief is based on ldquofactsrdquo or instead on emotional ldquofancyrdquo

Certain Scriptures are frequently cited as proof by supporters of the Trinity doctrine that Christ is God Isaiah 446 and Hosea 134 are two such Scriptures which have God Jehovah saying ldquoI am the first and I am the last and beside me there is no Godrdquo ldquoAnd thou shalt know no god but me for there is nosavior [Hebrew עע שהש םי beside merdquo These words are strictly taken literally out of their [(u˙moshia) וומוsetting to mean that there can be no ldquogodrdquo or ldquosaviorrdquo but God almighty In the context in which these words were pronounced Israel Gods people were inclined to worship vain hand-made idols (Isaiah 4217) Hence Gods warning in Isaiah and Hosea People brought up in trinitarian dogma tend to restrict the meaning of the term ldquoGodrdquo to those statements found within the context of Isaiah and Hosea leading them to the conclusion that anyone other than the True God must be a ldquofalserdquo god They define the word God within the context of modern trinitarian mentality instead of ancient Scriptural doctrine Trinitarians reason that if the appellative ldquoGodrdquo is applied to Jesus Christ then reasonably Jesus could be no other than the Lord God himself

However such trinitarian reasonings are missing an important element It has to do with the fact that the word ldquogodrdquo can be applied to others since the term itself seems to be related to someone with power and authority The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explains ldquoThis word [rsquoelōhicircm] can in fact be used for other gods (Gen 3130) and even for men (cf Ex 416 71 cf BDB p43)The derivation [of rsquoelōhicircm] is obscure but the implied sense seems to be that of strength or authorityrdquo (Vol II pg 497 italics added) The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words says ldquoThe word itself [אא ל (rsquoēl) Hebrew word for God] derives from a root term meaning lsquopowerrsquo lsquostrengthrsquo orlsquomightrsquo (Stephen D Renn p 439) And the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible states ldquoCommon to these four suggested root meanings [of El God] is the idea of strength power and of supreme excellence and greatnessrdquo (Vol 1 p 881) This may explain why various Bible versions at John 11c describe the Logos as ldquoa powerful divine beingrdquo or the like instead of saying ldquoGodrdquo When the whole context of Scripture is considered it is evident that the words spoken by God found in Isaiah and Hosea are very true in a specific sense namely that there is but one Supreme God and one Main Savior This truth does not rule out the existence of lsquogodlike onesrsquo under God (Job 387 Psalms 291 896)

Is it possible to speak of divine beings (ldquogodsrdquo) existing alongside God

Scholar John Macquarrie in Jesus Christ in Modern Thought claims that the Jewish monotheistic culturewould never tolerate the idea of the Logos belonging to a class of divine beings (P 110) Not quite Other scholars have a different view Ernst Haenchen for example claims the opposite in accord with Scripture ldquoIn the period in which the hymn [at John 11] took its rise it was quite possible in Jewishand Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him Phil 26-10 proves thatrdquo (A Commentary on the Gospel of John John 1Transl by Robert W Funk from Das Johannesevangelium Ein Kommentar p 109)

Another source has this to say ldquoOn the other hand it was a matter of general knowledge and one which the Bible itself shares and does not attempt to conceal that recognition and worship have often been extended to others than the Jewish-Christian God and the term lsquogodrsquo or lsquogodsrsquo is used for them

also as are the respective Greek and Hebrew words It is the custom to use a capital letter G for the God of the Jewish- Christian tradition and a small letter for the othersrdquo (Dictionary of the Bible JamesHastings Revised Edition 1963 Page 333 Grant amp Rowley Charles Scribners Sons New York)

Lets briefly look at how the Bible itself employs the words for ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture At Exodus 71 we read that God made a man Moses ldquoa godrdquo (Hebrew elohim) before Pharaoh God said to Moses ldquoSee I have made thee a god [Others ldquoa Godrdquo ldquoGodrdquo] to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophetrdquo Would this mean then that Moses himself did become an intrinsic part of the Great Divinity by the mere fact of him being called ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo by the Lord Jehovah himself Of coursenot Other translations clarify the meaning of ldquoGodrdquo used here by the LORD The English Standard Version expresses it this way ldquoSee I have made you like God to Pharaohrdquo And the International Standard Version has the LORD saying ldquoListen Ive put you in the role of God to Pharaohrdquo

And in Exodus 416 God making reference to Aaron tells Moses ldquoYou shall be as God to himrdquo (ESV NAB Hebrew lelohim ldquoas Godrdquo Darby ldquoGodrdquo Leeser ldquoa Godrdquo LXX theon ldquoGodrdquo Vulgate Deum)rdquo Moses was simply given a powerful role as Gods emissary who represented his will In Psalm 456 a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) when he became lsquoking of Israelrsquo was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo Obviously this human king was not in fact the One True God Neither was he a false God as trinitarian reasonings would lead one to believe Simply put Solomons throne was ldquodivinerdquo in the sense that he represented God in a position of authority over others

In the Scriptures we find that Jesus is described in Isaiah 96 as ldquoMighty Godrdquo and as ldquoSon of Godrdquo in other places (John 134) What about angels What do we call them Humans Not Angels are in nature heavenly beings closer to God than to men They are powerful divine spirits that reflect Gods glory and Godship They are ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 16) They are ldquogodsrdquo themselves What do we call aldquosonrdquo of a ldquohumanrdquo This ldquosonrdquo is himself a ldquohumanrdquo is he not Just as there is a family of human beings sharing ldquohumanityrdquo there is also a family of celestial beings yes ldquodivine beingsrdquo or ldquogodsrdquo sharing ldquodivinityrdquo A ldquosonrdquo of ldquoGodrdquo is ldquoa godrdquo or a lsquoreflectionrsquo of God Or it could simply refer to ldquoOne who shares a close relationship with Godrdquo (The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary) Notwithstanding the expression ldquoson of Godrdquo is never synonymous with God ( Some argue that the expression ldquoAlmightyrdquo in Revelation 18 applies to Christ but there is no concrete evidence for the claim)

Psalm 821 tells us that ldquoGod standeth in the congregation of the mighty [Brenton ldquogodsrdquo] he judgeth among the godsrdquo The Syriac Peshitta here has ldquoangelsrdquo instead of ldquogodsrdquo while Tanakh has ldquodivine beingsrdquo The Targums offer the alternate reading of ldquojudgesrdquo Whether we apply the term ldquogodsrdquo in verse one of this psalm (Psalm 821) to angels or human judges as Gods representatives (as in verse 6) as the Targums do it still proves that in the Bible other living beings other than God Almighty are spoken of as ldquogodsrdquo or ldquosons of Godrdquo with no hint of polytheism by such use The Andrews Study Bible explains under Psalm 821 ldquogods Term designates earthly rulers leaders mighty ones judges andor princes (v 7) who were Gods representatives and whose work was divinely appointed (Ex 2228 Deut 117 1618 2 Chr 196 compare with Heb 137)rdquo And The NIV Study Bible has this footnote on Psalm 821 ldquogods See v 6 In the language of the OTmdashand in accordance with the conceptual world of the ancient Near Eastmdashrulers and judges as deputies of the heavenly King could be given the honorific title lsquogodrsquo [hellip] or be called lsquoson of Godrsquo []rdquo See also the Psalm 821 footnotes of The Believers Study Bible The Wesley Bible and the HCSB Study Bible

Mighty angels and powerful human rulers or judges called ldquogodsrdquo in Scripture were considered ldquodivinerdquo or ldquogodlikerdquo when they acted on behalf of God As the Lord told Moses ldquoI will make you seem like God to Pharaohrdquo (Exodus 71 NLT) Even people of biblical times used the term ldquoGodrdquo freely in reference to powerful human leaders or people who displayed ldquosupernaturalrdquo feats Acts 1222informs us that when king Herod gave a public speech in royal robes the crowd cheered him on shouting ldquoIt is the voice of a god and not of a manrdquo On another occasion the people of a small island called Paul theos that is ldquoa godrdquo when they witnessed his superhuman powers (Acts 286 Compare with Acts 1411) With this information at hand Robert Young a master of various ancient languages concluded ldquoGodmdashis used of any one (professedly) mighty whether truly so or not and is applied not only to the true God but to false gods Magistratesjudges angels prophets etc eg Ex 71 John 11 1033 34 35 2028 rdquo ndash Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible Eerdmans Publ 1978

Then why do religious writers out there act like no one but God can be referred to as ldquodivinerdquo or ldquoa godrdquo For them anyone else but the true God is a false god They are confining themselves within a box with the Scriptural context of Isaiah chapter 43 44 and 45 discussed above where they refuse to seethe term ldquogodrdquo being used elsewhere in Scripture in a more broadly manner than their biased narrowed definition allows them to In fact even Satan is called ldquothe god [Gr ὁ θεὸς] of this worldrdquo because he actually lsquorulesrsquo this wicked world by the power he exerts over mankind (2 Cor 44 John 1231 1 John 519) Was calling Satan ldquothe god of this worldrdquo meant to promote polytheism Thus the original words for ldquogodrdquo of themselves do not signal whether a god is true or false With some exceptions the Inspired Scriptures commonly affixes the definite article (ldquotherdquo) before the word ldquoGodrdquo to distinguish the Supreme God from other gods This holds true for both the Hebrew and Greek Bible portions

It is clear from the biblical record that in ancient Jewish culture people saw no problem speaking of ldquodivine beingsrdquo under the Supreme God To them it was not exclusively a matter of whether they were true or false ldquogodsrdquo In their cultural mindset the term ldquogodsrdquo when applied positively to others beside the Most High God meant that they were powerful representatives of God whether it was Christ spokenof angels or human judges When speaking of powerful heavenly beings in glory the term ldquosons of Godrdquo was fully acceptable There is no record of Jesus displaying any feelings of disgust when claiming he was ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 1036 NIV) Why should we then

Hence anyone else other than God labeled ldquogodrdquo in Scripture in a positive light are simply divine beings created in the image of the True God belonging to the heavenly family of ldquogodlikerdquo ones The term ldquogodrdquo may also be Scripturally used to describe human beings holding a position of power and authority when appointed by God When the term is used this way polytheism is not an issue

What about the Christ

At John 1033-36 Christ himself appealed to Psalm 82 where the term ldquogodsrdquo was applied to persons other than God Jesus was refuting the charge of blasphemy that he was making himself ldquoGgodrdquo as invalid because he was only claiming to be not God but ldquoGods Sonrdquo which is totally different Jesus had an excellent opportunity here to claim once and for all that he was ldquoGodrdquo but once again he did not do so Jesus Christ holds a much higher position than any angel or man but is still subordinate to his Father God (1 Corinthians 113 Hebrews 32 Colossians 13)

Angels were made subject to Christ after he himself was placed at Gods right hand (1 Peter 322) Although both angels and Christ are described as lsquosons of Godrsquo only Jesus Christ is distinctively called

ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo according to some manuscripts (John 118 Murdock Noyes Concordant Literal Version) Or ldquothe one-begotten Godrdquo (Etheridge) The Word Study Greek-English New Testament describes the Logos as the ldquoonly born Godrdquo (John 118 Paul R McReynolds) Only Christ is called ldquothe firstborn of all creationrdquo a term never used for the lsquoSuperiorityrsquo of God or the holy spirit (Colossians 115) Could Trinitarians ever answer the following question If Christ was not created as some claim who then was the first creation by God Also who is ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo Surely someone lsquocreated firstrsquo in the universe would be honored with the title lsquothe firstborn of all creationrsquo Is there any other way to express such event The Bible simply points to Christ as such of which is said ldquoThese things saith the Amen the faithful and true witness the beginning of the creation of Godrdquo Whatdoes lsquothe beginning of Gods creationrsquo really mean Another Bible translation puts it this way ldquoThe one who is in the origin of things created by God [El que estaacute en el origen de las cosas creadas por Dios]rdquo (Biblia de Ameacuterica approved by various Episcopalian dioceses in Central and South America Casa de la Biblia Madrid) No ldquomysteryrdquo here Its that simple

Could there be any ldquosaviorrdquo other than God

The Sovereign Lord God is the main Savior but he may allow others to act as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo on his behalf in certain situations We find that the term is applied to Christ as the prime agent of salvation (2 Peter 220 1 John 414 Titus 14) We are told that men too like Othniel and Ehud were used as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo of their people (Judges 216 3915 Hebrew moshia same word used for God at Isaiah Compare with Isaiah 452 Hebrew u˙moshia Nehemiah 927 Hebrew moshiim plural of moshia) Would this mean then that those men called ldquosaviorsrdquo in Scripture form a part of the Supreme Divinity No there is a better explanation as found in the NIV

The NIV Study Bible has this to say of Israels leaders or judges ldquoTheir principal purpose is best expressed in [Judges] 216 lsquoThen the LORD raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of hellip raidersrsquo Since it was God who permitted the oppressions and raised up deliverers [saviors] he himself was Israels ultimate Judge and Deliverer [Savior] (1127 see 823 where Gideon a judge insists that the Lord is Israels true rulerrdquo (p 325) The Bible uses the same original words (ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo) for God Christ and men Does it mean they all are the same person or co-equal The context then iswhat determines the correct application for each occurrence of those terms

Who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo

In contrast to others who were called ldquosaviorsrdquo of the people of Israel Jesus is called ldquoSavior of the worldrdquo Jesus can potentially save not only Israel but all of mankind from bondage to sin and from death itself (John 316 1 John 414) Although Christ is undoubtedly a greater Savior than any man heis still subject to the Grandest Savior of all (Isaiah 4311 Acts 412 1 Corinthians 1528) Christ himself came to be in a situation where he had to cry out with a loud voice for salvation Right before his death he implored ldquoMy God my God why hast thou forsaken merdquo He had to be saved by God (Matthew 2746 Hebrews 57 Psalm 288)

Acts 531 tells us who was the One who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquoGod exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israelrdquo (NRSV) According to this scripture whatever capacity Jesus had as ldquosaviorrdquo was due to God To insist that Jesus is ldquoGodrdquo because of his description as ldquosaviorrdquo then we could reason all the same that men such as Othniel and Ehud were alsoldquoGodrdquo because they too were called saviors Overall ldquocontextrdquo should be the guiding principle for the

right comprehension of biblical terms

Jesus as ldquoSon of manrdquo

Jesus made reference to himself in the Gospels nearly 80 times as ldquothe Son of manrdquo an expression indicating he was truly a ldquomanrdquo while on earth not a God-man (Matthew 820 etc) According to Hebrews 29 Jesus ldquowas made a little lower than the angelsrdquo so he could taste death for everyone God cannot ever become ldquolower than the angelsrdquo he created John 114 tells us that it was lsquothe Word who became fleshrsquo not God The doctrine of the ldquoincarnationrdquo as commonly taught actually twists the meaning of John 114 because the text does not say at all that lsquoGod became fleshrsquo Instead it says ldquothe Wordrdquo did Plain and simple 2 John 7 only confirms this In other words the Logos Jesus Christ became ldquohumanrdquo or ldquoa human beingrdquo One scripture often misused to prove that God was made flesh is 1 Timothy 316 but this text did not originally say ldquoGod was manifest in the fleshrdquo as it reads in a few Bible versions since such reading is defective Other translations of the Bible have corrected this error in translation saying instead ldquoHe [or ldquoWhordquo] was manifested in the fleshrdquo allowing for lsquoChrist as the One being manifested in the fleshrsquo For a consideration of 1 Tim 316 see httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

In an effort to simplify the meaning of the expression ldquoSon of manrdquo in reference to Christ in our culture a modern Bible version used the expression ldquothe Human Onerdquo repeatedly (Common English Bible) ldquoThe general use of lsquoson of manrsquo occurs in poetic texts in which the phrase functions as a synonym for lsquomanrsquo or lsquohuman beingrsquo rdquo (The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary) The NIV at Daniel 713 confirms the meaning of the expression ldquoson of manrdquo in a footnote ldquoThe Aramaic phrase bar enash [son of man]means human being The phrase son of man is retained here because of its use in the New Testament as a title of Jesus probably based largely on this verserdquo (2011 Edition) The apostle was very familiar withthis much used expression of Jesus If ldquoSon of manrdquo meant he was a ldquohuman beingrdquo on earth then John would use the similar expression a son of God (or Gods Son) in a way humans would naturally understand it That is lsquoof divine originrsquo (ldquoa godrdquo) without any foreign trinitarian speculation of a later era which Jesus disciples were unaware of (John 1033-36) Jesus divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship As noted the expression may also refer to lsquoone who shares a close relationship with Godrsquo As future co-heirs in the kingdom of Christ human creatures too are designated as ldquosons of Godrdquo but never become identical to the Sovereign God Again polytheism is not an issue here No need to make this into a ldquomysteryrdquo

Why does the Bible speak sometimes as if Jesus Christ himself was ldquoGodrdquo

The Jewish nation already believed and sought lsquoto honorrsquo the Father of Abraham Isaac and Jacob This monotheistic culture adhered to the Mosaic Law as they worshiped the true God But many prophecies which appeared in the Hebrew code identified the Messiah as lsquoemancipatorrsquo of their bondage to sin Themajority of the Jews where hoping the foretold Messiah would rescue them from the Roman yoke Instead of getting involved in earthly politics Jesus repeatedly spoke of lsquoGods kingdomrsquo hence comparatively few exercised faith in him In contrast to the few who believed in Jesus as being ldquosentrdquo by God the majority of Jews could look no further from the man they considered their Father AbrahamThey were blind in their self-sufficiency

There was thus an urgent need to communicate to the Jewish people that exercising faith in Christ was essential to their salvation But how would one do that To start by making them see that Jesus Christ

In Marks gospel (649) where Jesus appeared walking over the waters next to the disciples boat duringa storm in which they became terrified after seeing an ldquoapparitionrdquo or ldquophantomrdquo of some sort (since they were unaware it was Jesus) they screamed ldquoIts a ghostrdquo according to some Bible versions (Or ldquoa spiritrdquo KJV) The grammatical structure of Mark 649 and John 11 are similar so how do Bible translations deal with this Do they have the disciples crying out ldquoHe is fully Ghost Or would they scream instead ldquoHe is Phantomrdquo No Most Bibles have the disciples believing or saying it was ldquoa ghostrdquoor ldquoa phantomrdquo or ldquoan apparitionrdquo of some sort At no time do translators argue that it should be translated as they do at John 11c by capitalizing the predicate noun and omitting the indefinite article ldquoardquo John 11 is no exception to the norm Bible translators follow the pattern described by Professor Clayton Croy ldquoWhen a Greek noun lacks the definite article it normally will be translated as indefiniterdquo (op cit A Primer) In the examples above Bible translators have shown us how they really deal with syntax similar to John 11c We have ldquoa hard saying a murderer a devil a prophet a thief a robber a god a market a ghost etc At John 1837 we have ldquoa kingrdquo twice English Bibles do not have Pilate asking Jesus if he was the ldquoKingrdquo Instead English translations followthe pattern described above and render Pilates question as ldquoArt thou a king thenrdquo

In all these cases a predicate noun without the Greek article precedes a verb just as we have in John 11c Accordingly then why not reflect this pattern at John 11 especially so when two entities are being spoken of in the verse and the second occurrence of θεός lacks the article Let us not miss the previous statement by a distinguished grammarian A ldquomost common userdquo of the Greek article is to point out hellip ldquoIndividual from Other Individualsrdquo (op cit Short Grammar p 275)

Although grammarian David Alan Black a Trinitarian objects to the ldquoa Godrdquo rendering at John 11 he takes a page from Dana and Manteys Grammar when he writes ldquoIf the article were also used with θεός the statement would mean that all of God was expressed in the Word As it is the Word is neither lsquoa Godrsquo nor equal with the sum total of Godrdquo (Its Still Greek to Me p 79) This statement by Black appears to contradict the NET Bibles translation of John 11c Blacks conclusion is similar to Danas and Manteys that is ldquothe Word was Deity [θεός]rdquo (Brackets his) In similar vein The New Testament in Plain English translates John 11c as ldquothe Word was Godrdquo However a footnote says ldquoOr Deity Divine (which is actually a better translation because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word)rdquo (Underline added 2003) Now this footnote begs the question If the rendering ldquothe Word was Deity Divinerdquo is actually a ldquobetter translationrdquo why not use that in the main text It seems that trinitarian translators have difficulty in displaying a rendering other than ldquothe Word was Godrdquo even when they acknowledge there are lsquobetter translationsrsquo for the anarthrous θεός in John 11c

In English using a capital letter in ldquofully Godrdquo is misleading to someone brought up in trinitarian teaching A trinitarian believer would likely take that rendering as conveying that Christ is Almighty God himself a concept in conflict with what Christ himself stated at John 173 and John 2017 Daniel Wallace previously quoted and author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics wrote a most interesting comment which reveals how theology plays a big role at the time of translating John 11 ldquoAlthough I believe that θεός in 11c is qualitative I think the simplest and most straightforward translation is lsquoand the Word was Godrsquo It may be better to clearly affirm the NT teaching of the deity of Christ and then explain that he is not the Father than to sound ambiguous on his deity and explain that he is God but is not the Fatherrdquo (Ibid p 269 italics his) What Is he serious

Whats the point of claiming that θεός in 11c is ldquoqualitativerdquo in John 11c as Wallace does emphatically in his Grammar and then suggest to use the rendering lsquothe Word was Godrsquo which implies ldquoidentityrdquo a

ldquopersonalityrdquo the opposite of ldquocharacterrdquo or ldquoqualityrdquo) and be forced to explain that it does not mean what it actually says The end result would then be no less ldquoambiguousrdquo than the alternatives he is obviously trying to avoid Would you not rather have a ldquobetter translationrdquo such as ldquothe Word was divinerdquo which requires no additional explanation The NET Bible (Wallace senior editor) prefers a rendering other than ldquodivinerdquo because he states that ldquodivinerdquo ldquoas a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of Godrdquo However on the word ldquodivinerdquo Murray J Harris responds ldquoBut if θεὸς bears a qualitative sense the rendering lsquodivinersquo should not be dismissed as altogether inappropriate Only if lsquodivinersquo is taken to mean lsquohaving the very nature of Godrsquo does the word accurately convey Johns meaningrdquo (op cit Jesus as God p 68) The argument that ldquodivinerdquo is too generic is weak because really the same argument could be made of the term ldquogodrdquo Jesus applied the term ldquogodsrdquo to humans (John 1034-36) and Paul acknowledged that ldquothere are many gods and many lordsrdquo (1 Corinthians 85) So Wallaces objection is more likely an effort to equate Christ with God at John 11

Truly the Greek Text does not say that Christ wasis the one-and-only God What the Greek does say is that ldquothe Word was with the [True] God and the Word [himself] was a divine beingrdquo thus able to perfectly represent the character of God (Hebrews 13) The only way one could justify the rendering ldquoGodrdquo with a big ldquoGrdquo at John 11c is if the original text had the article before the second instance of theos as well Why Because John is talking about two individuals and deliberately differentiates between the two instances of ldquotheosrdquo by placing the article before the first instance of ldquotheosrdquo and not with the second Max Zerwick (SJ) wrote in this regard ldquoὁ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος [if John would have written ldquothe God was the Logosrdquo] at least in NT usage would signify personal identity of the Word with the Father since the latter [the Father] is ὁ Θεὸς [the God]rdquo (Biblical Greek p 55 Rome)

John wrote the words appearing in verse two to clear any potential misunderstanding that could arise from his bold statement in verse one Marinus de Jonge remarks ldquoThe author of this Prologue clearly wants to identify lsquothe Wordrsquo and God as closely as possible without infringing the belief in the One Godrdquo (Christology in Context The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus Philadelphia Westminster 1988 p 198 Jonge is Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands) So in effect John was saying that the Logos was like God in every imaginable way Hence the New English Bible rendering lsquoWhat God was the Word wasrsquo

Dr Jason BeDuhn explains ldquoIn John 11 the Word is not the one-and-only God but it is a god or divine being I know that sounds strange and even seems impossible coming from the pen of a Christian writer But the fact remains that that is what John wrote His purpose in doing so was at least in part to avoid the notion that God the Father himself incarnated as Christ The one who incarnated was somehow distinct from lsquoGodrsquo while still being lsquoa godrsquo rdquo (op cit Truth in Translation pp 122 123)

Why then are translators unwilling to render John 11c ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo A few reasons could be given Translators mention grammar as one problem an issue addressed throughout this article Others view the rendering ldquoa godrdquo as polytheistic I will further mention two others First is the domino effect of the Trinity doctrine developed centuries after Christ as a means to clamp down raging Christological debates to the point that the doctrine has been taken for granted as ldquotruthrdquo by most ldquoChristianrdquo people since Secondly the role in tradition played by the Latin Vulgate must be mentioned This Latin translation has greatly influenced many translators since its inception from c 405 CE It is well known that the Vulgate heavily influenced early translations of the 16th and 17th Century In fact back then translators were more likely to be familiar with the Latin Vulgate than with the Greek

The Latin Vulgate used no articles (as seen below) and that in conjunction with the Greek lacking the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) and we can see why so many have misunderstood John 11 The Christological debates of past centuries did not improve this state of confusion it made it worse I kindly ask the reader to consider the following Latin and Greek readings as helpful pointers in our discussion Notice in particular the bold letters relevant to our discussion

ndash LATIN (John 11)ldquoIn principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbumrdquo In beginning was Verb and Verb was with God and God was Verb

ndash GREEK (John 11)

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος In beginning was the logos and the logos was toward the god and god was the logos

First of all please notice that Latin makes no distinction between the two occurrences of ldquoGodrdquo in the text (ie both without the article) However Greek being a more specific descriptive language does And it does so by using the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the first occurrence and omitting it before the second Keep in mind what The Translatorrsquos New Testament previously quoted said ldquoIt is difficult to believe that the omission [of the Greek article before the second theos in John 11] is not significantrdquo (p 451) As A T Robertson pointed out ldquoThe article is never meaningless in Greek though it often fails to correspond with the English idiom [hellip] Its free use leads to exactness and finesserdquo (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research p 756) And Buttmann The use of the article [ho ldquotherdquo] has everywhere its positive reasonrdquo (Buttmanns Grammar of NewTestament Greek Bt 88) And another ldquoFor the present the presence or absence of the Greek article should always be carefully indicated in the English translationrdquo (New Testament Greek For Beginners by J Gresham Machen DD LITTD p 35 67) It is the responsibility of the translator to transmit whenever possible this existing difference in the Greek text into the English translation

Which reading of the two languages above (Latin and Greek) shows the greater similarity with the traditional rendering of John 11c Its Latin is it not In fact some Bible translations in other languages have even borrowed the latin word ldquoVerbumrdquo from the Latin Vulgate at John 11 such as the ubiquitous Spanish Reina-Valera which uses ldquoVerbordquo (Verb) instead of ldquoWordrdquo used in English versionsAlso using ldquoVerbordquo Sciacuteo de San Miguel Versioacuten Moderna Goacutemez 2010 Nueva Biblia Latinoamericana de Hoy and the Nueva Versioacuten Internacional Other international versions following the Latin Vulgate at John 11c French Darby Crampon German Luther Bible Italian Diodati and the Portuguese Almeida

It is evident that most English Bibles at John 11 are translating in the spirit of the Latin Vulgate rather than the Greek text regardless of what they claim Surprisingly as you will see in the submitted list of alternate readings at the end of this paper there are some translations though not as popular that are actually closer to the Greek above than the best-selling versions which end up following the Latin Vulgate instead Although John 11 has long been a favorite text by traditionalists to quote in the English world it may be surprise many that a modern Greek Bible reader will not likely appeal to such scripture in support of the traditional view Notwithstanding some Bible translators either disagree with the traditional viewpoint of the Logos as

ldquoGodrdquo or may simply feel that the message conveyed by the original Greek language (as demonstrated by the 7 samples above) demands a different translation at John 11c Some would have you believe that only a few insane unschooled translators with diabolical intentions would ever attempt to deviate from the traditionalist reading That is not simply true I believe most translators offering a different version of John 11 are most sincere in their effort to get to the core of the Greek meaning and to adequately transmit the intended message of the biblical author The submitted list of alternate readings at the end is not intended to be a complete list but to show a variety of renderings and viewpoints Keep in mind too that because of its theological significance other Scriptures do not have as many variant translation renderings as this one does

________________________________________

A careful review of the alternate readings list of John 11 and other related material at the end of the article would lead to this question Could anyone legitimately exclude as a valid option the rendering ldquoagodrdquo found in some Bible versions We have seen that grammar alone cannot condemn the use of such translation though many will keep trying Seven examples were provided which clearly show how translators render predicate nouns without the article occurring before the verb In addition note that these seven examples make reference to one person or one thing while John 11 is speaking of ldquotwordquo entities With greater reason then translators should render this grammatical structure in John 11c in away that brings out the indefinite-qualitative aspect rather than convey identification with the Supreme God

A Grammar states ldquoJohn was not saying that lsquothe word was the Fatherrsquo but that lsquothe word was God (divine)rsquordquo (Gramaacutetica Griega-Sintaxis del Nuevo Testamento [Greek Grammar-Syntax of the NT] by Daniel B Wallace amp Daniel S Steffen Parentheses theirs p 182) Consequently if the translation ldquothe word was Godrdquo must be understood in the adjectival sense as ldquodivinerdquo why not translate it that way Itis therefore reasonable to make a distinction between the term ldquotheosrdquo with and without the article here

In all the more accurate Bible translations do make a distinction between ldquotheosrdquo (God) with and without the article in John 11 Does yours Some argue that John did not have to employ the article before the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo to imply that the Word was ldquoGodrdquo Do you believe that If so why then was the Greek article used with the nominal predicate before the verb in John 151 which literally says ldquoThe father of me the farmer isrdquo And in John 651 ldquoThe bread but which I shall give the flesh of me isrdquo It is evident that Bible writers usually employed the article with specific intention and when they omitted it it was equally significant as well

Is it not better to just follow along with the majority view and thus free oneself from religious tension that may accompany those who sustain a minority view First of all it is dangerous to adopt a majority view if this one is in error A majority view held by ldquoscholarsrdquo of itself does not automatically make a matter ldquotruerdquo Why Because scholars are not infallible nor immune to human tradition Were they in Jesus day They were not Scholars today may find themselves in error just as many scribes were in Jesus day as Matthew chapter 23 clearly demonstrate (Matthew 159) We are warned that ldquothe whole world lies under the power of the evil onerdquo (1 John 519 New Revised Standard Bible) We should not dismiss ldquoreligionrdquo as being beyond the reach or interest of Satan We all need to be in guard of evil influence at all times being careful of not becoming ldquostone-blindrdquo by ldquothe god of this worldrdquo (2 Cor 44 The Message) Again a majority view does not always represent the truth Thus the doctrinal foundation for Christians should be based not on what the majority believe but rather on what the Bible

itself teaches

What does the Bible really say about Jesus Christ

Simply put Jesus is ldquoSon of Godrdquo not ldquoGod the Sonrdquo (Luke 135 NRSV) There is a vast difference in meaning between those two expressions There are more than two hundred references (200x) in the New Testament that explicitly declare that Jesus Christ is the ldquoSon of Godrdquo or that lsquoGod is the Father of Jesus Christrsquo (For a list of instances see The Preachers Outline and Sermon Bible ldquoJohnrdquo p 27) Yet Christendom prefers to dwell on a handful of texts which are said to describe Jesus as God None of those texts are explicit in declaring Jesus equality with God In Scripture Jesus place in the broad picture is one of sonship that is as Son of God not God Furthermore the word ldquosonrdquo is never used to describe God or the ldquoholy spiritrdquo

Christ is also described as ldquothe image of the invisible God [not God] the firstborn of all creationrdquo (Colossians 115) the ldquomediator between God and menrdquo (1 Timothy 25) Yes it is possible to spin these clear statements to make them say something else but is this what we seek One who plays the role of ldquomediatorrdquo cannot in the name of justice be one and the same person as one of the two parts that he is said to represent Otherwise such individual could not be truly impartial in his judgment Moses as a separate entity was able to really serve as ldquomediatorrdquo between God and Israel Now if Jesus the greater Moses was really one-and-the-same ldquoGodrdquo what ldquojusticerdquo could he convey acting as ldquomediatorrdquo between himself and mankind But no Jesus spoke of his Father as ldquomy Godrdquo and as lsquothe God of everyone elsersquo (John 2017) It was this God (ldquothe only Godrdquo John 544 NKJV NIV) according to Jesus himself who lsquorevealedrsquo things to Christ (Mark 1332 Revelation 11) Any statementwhich says that lsquoGod gave Jesus Christ a revelationrsquo would sound very odd to anyone taught to believe that Christ is the equal of God in every sense Scripture calls Christ ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 1913) And the record shows that it was this Word who was ldquowith God in the beginning not that he was ldquoGodrdquo but like God (Others render ldquoa Godrdquo ldquodivinerdquo - Tomanek Schonfield Heb 13)

Bible writers always speak of Jesus Christ in a subordinate role as in Ephesians 13 ldquoBlessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christrdquo 1 Corinthians 1528 ldquoThe Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him [God] who put all things in subjection to him that God may be all in allrdquo (Darby) In Colossians 31 we read ldquoKeep on seeking the things above where Christ is seated at the right hand of Godrdquo (Williams) Jesus himself made it clear to others ldquoI seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which hath sent merdquo (John 530)

Do Scriptures allow for a secondary sense of the words ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo

In the Scriptures the term lsquogodrsquo has various connotations and cannot be narrowed to one single meaning as some try to do A few scholars sustain that the notion of Jesus Christ as ldquoa godrdquo as if there were other gods beside God is incompatible with Jewish ldquomonotheismrdquo which is the belief in only one God and that it implies polytheism Nevertheless the concept itself that God as an entity is composed of three coequal persons runs counter with Jewish monotheism ldquoThe Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheismrdquo so states the Jewish Encyclopedia (ldquoTrinityrdquo) The teaching of the ldquoShemardquo consisted as has been noted in that ldquoJehovah our God is one Jehovahrdquo (Deuteronomy 64 ASV) What purpose would there be for the ldquoShemardquo to stress that Jehovah is ldquoonerdquo and then confound the matter by stating that that

must mean the Divine One is ldquothree personsrdquo in ldquoonerdquo It is explained frequently that the teaching of theTrinity is a ldquomysteryrdquo The problem with such reasoning is that nowhere does Scripture gives us reason to believe in such a concept It is possible that a person who has been exposed to this doctrine for a long time may see ldquoinsinuationsrdquo of it in the Bible However those individuals must in sincerity ask themselves whether their belief is based on ldquofactsrdquo or instead on emotional ldquofancyrdquo

Certain Scriptures are frequently cited as proof by supporters of the Trinity doctrine that Christ is God Isaiah 446 and Hosea 134 are two such Scriptures which have God Jehovah saying ldquoI am the first and I am the last and beside me there is no Godrdquo ldquoAnd thou shalt know no god but me for there is nosavior [Hebrew עע שהש םי beside merdquo These words are strictly taken literally out of their [(u˙moshia) וומוsetting to mean that there can be no ldquogodrdquo or ldquosaviorrdquo but God almighty In the context in which these words were pronounced Israel Gods people were inclined to worship vain hand-made idols (Isaiah 4217) Hence Gods warning in Isaiah and Hosea People brought up in trinitarian dogma tend to restrict the meaning of the term ldquoGodrdquo to those statements found within the context of Isaiah and Hosea leading them to the conclusion that anyone other than the True God must be a ldquofalserdquo god They define the word God within the context of modern trinitarian mentality instead of ancient Scriptural doctrine Trinitarians reason that if the appellative ldquoGodrdquo is applied to Jesus Christ then reasonably Jesus could be no other than the Lord God himself

However such trinitarian reasonings are missing an important element It has to do with the fact that the word ldquogodrdquo can be applied to others since the term itself seems to be related to someone with power and authority The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explains ldquoThis word [rsquoelōhicircm] can in fact be used for other gods (Gen 3130) and even for men (cf Ex 416 71 cf BDB p43)The derivation [of rsquoelōhicircm] is obscure but the implied sense seems to be that of strength or authorityrdquo (Vol II pg 497 italics added) The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words says ldquoThe word itself [אא ל (rsquoēl) Hebrew word for God] derives from a root term meaning lsquopowerrsquo lsquostrengthrsquo orlsquomightrsquo (Stephen D Renn p 439) And the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible states ldquoCommon to these four suggested root meanings [of El God] is the idea of strength power and of supreme excellence and greatnessrdquo (Vol 1 p 881) This may explain why various Bible versions at John 11c describe the Logos as ldquoa powerful divine beingrdquo or the like instead of saying ldquoGodrdquo When the whole context of Scripture is considered it is evident that the words spoken by God found in Isaiah and Hosea are very true in a specific sense namely that there is but one Supreme God and one Main Savior This truth does not rule out the existence of lsquogodlike onesrsquo under God (Job 387 Psalms 291 896)

Is it possible to speak of divine beings (ldquogodsrdquo) existing alongside God

Scholar John Macquarrie in Jesus Christ in Modern Thought claims that the Jewish monotheistic culturewould never tolerate the idea of the Logos belonging to a class of divine beings (P 110) Not quite Other scholars have a different view Ernst Haenchen for example claims the opposite in accord with Scripture ldquoIn the period in which the hymn [at John 11] took its rise it was quite possible in Jewishand Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him Phil 26-10 proves thatrdquo (A Commentary on the Gospel of John John 1Transl by Robert W Funk from Das Johannesevangelium Ein Kommentar p 109)

Another source has this to say ldquoOn the other hand it was a matter of general knowledge and one which the Bible itself shares and does not attempt to conceal that recognition and worship have often been extended to others than the Jewish-Christian God and the term lsquogodrsquo or lsquogodsrsquo is used for them

also as are the respective Greek and Hebrew words It is the custom to use a capital letter G for the God of the Jewish- Christian tradition and a small letter for the othersrdquo (Dictionary of the Bible JamesHastings Revised Edition 1963 Page 333 Grant amp Rowley Charles Scribners Sons New York)

Lets briefly look at how the Bible itself employs the words for ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture At Exodus 71 we read that God made a man Moses ldquoa godrdquo (Hebrew elohim) before Pharaoh God said to Moses ldquoSee I have made thee a god [Others ldquoa Godrdquo ldquoGodrdquo] to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophetrdquo Would this mean then that Moses himself did become an intrinsic part of the Great Divinity by the mere fact of him being called ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo by the Lord Jehovah himself Of coursenot Other translations clarify the meaning of ldquoGodrdquo used here by the LORD The English Standard Version expresses it this way ldquoSee I have made you like God to Pharaohrdquo And the International Standard Version has the LORD saying ldquoListen Ive put you in the role of God to Pharaohrdquo

And in Exodus 416 God making reference to Aaron tells Moses ldquoYou shall be as God to himrdquo (ESV NAB Hebrew lelohim ldquoas Godrdquo Darby ldquoGodrdquo Leeser ldquoa Godrdquo LXX theon ldquoGodrdquo Vulgate Deum)rdquo Moses was simply given a powerful role as Gods emissary who represented his will In Psalm 456 a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) when he became lsquoking of Israelrsquo was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo Obviously this human king was not in fact the One True God Neither was he a false God as trinitarian reasonings would lead one to believe Simply put Solomons throne was ldquodivinerdquo in the sense that he represented God in a position of authority over others

In the Scriptures we find that Jesus is described in Isaiah 96 as ldquoMighty Godrdquo and as ldquoSon of Godrdquo in other places (John 134) What about angels What do we call them Humans Not Angels are in nature heavenly beings closer to God than to men They are powerful divine spirits that reflect Gods glory and Godship They are ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 16) They are ldquogodsrdquo themselves What do we call aldquosonrdquo of a ldquohumanrdquo This ldquosonrdquo is himself a ldquohumanrdquo is he not Just as there is a family of human beings sharing ldquohumanityrdquo there is also a family of celestial beings yes ldquodivine beingsrdquo or ldquogodsrdquo sharing ldquodivinityrdquo A ldquosonrdquo of ldquoGodrdquo is ldquoa godrdquo or a lsquoreflectionrsquo of God Or it could simply refer to ldquoOne who shares a close relationship with Godrdquo (The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary) Notwithstanding the expression ldquoson of Godrdquo is never synonymous with God ( Some argue that the expression ldquoAlmightyrdquo in Revelation 18 applies to Christ but there is no concrete evidence for the claim)

Psalm 821 tells us that ldquoGod standeth in the congregation of the mighty [Brenton ldquogodsrdquo] he judgeth among the godsrdquo The Syriac Peshitta here has ldquoangelsrdquo instead of ldquogodsrdquo while Tanakh has ldquodivine beingsrdquo The Targums offer the alternate reading of ldquojudgesrdquo Whether we apply the term ldquogodsrdquo in verse one of this psalm (Psalm 821) to angels or human judges as Gods representatives (as in verse 6) as the Targums do it still proves that in the Bible other living beings other than God Almighty are spoken of as ldquogodsrdquo or ldquosons of Godrdquo with no hint of polytheism by such use The Andrews Study Bible explains under Psalm 821 ldquogods Term designates earthly rulers leaders mighty ones judges andor princes (v 7) who were Gods representatives and whose work was divinely appointed (Ex 2228 Deut 117 1618 2 Chr 196 compare with Heb 137)rdquo And The NIV Study Bible has this footnote on Psalm 821 ldquogods See v 6 In the language of the OTmdashand in accordance with the conceptual world of the ancient Near Eastmdashrulers and judges as deputies of the heavenly King could be given the honorific title lsquogodrsquo [hellip] or be called lsquoson of Godrsquo []rdquo See also the Psalm 821 footnotes of The Believers Study Bible The Wesley Bible and the HCSB Study Bible

Mighty angels and powerful human rulers or judges called ldquogodsrdquo in Scripture were considered ldquodivinerdquo or ldquogodlikerdquo when they acted on behalf of God As the Lord told Moses ldquoI will make you seem like God to Pharaohrdquo (Exodus 71 NLT) Even people of biblical times used the term ldquoGodrdquo freely in reference to powerful human leaders or people who displayed ldquosupernaturalrdquo feats Acts 1222informs us that when king Herod gave a public speech in royal robes the crowd cheered him on shouting ldquoIt is the voice of a god and not of a manrdquo On another occasion the people of a small island called Paul theos that is ldquoa godrdquo when they witnessed his superhuman powers (Acts 286 Compare with Acts 1411) With this information at hand Robert Young a master of various ancient languages concluded ldquoGodmdashis used of any one (professedly) mighty whether truly so or not and is applied not only to the true God but to false gods Magistratesjudges angels prophets etc eg Ex 71 John 11 1033 34 35 2028 rdquo ndash Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible Eerdmans Publ 1978

Then why do religious writers out there act like no one but God can be referred to as ldquodivinerdquo or ldquoa godrdquo For them anyone else but the true God is a false god They are confining themselves within a box with the Scriptural context of Isaiah chapter 43 44 and 45 discussed above where they refuse to seethe term ldquogodrdquo being used elsewhere in Scripture in a more broadly manner than their biased narrowed definition allows them to In fact even Satan is called ldquothe god [Gr ὁ θεὸς] of this worldrdquo because he actually lsquorulesrsquo this wicked world by the power he exerts over mankind (2 Cor 44 John 1231 1 John 519) Was calling Satan ldquothe god of this worldrdquo meant to promote polytheism Thus the original words for ldquogodrdquo of themselves do not signal whether a god is true or false With some exceptions the Inspired Scriptures commonly affixes the definite article (ldquotherdquo) before the word ldquoGodrdquo to distinguish the Supreme God from other gods This holds true for both the Hebrew and Greek Bible portions

It is clear from the biblical record that in ancient Jewish culture people saw no problem speaking of ldquodivine beingsrdquo under the Supreme God To them it was not exclusively a matter of whether they were true or false ldquogodsrdquo In their cultural mindset the term ldquogodsrdquo when applied positively to others beside the Most High God meant that they were powerful representatives of God whether it was Christ spokenof angels or human judges When speaking of powerful heavenly beings in glory the term ldquosons of Godrdquo was fully acceptable There is no record of Jesus displaying any feelings of disgust when claiming he was ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 1036 NIV) Why should we then

Hence anyone else other than God labeled ldquogodrdquo in Scripture in a positive light are simply divine beings created in the image of the True God belonging to the heavenly family of ldquogodlikerdquo ones The term ldquogodrdquo may also be Scripturally used to describe human beings holding a position of power and authority when appointed by God When the term is used this way polytheism is not an issue

What about the Christ

At John 1033-36 Christ himself appealed to Psalm 82 where the term ldquogodsrdquo was applied to persons other than God Jesus was refuting the charge of blasphemy that he was making himself ldquoGgodrdquo as invalid because he was only claiming to be not God but ldquoGods Sonrdquo which is totally different Jesus had an excellent opportunity here to claim once and for all that he was ldquoGodrdquo but once again he did not do so Jesus Christ holds a much higher position than any angel or man but is still subordinate to his Father God (1 Corinthians 113 Hebrews 32 Colossians 13)

Angels were made subject to Christ after he himself was placed at Gods right hand (1 Peter 322) Although both angels and Christ are described as lsquosons of Godrsquo only Jesus Christ is distinctively called

ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo according to some manuscripts (John 118 Murdock Noyes Concordant Literal Version) Or ldquothe one-begotten Godrdquo (Etheridge) The Word Study Greek-English New Testament describes the Logos as the ldquoonly born Godrdquo (John 118 Paul R McReynolds) Only Christ is called ldquothe firstborn of all creationrdquo a term never used for the lsquoSuperiorityrsquo of God or the holy spirit (Colossians 115) Could Trinitarians ever answer the following question If Christ was not created as some claim who then was the first creation by God Also who is ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo Surely someone lsquocreated firstrsquo in the universe would be honored with the title lsquothe firstborn of all creationrsquo Is there any other way to express such event The Bible simply points to Christ as such of which is said ldquoThese things saith the Amen the faithful and true witness the beginning of the creation of Godrdquo Whatdoes lsquothe beginning of Gods creationrsquo really mean Another Bible translation puts it this way ldquoThe one who is in the origin of things created by God [El que estaacute en el origen de las cosas creadas por Dios]rdquo (Biblia de Ameacuterica approved by various Episcopalian dioceses in Central and South America Casa de la Biblia Madrid) No ldquomysteryrdquo here Its that simple

Could there be any ldquosaviorrdquo other than God

The Sovereign Lord God is the main Savior but he may allow others to act as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo on his behalf in certain situations We find that the term is applied to Christ as the prime agent of salvation (2 Peter 220 1 John 414 Titus 14) We are told that men too like Othniel and Ehud were used as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo of their people (Judges 216 3915 Hebrew moshia same word used for God at Isaiah Compare with Isaiah 452 Hebrew u˙moshia Nehemiah 927 Hebrew moshiim plural of moshia) Would this mean then that those men called ldquosaviorsrdquo in Scripture form a part of the Supreme Divinity No there is a better explanation as found in the NIV

The NIV Study Bible has this to say of Israels leaders or judges ldquoTheir principal purpose is best expressed in [Judges] 216 lsquoThen the LORD raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of hellip raidersrsquo Since it was God who permitted the oppressions and raised up deliverers [saviors] he himself was Israels ultimate Judge and Deliverer [Savior] (1127 see 823 where Gideon a judge insists that the Lord is Israels true rulerrdquo (p 325) The Bible uses the same original words (ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo) for God Christ and men Does it mean they all are the same person or co-equal The context then iswhat determines the correct application for each occurrence of those terms

Who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo

In contrast to others who were called ldquosaviorsrdquo of the people of Israel Jesus is called ldquoSavior of the worldrdquo Jesus can potentially save not only Israel but all of mankind from bondage to sin and from death itself (John 316 1 John 414) Although Christ is undoubtedly a greater Savior than any man heis still subject to the Grandest Savior of all (Isaiah 4311 Acts 412 1 Corinthians 1528) Christ himself came to be in a situation where he had to cry out with a loud voice for salvation Right before his death he implored ldquoMy God my God why hast thou forsaken merdquo He had to be saved by God (Matthew 2746 Hebrews 57 Psalm 288)

Acts 531 tells us who was the One who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquoGod exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israelrdquo (NRSV) According to this scripture whatever capacity Jesus had as ldquosaviorrdquo was due to God To insist that Jesus is ldquoGodrdquo because of his description as ldquosaviorrdquo then we could reason all the same that men such as Othniel and Ehud were alsoldquoGodrdquo because they too were called saviors Overall ldquocontextrdquo should be the guiding principle for the

right comprehension of biblical terms

Jesus as ldquoSon of manrdquo

Jesus made reference to himself in the Gospels nearly 80 times as ldquothe Son of manrdquo an expression indicating he was truly a ldquomanrdquo while on earth not a God-man (Matthew 820 etc) According to Hebrews 29 Jesus ldquowas made a little lower than the angelsrdquo so he could taste death for everyone God cannot ever become ldquolower than the angelsrdquo he created John 114 tells us that it was lsquothe Word who became fleshrsquo not God The doctrine of the ldquoincarnationrdquo as commonly taught actually twists the meaning of John 114 because the text does not say at all that lsquoGod became fleshrsquo Instead it says ldquothe Wordrdquo did Plain and simple 2 John 7 only confirms this In other words the Logos Jesus Christ became ldquohumanrdquo or ldquoa human beingrdquo One scripture often misused to prove that God was made flesh is 1 Timothy 316 but this text did not originally say ldquoGod was manifest in the fleshrdquo as it reads in a few Bible versions since such reading is defective Other translations of the Bible have corrected this error in translation saying instead ldquoHe [or ldquoWhordquo] was manifested in the fleshrdquo allowing for lsquoChrist as the One being manifested in the fleshrsquo For a consideration of 1 Tim 316 see httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

In an effort to simplify the meaning of the expression ldquoSon of manrdquo in reference to Christ in our culture a modern Bible version used the expression ldquothe Human Onerdquo repeatedly (Common English Bible) ldquoThe general use of lsquoson of manrsquo occurs in poetic texts in which the phrase functions as a synonym for lsquomanrsquo or lsquohuman beingrsquo rdquo (The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary) The NIV at Daniel 713 confirms the meaning of the expression ldquoson of manrdquo in a footnote ldquoThe Aramaic phrase bar enash [son of man]means human being The phrase son of man is retained here because of its use in the New Testament as a title of Jesus probably based largely on this verserdquo (2011 Edition) The apostle was very familiar withthis much used expression of Jesus If ldquoSon of manrdquo meant he was a ldquohuman beingrdquo on earth then John would use the similar expression a son of God (or Gods Son) in a way humans would naturally understand it That is lsquoof divine originrsquo (ldquoa godrdquo) without any foreign trinitarian speculation of a later era which Jesus disciples were unaware of (John 1033-36) Jesus divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship As noted the expression may also refer to lsquoone who shares a close relationship with Godrsquo As future co-heirs in the kingdom of Christ human creatures too are designated as ldquosons of Godrdquo but never become identical to the Sovereign God Again polytheism is not an issue here No need to make this into a ldquomysteryrdquo

Why does the Bible speak sometimes as if Jesus Christ himself was ldquoGodrdquo

The Jewish nation already believed and sought lsquoto honorrsquo the Father of Abraham Isaac and Jacob This monotheistic culture adhered to the Mosaic Law as they worshiped the true God But many prophecies which appeared in the Hebrew code identified the Messiah as lsquoemancipatorrsquo of their bondage to sin Themajority of the Jews where hoping the foretold Messiah would rescue them from the Roman yoke Instead of getting involved in earthly politics Jesus repeatedly spoke of lsquoGods kingdomrsquo hence comparatively few exercised faith in him In contrast to the few who believed in Jesus as being ldquosentrdquo by God the majority of Jews could look no further from the man they considered their Father AbrahamThey were blind in their self-sufficiency

There was thus an urgent need to communicate to the Jewish people that exercising faith in Christ was essential to their salvation But how would one do that To start by making them see that Jesus Christ

ldquopersonalityrdquo the opposite of ldquocharacterrdquo or ldquoqualityrdquo) and be forced to explain that it does not mean what it actually says The end result would then be no less ldquoambiguousrdquo than the alternatives he is obviously trying to avoid Would you not rather have a ldquobetter translationrdquo such as ldquothe Word was divinerdquo which requires no additional explanation The NET Bible (Wallace senior editor) prefers a rendering other than ldquodivinerdquo because he states that ldquodivinerdquo ldquoas a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of Godrdquo However on the word ldquodivinerdquo Murray J Harris responds ldquoBut if θεὸς bears a qualitative sense the rendering lsquodivinersquo should not be dismissed as altogether inappropriate Only if lsquodivinersquo is taken to mean lsquohaving the very nature of Godrsquo does the word accurately convey Johns meaningrdquo (op cit Jesus as God p 68) The argument that ldquodivinerdquo is too generic is weak because really the same argument could be made of the term ldquogodrdquo Jesus applied the term ldquogodsrdquo to humans (John 1034-36) and Paul acknowledged that ldquothere are many gods and many lordsrdquo (1 Corinthians 85) So Wallaces objection is more likely an effort to equate Christ with God at John 11

Truly the Greek Text does not say that Christ wasis the one-and-only God What the Greek does say is that ldquothe Word was with the [True] God and the Word [himself] was a divine beingrdquo thus able to perfectly represent the character of God (Hebrews 13) The only way one could justify the rendering ldquoGodrdquo with a big ldquoGrdquo at John 11c is if the original text had the article before the second instance of theos as well Why Because John is talking about two individuals and deliberately differentiates between the two instances of ldquotheosrdquo by placing the article before the first instance of ldquotheosrdquo and not with the second Max Zerwick (SJ) wrote in this regard ldquoὁ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος [if John would have written ldquothe God was the Logosrdquo] at least in NT usage would signify personal identity of the Word with the Father since the latter [the Father] is ὁ Θεὸς [the God]rdquo (Biblical Greek p 55 Rome)

John wrote the words appearing in verse two to clear any potential misunderstanding that could arise from his bold statement in verse one Marinus de Jonge remarks ldquoThe author of this Prologue clearly wants to identify lsquothe Wordrsquo and God as closely as possible without infringing the belief in the One Godrdquo (Christology in Context The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus Philadelphia Westminster 1988 p 198 Jonge is Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands) So in effect John was saying that the Logos was like God in every imaginable way Hence the New English Bible rendering lsquoWhat God was the Word wasrsquo

Dr Jason BeDuhn explains ldquoIn John 11 the Word is not the one-and-only God but it is a god or divine being I know that sounds strange and even seems impossible coming from the pen of a Christian writer But the fact remains that that is what John wrote His purpose in doing so was at least in part to avoid the notion that God the Father himself incarnated as Christ The one who incarnated was somehow distinct from lsquoGodrsquo while still being lsquoa godrsquo rdquo (op cit Truth in Translation pp 122 123)

Why then are translators unwilling to render John 11c ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo A few reasons could be given Translators mention grammar as one problem an issue addressed throughout this article Others view the rendering ldquoa godrdquo as polytheistic I will further mention two others First is the domino effect of the Trinity doctrine developed centuries after Christ as a means to clamp down raging Christological debates to the point that the doctrine has been taken for granted as ldquotruthrdquo by most ldquoChristianrdquo people since Secondly the role in tradition played by the Latin Vulgate must be mentioned This Latin translation has greatly influenced many translators since its inception from c 405 CE It is well known that the Vulgate heavily influenced early translations of the 16th and 17th Century In fact back then translators were more likely to be familiar with the Latin Vulgate than with the Greek

The Latin Vulgate used no articles (as seen below) and that in conjunction with the Greek lacking the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) and we can see why so many have misunderstood John 11 The Christological debates of past centuries did not improve this state of confusion it made it worse I kindly ask the reader to consider the following Latin and Greek readings as helpful pointers in our discussion Notice in particular the bold letters relevant to our discussion

ndash LATIN (John 11)ldquoIn principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbumrdquo In beginning was Verb and Verb was with God and God was Verb

ndash GREEK (John 11)

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος In beginning was the logos and the logos was toward the god and god was the logos

First of all please notice that Latin makes no distinction between the two occurrences of ldquoGodrdquo in the text (ie both without the article) However Greek being a more specific descriptive language does And it does so by using the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the first occurrence and omitting it before the second Keep in mind what The Translatorrsquos New Testament previously quoted said ldquoIt is difficult to believe that the omission [of the Greek article before the second theos in John 11] is not significantrdquo (p 451) As A T Robertson pointed out ldquoThe article is never meaningless in Greek though it often fails to correspond with the English idiom [hellip] Its free use leads to exactness and finesserdquo (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research p 756) And Buttmann The use of the article [ho ldquotherdquo] has everywhere its positive reasonrdquo (Buttmanns Grammar of NewTestament Greek Bt 88) And another ldquoFor the present the presence or absence of the Greek article should always be carefully indicated in the English translationrdquo (New Testament Greek For Beginners by J Gresham Machen DD LITTD p 35 67) It is the responsibility of the translator to transmit whenever possible this existing difference in the Greek text into the English translation

Which reading of the two languages above (Latin and Greek) shows the greater similarity with the traditional rendering of John 11c Its Latin is it not In fact some Bible translations in other languages have even borrowed the latin word ldquoVerbumrdquo from the Latin Vulgate at John 11 such as the ubiquitous Spanish Reina-Valera which uses ldquoVerbordquo (Verb) instead of ldquoWordrdquo used in English versionsAlso using ldquoVerbordquo Sciacuteo de San Miguel Versioacuten Moderna Goacutemez 2010 Nueva Biblia Latinoamericana de Hoy and the Nueva Versioacuten Internacional Other international versions following the Latin Vulgate at John 11c French Darby Crampon German Luther Bible Italian Diodati and the Portuguese Almeida

It is evident that most English Bibles at John 11 are translating in the spirit of the Latin Vulgate rather than the Greek text regardless of what they claim Surprisingly as you will see in the submitted list of alternate readings at the end of this paper there are some translations though not as popular that are actually closer to the Greek above than the best-selling versions which end up following the Latin Vulgate instead Although John 11 has long been a favorite text by traditionalists to quote in the English world it may be surprise many that a modern Greek Bible reader will not likely appeal to such scripture in support of the traditional view Notwithstanding some Bible translators either disagree with the traditional viewpoint of the Logos as

ldquoGodrdquo or may simply feel that the message conveyed by the original Greek language (as demonstrated by the 7 samples above) demands a different translation at John 11c Some would have you believe that only a few insane unschooled translators with diabolical intentions would ever attempt to deviate from the traditionalist reading That is not simply true I believe most translators offering a different version of John 11 are most sincere in their effort to get to the core of the Greek meaning and to adequately transmit the intended message of the biblical author The submitted list of alternate readings at the end is not intended to be a complete list but to show a variety of renderings and viewpoints Keep in mind too that because of its theological significance other Scriptures do not have as many variant translation renderings as this one does

________________________________________

A careful review of the alternate readings list of John 11 and other related material at the end of the article would lead to this question Could anyone legitimately exclude as a valid option the rendering ldquoagodrdquo found in some Bible versions We have seen that grammar alone cannot condemn the use of such translation though many will keep trying Seven examples were provided which clearly show how translators render predicate nouns without the article occurring before the verb In addition note that these seven examples make reference to one person or one thing while John 11 is speaking of ldquotwordquo entities With greater reason then translators should render this grammatical structure in John 11c in away that brings out the indefinite-qualitative aspect rather than convey identification with the Supreme God

A Grammar states ldquoJohn was not saying that lsquothe word was the Fatherrsquo but that lsquothe word was God (divine)rsquordquo (Gramaacutetica Griega-Sintaxis del Nuevo Testamento [Greek Grammar-Syntax of the NT] by Daniel B Wallace amp Daniel S Steffen Parentheses theirs p 182) Consequently if the translation ldquothe word was Godrdquo must be understood in the adjectival sense as ldquodivinerdquo why not translate it that way Itis therefore reasonable to make a distinction between the term ldquotheosrdquo with and without the article here

In all the more accurate Bible translations do make a distinction between ldquotheosrdquo (God) with and without the article in John 11 Does yours Some argue that John did not have to employ the article before the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo to imply that the Word was ldquoGodrdquo Do you believe that If so why then was the Greek article used with the nominal predicate before the verb in John 151 which literally says ldquoThe father of me the farmer isrdquo And in John 651 ldquoThe bread but which I shall give the flesh of me isrdquo It is evident that Bible writers usually employed the article with specific intention and when they omitted it it was equally significant as well

Is it not better to just follow along with the majority view and thus free oneself from religious tension that may accompany those who sustain a minority view First of all it is dangerous to adopt a majority view if this one is in error A majority view held by ldquoscholarsrdquo of itself does not automatically make a matter ldquotruerdquo Why Because scholars are not infallible nor immune to human tradition Were they in Jesus day They were not Scholars today may find themselves in error just as many scribes were in Jesus day as Matthew chapter 23 clearly demonstrate (Matthew 159) We are warned that ldquothe whole world lies under the power of the evil onerdquo (1 John 519 New Revised Standard Bible) We should not dismiss ldquoreligionrdquo as being beyond the reach or interest of Satan We all need to be in guard of evil influence at all times being careful of not becoming ldquostone-blindrdquo by ldquothe god of this worldrdquo (2 Cor 44 The Message) Again a majority view does not always represent the truth Thus the doctrinal foundation for Christians should be based not on what the majority believe but rather on what the Bible

itself teaches

What does the Bible really say about Jesus Christ

Simply put Jesus is ldquoSon of Godrdquo not ldquoGod the Sonrdquo (Luke 135 NRSV) There is a vast difference in meaning between those two expressions There are more than two hundred references (200x) in the New Testament that explicitly declare that Jesus Christ is the ldquoSon of Godrdquo or that lsquoGod is the Father of Jesus Christrsquo (For a list of instances see The Preachers Outline and Sermon Bible ldquoJohnrdquo p 27) Yet Christendom prefers to dwell on a handful of texts which are said to describe Jesus as God None of those texts are explicit in declaring Jesus equality with God In Scripture Jesus place in the broad picture is one of sonship that is as Son of God not God Furthermore the word ldquosonrdquo is never used to describe God or the ldquoholy spiritrdquo

Christ is also described as ldquothe image of the invisible God [not God] the firstborn of all creationrdquo (Colossians 115) the ldquomediator between God and menrdquo (1 Timothy 25) Yes it is possible to spin these clear statements to make them say something else but is this what we seek One who plays the role of ldquomediatorrdquo cannot in the name of justice be one and the same person as one of the two parts that he is said to represent Otherwise such individual could not be truly impartial in his judgment Moses as a separate entity was able to really serve as ldquomediatorrdquo between God and Israel Now if Jesus the greater Moses was really one-and-the-same ldquoGodrdquo what ldquojusticerdquo could he convey acting as ldquomediatorrdquo between himself and mankind But no Jesus spoke of his Father as ldquomy Godrdquo and as lsquothe God of everyone elsersquo (John 2017) It was this God (ldquothe only Godrdquo John 544 NKJV NIV) according to Jesus himself who lsquorevealedrsquo things to Christ (Mark 1332 Revelation 11) Any statementwhich says that lsquoGod gave Jesus Christ a revelationrsquo would sound very odd to anyone taught to believe that Christ is the equal of God in every sense Scripture calls Christ ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 1913) And the record shows that it was this Word who was ldquowith God in the beginning not that he was ldquoGodrdquo but like God (Others render ldquoa Godrdquo ldquodivinerdquo - Tomanek Schonfield Heb 13)

Bible writers always speak of Jesus Christ in a subordinate role as in Ephesians 13 ldquoBlessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christrdquo 1 Corinthians 1528 ldquoThe Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him [God] who put all things in subjection to him that God may be all in allrdquo (Darby) In Colossians 31 we read ldquoKeep on seeking the things above where Christ is seated at the right hand of Godrdquo (Williams) Jesus himself made it clear to others ldquoI seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which hath sent merdquo (John 530)

Do Scriptures allow for a secondary sense of the words ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo

In the Scriptures the term lsquogodrsquo has various connotations and cannot be narrowed to one single meaning as some try to do A few scholars sustain that the notion of Jesus Christ as ldquoa godrdquo as if there were other gods beside God is incompatible with Jewish ldquomonotheismrdquo which is the belief in only one God and that it implies polytheism Nevertheless the concept itself that God as an entity is composed of three coequal persons runs counter with Jewish monotheism ldquoThe Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheismrdquo so states the Jewish Encyclopedia (ldquoTrinityrdquo) The teaching of the ldquoShemardquo consisted as has been noted in that ldquoJehovah our God is one Jehovahrdquo (Deuteronomy 64 ASV) What purpose would there be for the ldquoShemardquo to stress that Jehovah is ldquoonerdquo and then confound the matter by stating that that

must mean the Divine One is ldquothree personsrdquo in ldquoonerdquo It is explained frequently that the teaching of theTrinity is a ldquomysteryrdquo The problem with such reasoning is that nowhere does Scripture gives us reason to believe in such a concept It is possible that a person who has been exposed to this doctrine for a long time may see ldquoinsinuationsrdquo of it in the Bible However those individuals must in sincerity ask themselves whether their belief is based on ldquofactsrdquo or instead on emotional ldquofancyrdquo

Certain Scriptures are frequently cited as proof by supporters of the Trinity doctrine that Christ is God Isaiah 446 and Hosea 134 are two such Scriptures which have God Jehovah saying ldquoI am the first and I am the last and beside me there is no Godrdquo ldquoAnd thou shalt know no god but me for there is nosavior [Hebrew עע שהש םי beside merdquo These words are strictly taken literally out of their [(u˙moshia) וומוsetting to mean that there can be no ldquogodrdquo or ldquosaviorrdquo but God almighty In the context in which these words were pronounced Israel Gods people were inclined to worship vain hand-made idols (Isaiah 4217) Hence Gods warning in Isaiah and Hosea People brought up in trinitarian dogma tend to restrict the meaning of the term ldquoGodrdquo to those statements found within the context of Isaiah and Hosea leading them to the conclusion that anyone other than the True God must be a ldquofalserdquo god They define the word God within the context of modern trinitarian mentality instead of ancient Scriptural doctrine Trinitarians reason that if the appellative ldquoGodrdquo is applied to Jesus Christ then reasonably Jesus could be no other than the Lord God himself

However such trinitarian reasonings are missing an important element It has to do with the fact that the word ldquogodrdquo can be applied to others since the term itself seems to be related to someone with power and authority The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explains ldquoThis word [rsquoelōhicircm] can in fact be used for other gods (Gen 3130) and even for men (cf Ex 416 71 cf BDB p43)The derivation [of rsquoelōhicircm] is obscure but the implied sense seems to be that of strength or authorityrdquo (Vol II pg 497 italics added) The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words says ldquoThe word itself [אא ל (rsquoēl) Hebrew word for God] derives from a root term meaning lsquopowerrsquo lsquostrengthrsquo orlsquomightrsquo (Stephen D Renn p 439) And the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible states ldquoCommon to these four suggested root meanings [of El God] is the idea of strength power and of supreme excellence and greatnessrdquo (Vol 1 p 881) This may explain why various Bible versions at John 11c describe the Logos as ldquoa powerful divine beingrdquo or the like instead of saying ldquoGodrdquo When the whole context of Scripture is considered it is evident that the words spoken by God found in Isaiah and Hosea are very true in a specific sense namely that there is but one Supreme God and one Main Savior This truth does not rule out the existence of lsquogodlike onesrsquo under God (Job 387 Psalms 291 896)

Is it possible to speak of divine beings (ldquogodsrdquo) existing alongside God

Scholar John Macquarrie in Jesus Christ in Modern Thought claims that the Jewish monotheistic culturewould never tolerate the idea of the Logos belonging to a class of divine beings (P 110) Not quite Other scholars have a different view Ernst Haenchen for example claims the opposite in accord with Scripture ldquoIn the period in which the hymn [at John 11] took its rise it was quite possible in Jewishand Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him Phil 26-10 proves thatrdquo (A Commentary on the Gospel of John John 1Transl by Robert W Funk from Das Johannesevangelium Ein Kommentar p 109)

Another source has this to say ldquoOn the other hand it was a matter of general knowledge and one which the Bible itself shares and does not attempt to conceal that recognition and worship have often been extended to others than the Jewish-Christian God and the term lsquogodrsquo or lsquogodsrsquo is used for them

also as are the respective Greek and Hebrew words It is the custom to use a capital letter G for the God of the Jewish- Christian tradition and a small letter for the othersrdquo (Dictionary of the Bible JamesHastings Revised Edition 1963 Page 333 Grant amp Rowley Charles Scribners Sons New York)

Lets briefly look at how the Bible itself employs the words for ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture At Exodus 71 we read that God made a man Moses ldquoa godrdquo (Hebrew elohim) before Pharaoh God said to Moses ldquoSee I have made thee a god [Others ldquoa Godrdquo ldquoGodrdquo] to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophetrdquo Would this mean then that Moses himself did become an intrinsic part of the Great Divinity by the mere fact of him being called ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo by the Lord Jehovah himself Of coursenot Other translations clarify the meaning of ldquoGodrdquo used here by the LORD The English Standard Version expresses it this way ldquoSee I have made you like God to Pharaohrdquo And the International Standard Version has the LORD saying ldquoListen Ive put you in the role of God to Pharaohrdquo

And in Exodus 416 God making reference to Aaron tells Moses ldquoYou shall be as God to himrdquo (ESV NAB Hebrew lelohim ldquoas Godrdquo Darby ldquoGodrdquo Leeser ldquoa Godrdquo LXX theon ldquoGodrdquo Vulgate Deum)rdquo Moses was simply given a powerful role as Gods emissary who represented his will In Psalm 456 a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) when he became lsquoking of Israelrsquo was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo Obviously this human king was not in fact the One True God Neither was he a false God as trinitarian reasonings would lead one to believe Simply put Solomons throne was ldquodivinerdquo in the sense that he represented God in a position of authority over others

In the Scriptures we find that Jesus is described in Isaiah 96 as ldquoMighty Godrdquo and as ldquoSon of Godrdquo in other places (John 134) What about angels What do we call them Humans Not Angels are in nature heavenly beings closer to God than to men They are powerful divine spirits that reflect Gods glory and Godship They are ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 16) They are ldquogodsrdquo themselves What do we call aldquosonrdquo of a ldquohumanrdquo This ldquosonrdquo is himself a ldquohumanrdquo is he not Just as there is a family of human beings sharing ldquohumanityrdquo there is also a family of celestial beings yes ldquodivine beingsrdquo or ldquogodsrdquo sharing ldquodivinityrdquo A ldquosonrdquo of ldquoGodrdquo is ldquoa godrdquo or a lsquoreflectionrsquo of God Or it could simply refer to ldquoOne who shares a close relationship with Godrdquo (The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary) Notwithstanding the expression ldquoson of Godrdquo is never synonymous with God ( Some argue that the expression ldquoAlmightyrdquo in Revelation 18 applies to Christ but there is no concrete evidence for the claim)

Psalm 821 tells us that ldquoGod standeth in the congregation of the mighty [Brenton ldquogodsrdquo] he judgeth among the godsrdquo The Syriac Peshitta here has ldquoangelsrdquo instead of ldquogodsrdquo while Tanakh has ldquodivine beingsrdquo The Targums offer the alternate reading of ldquojudgesrdquo Whether we apply the term ldquogodsrdquo in verse one of this psalm (Psalm 821) to angels or human judges as Gods representatives (as in verse 6) as the Targums do it still proves that in the Bible other living beings other than God Almighty are spoken of as ldquogodsrdquo or ldquosons of Godrdquo with no hint of polytheism by such use The Andrews Study Bible explains under Psalm 821 ldquogods Term designates earthly rulers leaders mighty ones judges andor princes (v 7) who were Gods representatives and whose work was divinely appointed (Ex 2228 Deut 117 1618 2 Chr 196 compare with Heb 137)rdquo And The NIV Study Bible has this footnote on Psalm 821 ldquogods See v 6 In the language of the OTmdashand in accordance with the conceptual world of the ancient Near Eastmdashrulers and judges as deputies of the heavenly King could be given the honorific title lsquogodrsquo [hellip] or be called lsquoson of Godrsquo []rdquo See also the Psalm 821 footnotes of The Believers Study Bible The Wesley Bible and the HCSB Study Bible

Mighty angels and powerful human rulers or judges called ldquogodsrdquo in Scripture were considered ldquodivinerdquo or ldquogodlikerdquo when they acted on behalf of God As the Lord told Moses ldquoI will make you seem like God to Pharaohrdquo (Exodus 71 NLT) Even people of biblical times used the term ldquoGodrdquo freely in reference to powerful human leaders or people who displayed ldquosupernaturalrdquo feats Acts 1222informs us that when king Herod gave a public speech in royal robes the crowd cheered him on shouting ldquoIt is the voice of a god and not of a manrdquo On another occasion the people of a small island called Paul theos that is ldquoa godrdquo when they witnessed his superhuman powers (Acts 286 Compare with Acts 1411) With this information at hand Robert Young a master of various ancient languages concluded ldquoGodmdashis used of any one (professedly) mighty whether truly so or not and is applied not only to the true God but to false gods Magistratesjudges angels prophets etc eg Ex 71 John 11 1033 34 35 2028 rdquo ndash Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible Eerdmans Publ 1978

Then why do religious writers out there act like no one but God can be referred to as ldquodivinerdquo or ldquoa godrdquo For them anyone else but the true God is a false god They are confining themselves within a box with the Scriptural context of Isaiah chapter 43 44 and 45 discussed above where they refuse to seethe term ldquogodrdquo being used elsewhere in Scripture in a more broadly manner than their biased narrowed definition allows them to In fact even Satan is called ldquothe god [Gr ὁ θεὸς] of this worldrdquo because he actually lsquorulesrsquo this wicked world by the power he exerts over mankind (2 Cor 44 John 1231 1 John 519) Was calling Satan ldquothe god of this worldrdquo meant to promote polytheism Thus the original words for ldquogodrdquo of themselves do not signal whether a god is true or false With some exceptions the Inspired Scriptures commonly affixes the definite article (ldquotherdquo) before the word ldquoGodrdquo to distinguish the Supreme God from other gods This holds true for both the Hebrew and Greek Bible portions

It is clear from the biblical record that in ancient Jewish culture people saw no problem speaking of ldquodivine beingsrdquo under the Supreme God To them it was not exclusively a matter of whether they were true or false ldquogodsrdquo In their cultural mindset the term ldquogodsrdquo when applied positively to others beside the Most High God meant that they were powerful representatives of God whether it was Christ spokenof angels or human judges When speaking of powerful heavenly beings in glory the term ldquosons of Godrdquo was fully acceptable There is no record of Jesus displaying any feelings of disgust when claiming he was ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 1036 NIV) Why should we then

Hence anyone else other than God labeled ldquogodrdquo in Scripture in a positive light are simply divine beings created in the image of the True God belonging to the heavenly family of ldquogodlikerdquo ones The term ldquogodrdquo may also be Scripturally used to describe human beings holding a position of power and authority when appointed by God When the term is used this way polytheism is not an issue

What about the Christ

At John 1033-36 Christ himself appealed to Psalm 82 where the term ldquogodsrdquo was applied to persons other than God Jesus was refuting the charge of blasphemy that he was making himself ldquoGgodrdquo as invalid because he was only claiming to be not God but ldquoGods Sonrdquo which is totally different Jesus had an excellent opportunity here to claim once and for all that he was ldquoGodrdquo but once again he did not do so Jesus Christ holds a much higher position than any angel or man but is still subordinate to his Father God (1 Corinthians 113 Hebrews 32 Colossians 13)

Angels were made subject to Christ after he himself was placed at Gods right hand (1 Peter 322) Although both angels and Christ are described as lsquosons of Godrsquo only Jesus Christ is distinctively called

ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo according to some manuscripts (John 118 Murdock Noyes Concordant Literal Version) Or ldquothe one-begotten Godrdquo (Etheridge) The Word Study Greek-English New Testament describes the Logos as the ldquoonly born Godrdquo (John 118 Paul R McReynolds) Only Christ is called ldquothe firstborn of all creationrdquo a term never used for the lsquoSuperiorityrsquo of God or the holy spirit (Colossians 115) Could Trinitarians ever answer the following question If Christ was not created as some claim who then was the first creation by God Also who is ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo Surely someone lsquocreated firstrsquo in the universe would be honored with the title lsquothe firstborn of all creationrsquo Is there any other way to express such event The Bible simply points to Christ as such of which is said ldquoThese things saith the Amen the faithful and true witness the beginning of the creation of Godrdquo Whatdoes lsquothe beginning of Gods creationrsquo really mean Another Bible translation puts it this way ldquoThe one who is in the origin of things created by God [El que estaacute en el origen de las cosas creadas por Dios]rdquo (Biblia de Ameacuterica approved by various Episcopalian dioceses in Central and South America Casa de la Biblia Madrid) No ldquomysteryrdquo here Its that simple

Could there be any ldquosaviorrdquo other than God

The Sovereign Lord God is the main Savior but he may allow others to act as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo on his behalf in certain situations We find that the term is applied to Christ as the prime agent of salvation (2 Peter 220 1 John 414 Titus 14) We are told that men too like Othniel and Ehud were used as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo of their people (Judges 216 3915 Hebrew moshia same word used for God at Isaiah Compare with Isaiah 452 Hebrew u˙moshia Nehemiah 927 Hebrew moshiim plural of moshia) Would this mean then that those men called ldquosaviorsrdquo in Scripture form a part of the Supreme Divinity No there is a better explanation as found in the NIV

The NIV Study Bible has this to say of Israels leaders or judges ldquoTheir principal purpose is best expressed in [Judges] 216 lsquoThen the LORD raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of hellip raidersrsquo Since it was God who permitted the oppressions and raised up deliverers [saviors] he himself was Israels ultimate Judge and Deliverer [Savior] (1127 see 823 where Gideon a judge insists that the Lord is Israels true rulerrdquo (p 325) The Bible uses the same original words (ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo) for God Christ and men Does it mean they all are the same person or co-equal The context then iswhat determines the correct application for each occurrence of those terms

Who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo

In contrast to others who were called ldquosaviorsrdquo of the people of Israel Jesus is called ldquoSavior of the worldrdquo Jesus can potentially save not only Israel but all of mankind from bondage to sin and from death itself (John 316 1 John 414) Although Christ is undoubtedly a greater Savior than any man heis still subject to the Grandest Savior of all (Isaiah 4311 Acts 412 1 Corinthians 1528) Christ himself came to be in a situation where he had to cry out with a loud voice for salvation Right before his death he implored ldquoMy God my God why hast thou forsaken merdquo He had to be saved by God (Matthew 2746 Hebrews 57 Psalm 288)

Acts 531 tells us who was the One who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquoGod exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israelrdquo (NRSV) According to this scripture whatever capacity Jesus had as ldquosaviorrdquo was due to God To insist that Jesus is ldquoGodrdquo because of his description as ldquosaviorrdquo then we could reason all the same that men such as Othniel and Ehud were alsoldquoGodrdquo because they too were called saviors Overall ldquocontextrdquo should be the guiding principle for the

right comprehension of biblical terms

Jesus as ldquoSon of manrdquo

Jesus made reference to himself in the Gospels nearly 80 times as ldquothe Son of manrdquo an expression indicating he was truly a ldquomanrdquo while on earth not a God-man (Matthew 820 etc) According to Hebrews 29 Jesus ldquowas made a little lower than the angelsrdquo so he could taste death for everyone God cannot ever become ldquolower than the angelsrdquo he created John 114 tells us that it was lsquothe Word who became fleshrsquo not God The doctrine of the ldquoincarnationrdquo as commonly taught actually twists the meaning of John 114 because the text does not say at all that lsquoGod became fleshrsquo Instead it says ldquothe Wordrdquo did Plain and simple 2 John 7 only confirms this In other words the Logos Jesus Christ became ldquohumanrdquo or ldquoa human beingrdquo One scripture often misused to prove that God was made flesh is 1 Timothy 316 but this text did not originally say ldquoGod was manifest in the fleshrdquo as it reads in a few Bible versions since such reading is defective Other translations of the Bible have corrected this error in translation saying instead ldquoHe [or ldquoWhordquo] was manifested in the fleshrdquo allowing for lsquoChrist as the One being manifested in the fleshrsquo For a consideration of 1 Tim 316 see httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

In an effort to simplify the meaning of the expression ldquoSon of manrdquo in reference to Christ in our culture a modern Bible version used the expression ldquothe Human Onerdquo repeatedly (Common English Bible) ldquoThe general use of lsquoson of manrsquo occurs in poetic texts in which the phrase functions as a synonym for lsquomanrsquo or lsquohuman beingrsquo rdquo (The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary) The NIV at Daniel 713 confirms the meaning of the expression ldquoson of manrdquo in a footnote ldquoThe Aramaic phrase bar enash [son of man]means human being The phrase son of man is retained here because of its use in the New Testament as a title of Jesus probably based largely on this verserdquo (2011 Edition) The apostle was very familiar withthis much used expression of Jesus If ldquoSon of manrdquo meant he was a ldquohuman beingrdquo on earth then John would use the similar expression a son of God (or Gods Son) in a way humans would naturally understand it That is lsquoof divine originrsquo (ldquoa godrdquo) without any foreign trinitarian speculation of a later era which Jesus disciples were unaware of (John 1033-36) Jesus divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship As noted the expression may also refer to lsquoone who shares a close relationship with Godrsquo As future co-heirs in the kingdom of Christ human creatures too are designated as ldquosons of Godrdquo but never become identical to the Sovereign God Again polytheism is not an issue here No need to make this into a ldquomysteryrdquo

Why does the Bible speak sometimes as if Jesus Christ himself was ldquoGodrdquo

The Jewish nation already believed and sought lsquoto honorrsquo the Father of Abraham Isaac and Jacob This monotheistic culture adhered to the Mosaic Law as they worshiped the true God But many prophecies which appeared in the Hebrew code identified the Messiah as lsquoemancipatorrsquo of their bondage to sin Themajority of the Jews where hoping the foretold Messiah would rescue them from the Roman yoke Instead of getting involved in earthly politics Jesus repeatedly spoke of lsquoGods kingdomrsquo hence comparatively few exercised faith in him In contrast to the few who believed in Jesus as being ldquosentrdquo by God the majority of Jews could look no further from the man they considered their Father AbrahamThey were blind in their self-sufficiency

There was thus an urgent need to communicate to the Jewish people that exercising faith in Christ was essential to their salvation But how would one do that To start by making them see that Jesus Christ

The Latin Vulgate used no articles (as seen below) and that in conjunction with the Greek lacking the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) and we can see why so many have misunderstood John 11 The Christological debates of past centuries did not improve this state of confusion it made it worse I kindly ask the reader to consider the following Latin and Greek readings as helpful pointers in our discussion Notice in particular the bold letters relevant to our discussion

ndash LATIN (John 11)ldquoIn principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbumrdquo In beginning was Verb and Verb was with God and God was Verb

ndash GREEK (John 11)

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος In beginning was the logos and the logos was toward the god and god was the logos

First of all please notice that Latin makes no distinction between the two occurrences of ldquoGodrdquo in the text (ie both without the article) However Greek being a more specific descriptive language does And it does so by using the article (ho ldquotherdquo) before the first occurrence and omitting it before the second Keep in mind what The Translatorrsquos New Testament previously quoted said ldquoIt is difficult to believe that the omission [of the Greek article before the second theos in John 11] is not significantrdquo (p 451) As A T Robertson pointed out ldquoThe article is never meaningless in Greek though it often fails to correspond with the English idiom [hellip] Its free use leads to exactness and finesserdquo (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research p 756) And Buttmann The use of the article [ho ldquotherdquo] has everywhere its positive reasonrdquo (Buttmanns Grammar of NewTestament Greek Bt 88) And another ldquoFor the present the presence or absence of the Greek article should always be carefully indicated in the English translationrdquo (New Testament Greek For Beginners by J Gresham Machen DD LITTD p 35 67) It is the responsibility of the translator to transmit whenever possible this existing difference in the Greek text into the English translation

Which reading of the two languages above (Latin and Greek) shows the greater similarity with the traditional rendering of John 11c Its Latin is it not In fact some Bible translations in other languages have even borrowed the latin word ldquoVerbumrdquo from the Latin Vulgate at John 11 such as the ubiquitous Spanish Reina-Valera which uses ldquoVerbordquo (Verb) instead of ldquoWordrdquo used in English versionsAlso using ldquoVerbordquo Sciacuteo de San Miguel Versioacuten Moderna Goacutemez 2010 Nueva Biblia Latinoamericana de Hoy and the Nueva Versioacuten Internacional Other international versions following the Latin Vulgate at John 11c French Darby Crampon German Luther Bible Italian Diodati and the Portuguese Almeida

It is evident that most English Bibles at John 11 are translating in the spirit of the Latin Vulgate rather than the Greek text regardless of what they claim Surprisingly as you will see in the submitted list of alternate readings at the end of this paper there are some translations though not as popular that are actually closer to the Greek above than the best-selling versions which end up following the Latin Vulgate instead Although John 11 has long been a favorite text by traditionalists to quote in the English world it may be surprise many that a modern Greek Bible reader will not likely appeal to such scripture in support of the traditional view Notwithstanding some Bible translators either disagree with the traditional viewpoint of the Logos as

ldquoGodrdquo or may simply feel that the message conveyed by the original Greek language (as demonstrated by the 7 samples above) demands a different translation at John 11c Some would have you believe that only a few insane unschooled translators with diabolical intentions would ever attempt to deviate from the traditionalist reading That is not simply true I believe most translators offering a different version of John 11 are most sincere in their effort to get to the core of the Greek meaning and to adequately transmit the intended message of the biblical author The submitted list of alternate readings at the end is not intended to be a complete list but to show a variety of renderings and viewpoints Keep in mind too that because of its theological significance other Scriptures do not have as many variant translation renderings as this one does

________________________________________

A careful review of the alternate readings list of John 11 and other related material at the end of the article would lead to this question Could anyone legitimately exclude as a valid option the rendering ldquoagodrdquo found in some Bible versions We have seen that grammar alone cannot condemn the use of such translation though many will keep trying Seven examples were provided which clearly show how translators render predicate nouns without the article occurring before the verb In addition note that these seven examples make reference to one person or one thing while John 11 is speaking of ldquotwordquo entities With greater reason then translators should render this grammatical structure in John 11c in away that brings out the indefinite-qualitative aspect rather than convey identification with the Supreme God

A Grammar states ldquoJohn was not saying that lsquothe word was the Fatherrsquo but that lsquothe word was God (divine)rsquordquo (Gramaacutetica Griega-Sintaxis del Nuevo Testamento [Greek Grammar-Syntax of the NT] by Daniel B Wallace amp Daniel S Steffen Parentheses theirs p 182) Consequently if the translation ldquothe word was Godrdquo must be understood in the adjectival sense as ldquodivinerdquo why not translate it that way Itis therefore reasonable to make a distinction between the term ldquotheosrdquo with and without the article here

In all the more accurate Bible translations do make a distinction between ldquotheosrdquo (God) with and without the article in John 11 Does yours Some argue that John did not have to employ the article before the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo to imply that the Word was ldquoGodrdquo Do you believe that If so why then was the Greek article used with the nominal predicate before the verb in John 151 which literally says ldquoThe father of me the farmer isrdquo And in John 651 ldquoThe bread but which I shall give the flesh of me isrdquo It is evident that Bible writers usually employed the article with specific intention and when they omitted it it was equally significant as well

Is it not better to just follow along with the majority view and thus free oneself from religious tension that may accompany those who sustain a minority view First of all it is dangerous to adopt a majority view if this one is in error A majority view held by ldquoscholarsrdquo of itself does not automatically make a matter ldquotruerdquo Why Because scholars are not infallible nor immune to human tradition Were they in Jesus day They were not Scholars today may find themselves in error just as many scribes were in Jesus day as Matthew chapter 23 clearly demonstrate (Matthew 159) We are warned that ldquothe whole world lies under the power of the evil onerdquo (1 John 519 New Revised Standard Bible) We should not dismiss ldquoreligionrdquo as being beyond the reach or interest of Satan We all need to be in guard of evil influence at all times being careful of not becoming ldquostone-blindrdquo by ldquothe god of this worldrdquo (2 Cor 44 The Message) Again a majority view does not always represent the truth Thus the doctrinal foundation for Christians should be based not on what the majority believe but rather on what the Bible

itself teaches

What does the Bible really say about Jesus Christ

Simply put Jesus is ldquoSon of Godrdquo not ldquoGod the Sonrdquo (Luke 135 NRSV) There is a vast difference in meaning between those two expressions There are more than two hundred references (200x) in the New Testament that explicitly declare that Jesus Christ is the ldquoSon of Godrdquo or that lsquoGod is the Father of Jesus Christrsquo (For a list of instances see The Preachers Outline and Sermon Bible ldquoJohnrdquo p 27) Yet Christendom prefers to dwell on a handful of texts which are said to describe Jesus as God None of those texts are explicit in declaring Jesus equality with God In Scripture Jesus place in the broad picture is one of sonship that is as Son of God not God Furthermore the word ldquosonrdquo is never used to describe God or the ldquoholy spiritrdquo

Christ is also described as ldquothe image of the invisible God [not God] the firstborn of all creationrdquo (Colossians 115) the ldquomediator between God and menrdquo (1 Timothy 25) Yes it is possible to spin these clear statements to make them say something else but is this what we seek One who plays the role of ldquomediatorrdquo cannot in the name of justice be one and the same person as one of the two parts that he is said to represent Otherwise such individual could not be truly impartial in his judgment Moses as a separate entity was able to really serve as ldquomediatorrdquo between God and Israel Now if Jesus the greater Moses was really one-and-the-same ldquoGodrdquo what ldquojusticerdquo could he convey acting as ldquomediatorrdquo between himself and mankind But no Jesus spoke of his Father as ldquomy Godrdquo and as lsquothe God of everyone elsersquo (John 2017) It was this God (ldquothe only Godrdquo John 544 NKJV NIV) according to Jesus himself who lsquorevealedrsquo things to Christ (Mark 1332 Revelation 11) Any statementwhich says that lsquoGod gave Jesus Christ a revelationrsquo would sound very odd to anyone taught to believe that Christ is the equal of God in every sense Scripture calls Christ ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 1913) And the record shows that it was this Word who was ldquowith God in the beginning not that he was ldquoGodrdquo but like God (Others render ldquoa Godrdquo ldquodivinerdquo - Tomanek Schonfield Heb 13)

Bible writers always speak of Jesus Christ in a subordinate role as in Ephesians 13 ldquoBlessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christrdquo 1 Corinthians 1528 ldquoThe Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him [God] who put all things in subjection to him that God may be all in allrdquo (Darby) In Colossians 31 we read ldquoKeep on seeking the things above where Christ is seated at the right hand of Godrdquo (Williams) Jesus himself made it clear to others ldquoI seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which hath sent merdquo (John 530)

Do Scriptures allow for a secondary sense of the words ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo

In the Scriptures the term lsquogodrsquo has various connotations and cannot be narrowed to one single meaning as some try to do A few scholars sustain that the notion of Jesus Christ as ldquoa godrdquo as if there were other gods beside God is incompatible with Jewish ldquomonotheismrdquo which is the belief in only one God and that it implies polytheism Nevertheless the concept itself that God as an entity is composed of three coequal persons runs counter with Jewish monotheism ldquoThe Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheismrdquo so states the Jewish Encyclopedia (ldquoTrinityrdquo) The teaching of the ldquoShemardquo consisted as has been noted in that ldquoJehovah our God is one Jehovahrdquo (Deuteronomy 64 ASV) What purpose would there be for the ldquoShemardquo to stress that Jehovah is ldquoonerdquo and then confound the matter by stating that that

must mean the Divine One is ldquothree personsrdquo in ldquoonerdquo It is explained frequently that the teaching of theTrinity is a ldquomysteryrdquo The problem with such reasoning is that nowhere does Scripture gives us reason to believe in such a concept It is possible that a person who has been exposed to this doctrine for a long time may see ldquoinsinuationsrdquo of it in the Bible However those individuals must in sincerity ask themselves whether their belief is based on ldquofactsrdquo or instead on emotional ldquofancyrdquo

Certain Scriptures are frequently cited as proof by supporters of the Trinity doctrine that Christ is God Isaiah 446 and Hosea 134 are two such Scriptures which have God Jehovah saying ldquoI am the first and I am the last and beside me there is no Godrdquo ldquoAnd thou shalt know no god but me for there is nosavior [Hebrew עע שהש םי beside merdquo These words are strictly taken literally out of their [(u˙moshia) וומוsetting to mean that there can be no ldquogodrdquo or ldquosaviorrdquo but God almighty In the context in which these words were pronounced Israel Gods people were inclined to worship vain hand-made idols (Isaiah 4217) Hence Gods warning in Isaiah and Hosea People brought up in trinitarian dogma tend to restrict the meaning of the term ldquoGodrdquo to those statements found within the context of Isaiah and Hosea leading them to the conclusion that anyone other than the True God must be a ldquofalserdquo god They define the word God within the context of modern trinitarian mentality instead of ancient Scriptural doctrine Trinitarians reason that if the appellative ldquoGodrdquo is applied to Jesus Christ then reasonably Jesus could be no other than the Lord God himself

However such trinitarian reasonings are missing an important element It has to do with the fact that the word ldquogodrdquo can be applied to others since the term itself seems to be related to someone with power and authority The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explains ldquoThis word [rsquoelōhicircm] can in fact be used for other gods (Gen 3130) and even for men (cf Ex 416 71 cf BDB p43)The derivation [of rsquoelōhicircm] is obscure but the implied sense seems to be that of strength or authorityrdquo (Vol II pg 497 italics added) The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words says ldquoThe word itself [אא ל (rsquoēl) Hebrew word for God] derives from a root term meaning lsquopowerrsquo lsquostrengthrsquo orlsquomightrsquo (Stephen D Renn p 439) And the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible states ldquoCommon to these four suggested root meanings [of El God] is the idea of strength power and of supreme excellence and greatnessrdquo (Vol 1 p 881) This may explain why various Bible versions at John 11c describe the Logos as ldquoa powerful divine beingrdquo or the like instead of saying ldquoGodrdquo When the whole context of Scripture is considered it is evident that the words spoken by God found in Isaiah and Hosea are very true in a specific sense namely that there is but one Supreme God and one Main Savior This truth does not rule out the existence of lsquogodlike onesrsquo under God (Job 387 Psalms 291 896)

Is it possible to speak of divine beings (ldquogodsrdquo) existing alongside God

Scholar John Macquarrie in Jesus Christ in Modern Thought claims that the Jewish monotheistic culturewould never tolerate the idea of the Logos belonging to a class of divine beings (P 110) Not quite Other scholars have a different view Ernst Haenchen for example claims the opposite in accord with Scripture ldquoIn the period in which the hymn [at John 11] took its rise it was quite possible in Jewishand Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him Phil 26-10 proves thatrdquo (A Commentary on the Gospel of John John 1Transl by Robert W Funk from Das Johannesevangelium Ein Kommentar p 109)

Another source has this to say ldquoOn the other hand it was a matter of general knowledge and one which the Bible itself shares and does not attempt to conceal that recognition and worship have often been extended to others than the Jewish-Christian God and the term lsquogodrsquo or lsquogodsrsquo is used for them

also as are the respective Greek and Hebrew words It is the custom to use a capital letter G for the God of the Jewish- Christian tradition and a small letter for the othersrdquo (Dictionary of the Bible JamesHastings Revised Edition 1963 Page 333 Grant amp Rowley Charles Scribners Sons New York)

Lets briefly look at how the Bible itself employs the words for ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture At Exodus 71 we read that God made a man Moses ldquoa godrdquo (Hebrew elohim) before Pharaoh God said to Moses ldquoSee I have made thee a god [Others ldquoa Godrdquo ldquoGodrdquo] to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophetrdquo Would this mean then that Moses himself did become an intrinsic part of the Great Divinity by the mere fact of him being called ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo by the Lord Jehovah himself Of coursenot Other translations clarify the meaning of ldquoGodrdquo used here by the LORD The English Standard Version expresses it this way ldquoSee I have made you like God to Pharaohrdquo And the International Standard Version has the LORD saying ldquoListen Ive put you in the role of God to Pharaohrdquo

And in Exodus 416 God making reference to Aaron tells Moses ldquoYou shall be as God to himrdquo (ESV NAB Hebrew lelohim ldquoas Godrdquo Darby ldquoGodrdquo Leeser ldquoa Godrdquo LXX theon ldquoGodrdquo Vulgate Deum)rdquo Moses was simply given a powerful role as Gods emissary who represented his will In Psalm 456 a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) when he became lsquoking of Israelrsquo was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo Obviously this human king was not in fact the One True God Neither was he a false God as trinitarian reasonings would lead one to believe Simply put Solomons throne was ldquodivinerdquo in the sense that he represented God in a position of authority over others

In the Scriptures we find that Jesus is described in Isaiah 96 as ldquoMighty Godrdquo and as ldquoSon of Godrdquo in other places (John 134) What about angels What do we call them Humans Not Angels are in nature heavenly beings closer to God than to men They are powerful divine spirits that reflect Gods glory and Godship They are ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 16) They are ldquogodsrdquo themselves What do we call aldquosonrdquo of a ldquohumanrdquo This ldquosonrdquo is himself a ldquohumanrdquo is he not Just as there is a family of human beings sharing ldquohumanityrdquo there is also a family of celestial beings yes ldquodivine beingsrdquo or ldquogodsrdquo sharing ldquodivinityrdquo A ldquosonrdquo of ldquoGodrdquo is ldquoa godrdquo or a lsquoreflectionrsquo of God Or it could simply refer to ldquoOne who shares a close relationship with Godrdquo (The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary) Notwithstanding the expression ldquoson of Godrdquo is never synonymous with God ( Some argue that the expression ldquoAlmightyrdquo in Revelation 18 applies to Christ but there is no concrete evidence for the claim)

Psalm 821 tells us that ldquoGod standeth in the congregation of the mighty [Brenton ldquogodsrdquo] he judgeth among the godsrdquo The Syriac Peshitta here has ldquoangelsrdquo instead of ldquogodsrdquo while Tanakh has ldquodivine beingsrdquo The Targums offer the alternate reading of ldquojudgesrdquo Whether we apply the term ldquogodsrdquo in verse one of this psalm (Psalm 821) to angels or human judges as Gods representatives (as in verse 6) as the Targums do it still proves that in the Bible other living beings other than God Almighty are spoken of as ldquogodsrdquo or ldquosons of Godrdquo with no hint of polytheism by such use The Andrews Study Bible explains under Psalm 821 ldquogods Term designates earthly rulers leaders mighty ones judges andor princes (v 7) who were Gods representatives and whose work was divinely appointed (Ex 2228 Deut 117 1618 2 Chr 196 compare with Heb 137)rdquo And The NIV Study Bible has this footnote on Psalm 821 ldquogods See v 6 In the language of the OTmdashand in accordance with the conceptual world of the ancient Near Eastmdashrulers and judges as deputies of the heavenly King could be given the honorific title lsquogodrsquo [hellip] or be called lsquoson of Godrsquo []rdquo See also the Psalm 821 footnotes of The Believers Study Bible The Wesley Bible and the HCSB Study Bible

Mighty angels and powerful human rulers or judges called ldquogodsrdquo in Scripture were considered ldquodivinerdquo or ldquogodlikerdquo when they acted on behalf of God As the Lord told Moses ldquoI will make you seem like God to Pharaohrdquo (Exodus 71 NLT) Even people of biblical times used the term ldquoGodrdquo freely in reference to powerful human leaders or people who displayed ldquosupernaturalrdquo feats Acts 1222informs us that when king Herod gave a public speech in royal robes the crowd cheered him on shouting ldquoIt is the voice of a god and not of a manrdquo On another occasion the people of a small island called Paul theos that is ldquoa godrdquo when they witnessed his superhuman powers (Acts 286 Compare with Acts 1411) With this information at hand Robert Young a master of various ancient languages concluded ldquoGodmdashis used of any one (professedly) mighty whether truly so or not and is applied not only to the true God but to false gods Magistratesjudges angels prophets etc eg Ex 71 John 11 1033 34 35 2028 rdquo ndash Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible Eerdmans Publ 1978

Then why do religious writers out there act like no one but God can be referred to as ldquodivinerdquo or ldquoa godrdquo For them anyone else but the true God is a false god They are confining themselves within a box with the Scriptural context of Isaiah chapter 43 44 and 45 discussed above where they refuse to seethe term ldquogodrdquo being used elsewhere in Scripture in a more broadly manner than their biased narrowed definition allows them to In fact even Satan is called ldquothe god [Gr ὁ θεὸς] of this worldrdquo because he actually lsquorulesrsquo this wicked world by the power he exerts over mankind (2 Cor 44 John 1231 1 John 519) Was calling Satan ldquothe god of this worldrdquo meant to promote polytheism Thus the original words for ldquogodrdquo of themselves do not signal whether a god is true or false With some exceptions the Inspired Scriptures commonly affixes the definite article (ldquotherdquo) before the word ldquoGodrdquo to distinguish the Supreme God from other gods This holds true for both the Hebrew and Greek Bible portions

It is clear from the biblical record that in ancient Jewish culture people saw no problem speaking of ldquodivine beingsrdquo under the Supreme God To them it was not exclusively a matter of whether they were true or false ldquogodsrdquo In their cultural mindset the term ldquogodsrdquo when applied positively to others beside the Most High God meant that they were powerful representatives of God whether it was Christ spokenof angels or human judges When speaking of powerful heavenly beings in glory the term ldquosons of Godrdquo was fully acceptable There is no record of Jesus displaying any feelings of disgust when claiming he was ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 1036 NIV) Why should we then

Hence anyone else other than God labeled ldquogodrdquo in Scripture in a positive light are simply divine beings created in the image of the True God belonging to the heavenly family of ldquogodlikerdquo ones The term ldquogodrdquo may also be Scripturally used to describe human beings holding a position of power and authority when appointed by God When the term is used this way polytheism is not an issue

What about the Christ

At John 1033-36 Christ himself appealed to Psalm 82 where the term ldquogodsrdquo was applied to persons other than God Jesus was refuting the charge of blasphemy that he was making himself ldquoGgodrdquo as invalid because he was only claiming to be not God but ldquoGods Sonrdquo which is totally different Jesus had an excellent opportunity here to claim once and for all that he was ldquoGodrdquo but once again he did not do so Jesus Christ holds a much higher position than any angel or man but is still subordinate to his Father God (1 Corinthians 113 Hebrews 32 Colossians 13)

Angels were made subject to Christ after he himself was placed at Gods right hand (1 Peter 322) Although both angels and Christ are described as lsquosons of Godrsquo only Jesus Christ is distinctively called

ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo according to some manuscripts (John 118 Murdock Noyes Concordant Literal Version) Or ldquothe one-begotten Godrdquo (Etheridge) The Word Study Greek-English New Testament describes the Logos as the ldquoonly born Godrdquo (John 118 Paul R McReynolds) Only Christ is called ldquothe firstborn of all creationrdquo a term never used for the lsquoSuperiorityrsquo of God or the holy spirit (Colossians 115) Could Trinitarians ever answer the following question If Christ was not created as some claim who then was the first creation by God Also who is ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo Surely someone lsquocreated firstrsquo in the universe would be honored with the title lsquothe firstborn of all creationrsquo Is there any other way to express such event The Bible simply points to Christ as such of which is said ldquoThese things saith the Amen the faithful and true witness the beginning of the creation of Godrdquo Whatdoes lsquothe beginning of Gods creationrsquo really mean Another Bible translation puts it this way ldquoThe one who is in the origin of things created by God [El que estaacute en el origen de las cosas creadas por Dios]rdquo (Biblia de Ameacuterica approved by various Episcopalian dioceses in Central and South America Casa de la Biblia Madrid) No ldquomysteryrdquo here Its that simple

Could there be any ldquosaviorrdquo other than God

The Sovereign Lord God is the main Savior but he may allow others to act as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo on his behalf in certain situations We find that the term is applied to Christ as the prime agent of salvation (2 Peter 220 1 John 414 Titus 14) We are told that men too like Othniel and Ehud were used as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo of their people (Judges 216 3915 Hebrew moshia same word used for God at Isaiah Compare with Isaiah 452 Hebrew u˙moshia Nehemiah 927 Hebrew moshiim plural of moshia) Would this mean then that those men called ldquosaviorsrdquo in Scripture form a part of the Supreme Divinity No there is a better explanation as found in the NIV

The NIV Study Bible has this to say of Israels leaders or judges ldquoTheir principal purpose is best expressed in [Judges] 216 lsquoThen the LORD raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of hellip raidersrsquo Since it was God who permitted the oppressions and raised up deliverers [saviors] he himself was Israels ultimate Judge and Deliverer [Savior] (1127 see 823 where Gideon a judge insists that the Lord is Israels true rulerrdquo (p 325) The Bible uses the same original words (ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo) for God Christ and men Does it mean they all are the same person or co-equal The context then iswhat determines the correct application for each occurrence of those terms

Who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo

In contrast to others who were called ldquosaviorsrdquo of the people of Israel Jesus is called ldquoSavior of the worldrdquo Jesus can potentially save not only Israel but all of mankind from bondage to sin and from death itself (John 316 1 John 414) Although Christ is undoubtedly a greater Savior than any man heis still subject to the Grandest Savior of all (Isaiah 4311 Acts 412 1 Corinthians 1528) Christ himself came to be in a situation where he had to cry out with a loud voice for salvation Right before his death he implored ldquoMy God my God why hast thou forsaken merdquo He had to be saved by God (Matthew 2746 Hebrews 57 Psalm 288)

Acts 531 tells us who was the One who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquoGod exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israelrdquo (NRSV) According to this scripture whatever capacity Jesus had as ldquosaviorrdquo was due to God To insist that Jesus is ldquoGodrdquo because of his description as ldquosaviorrdquo then we could reason all the same that men such as Othniel and Ehud were alsoldquoGodrdquo because they too were called saviors Overall ldquocontextrdquo should be the guiding principle for the

right comprehension of biblical terms

Jesus as ldquoSon of manrdquo

Jesus made reference to himself in the Gospels nearly 80 times as ldquothe Son of manrdquo an expression indicating he was truly a ldquomanrdquo while on earth not a God-man (Matthew 820 etc) According to Hebrews 29 Jesus ldquowas made a little lower than the angelsrdquo so he could taste death for everyone God cannot ever become ldquolower than the angelsrdquo he created John 114 tells us that it was lsquothe Word who became fleshrsquo not God The doctrine of the ldquoincarnationrdquo as commonly taught actually twists the meaning of John 114 because the text does not say at all that lsquoGod became fleshrsquo Instead it says ldquothe Wordrdquo did Plain and simple 2 John 7 only confirms this In other words the Logos Jesus Christ became ldquohumanrdquo or ldquoa human beingrdquo One scripture often misused to prove that God was made flesh is 1 Timothy 316 but this text did not originally say ldquoGod was manifest in the fleshrdquo as it reads in a few Bible versions since such reading is defective Other translations of the Bible have corrected this error in translation saying instead ldquoHe [or ldquoWhordquo] was manifested in the fleshrdquo allowing for lsquoChrist as the One being manifested in the fleshrsquo For a consideration of 1 Tim 316 see httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

In an effort to simplify the meaning of the expression ldquoSon of manrdquo in reference to Christ in our culture a modern Bible version used the expression ldquothe Human Onerdquo repeatedly (Common English Bible) ldquoThe general use of lsquoson of manrsquo occurs in poetic texts in which the phrase functions as a synonym for lsquomanrsquo or lsquohuman beingrsquo rdquo (The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary) The NIV at Daniel 713 confirms the meaning of the expression ldquoson of manrdquo in a footnote ldquoThe Aramaic phrase bar enash [son of man]means human being The phrase son of man is retained here because of its use in the New Testament as a title of Jesus probably based largely on this verserdquo (2011 Edition) The apostle was very familiar withthis much used expression of Jesus If ldquoSon of manrdquo meant he was a ldquohuman beingrdquo on earth then John would use the similar expression a son of God (or Gods Son) in a way humans would naturally understand it That is lsquoof divine originrsquo (ldquoa godrdquo) without any foreign trinitarian speculation of a later era which Jesus disciples were unaware of (John 1033-36) Jesus divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship As noted the expression may also refer to lsquoone who shares a close relationship with Godrsquo As future co-heirs in the kingdom of Christ human creatures too are designated as ldquosons of Godrdquo but never become identical to the Sovereign God Again polytheism is not an issue here No need to make this into a ldquomysteryrdquo

Why does the Bible speak sometimes as if Jesus Christ himself was ldquoGodrdquo

The Jewish nation already believed and sought lsquoto honorrsquo the Father of Abraham Isaac and Jacob This monotheistic culture adhered to the Mosaic Law as they worshiped the true God But many prophecies which appeared in the Hebrew code identified the Messiah as lsquoemancipatorrsquo of their bondage to sin Themajority of the Jews where hoping the foretold Messiah would rescue them from the Roman yoke Instead of getting involved in earthly politics Jesus repeatedly spoke of lsquoGods kingdomrsquo hence comparatively few exercised faith in him In contrast to the few who believed in Jesus as being ldquosentrdquo by God the majority of Jews could look no further from the man they considered their Father AbrahamThey were blind in their self-sufficiency

There was thus an urgent need to communicate to the Jewish people that exercising faith in Christ was essential to their salvation But how would one do that To start by making them see that Jesus Christ

ldquoGodrdquo or may simply feel that the message conveyed by the original Greek language (as demonstrated by the 7 samples above) demands a different translation at John 11c Some would have you believe that only a few insane unschooled translators with diabolical intentions would ever attempt to deviate from the traditionalist reading That is not simply true I believe most translators offering a different version of John 11 are most sincere in their effort to get to the core of the Greek meaning and to adequately transmit the intended message of the biblical author The submitted list of alternate readings at the end is not intended to be a complete list but to show a variety of renderings and viewpoints Keep in mind too that because of its theological significance other Scriptures do not have as many variant translation renderings as this one does

________________________________________

A careful review of the alternate readings list of John 11 and other related material at the end of the article would lead to this question Could anyone legitimately exclude as a valid option the rendering ldquoagodrdquo found in some Bible versions We have seen that grammar alone cannot condemn the use of such translation though many will keep trying Seven examples were provided which clearly show how translators render predicate nouns without the article occurring before the verb In addition note that these seven examples make reference to one person or one thing while John 11 is speaking of ldquotwordquo entities With greater reason then translators should render this grammatical structure in John 11c in away that brings out the indefinite-qualitative aspect rather than convey identification with the Supreme God

A Grammar states ldquoJohn was not saying that lsquothe word was the Fatherrsquo but that lsquothe word was God (divine)rsquordquo (Gramaacutetica Griega-Sintaxis del Nuevo Testamento [Greek Grammar-Syntax of the NT] by Daniel B Wallace amp Daniel S Steffen Parentheses theirs p 182) Consequently if the translation ldquothe word was Godrdquo must be understood in the adjectival sense as ldquodivinerdquo why not translate it that way Itis therefore reasonable to make a distinction between the term ldquotheosrdquo with and without the article here

In all the more accurate Bible translations do make a distinction between ldquotheosrdquo (God) with and without the article in John 11 Does yours Some argue that John did not have to employ the article before the second instance of ldquotheosrdquo to imply that the Word was ldquoGodrdquo Do you believe that If so why then was the Greek article used with the nominal predicate before the verb in John 151 which literally says ldquoThe father of me the farmer isrdquo And in John 651 ldquoThe bread but which I shall give the flesh of me isrdquo It is evident that Bible writers usually employed the article with specific intention and when they omitted it it was equally significant as well

Is it not better to just follow along with the majority view and thus free oneself from religious tension that may accompany those who sustain a minority view First of all it is dangerous to adopt a majority view if this one is in error A majority view held by ldquoscholarsrdquo of itself does not automatically make a matter ldquotruerdquo Why Because scholars are not infallible nor immune to human tradition Were they in Jesus day They were not Scholars today may find themselves in error just as many scribes were in Jesus day as Matthew chapter 23 clearly demonstrate (Matthew 159) We are warned that ldquothe whole world lies under the power of the evil onerdquo (1 John 519 New Revised Standard Bible) We should not dismiss ldquoreligionrdquo as being beyond the reach or interest of Satan We all need to be in guard of evil influence at all times being careful of not becoming ldquostone-blindrdquo by ldquothe god of this worldrdquo (2 Cor 44 The Message) Again a majority view does not always represent the truth Thus the doctrinal foundation for Christians should be based not on what the majority believe but rather on what the Bible

itself teaches

What does the Bible really say about Jesus Christ

Simply put Jesus is ldquoSon of Godrdquo not ldquoGod the Sonrdquo (Luke 135 NRSV) There is a vast difference in meaning between those two expressions There are more than two hundred references (200x) in the New Testament that explicitly declare that Jesus Christ is the ldquoSon of Godrdquo or that lsquoGod is the Father of Jesus Christrsquo (For a list of instances see The Preachers Outline and Sermon Bible ldquoJohnrdquo p 27) Yet Christendom prefers to dwell on a handful of texts which are said to describe Jesus as God None of those texts are explicit in declaring Jesus equality with God In Scripture Jesus place in the broad picture is one of sonship that is as Son of God not God Furthermore the word ldquosonrdquo is never used to describe God or the ldquoholy spiritrdquo

Christ is also described as ldquothe image of the invisible God [not God] the firstborn of all creationrdquo (Colossians 115) the ldquomediator between God and menrdquo (1 Timothy 25) Yes it is possible to spin these clear statements to make them say something else but is this what we seek One who plays the role of ldquomediatorrdquo cannot in the name of justice be one and the same person as one of the two parts that he is said to represent Otherwise such individual could not be truly impartial in his judgment Moses as a separate entity was able to really serve as ldquomediatorrdquo between God and Israel Now if Jesus the greater Moses was really one-and-the-same ldquoGodrdquo what ldquojusticerdquo could he convey acting as ldquomediatorrdquo between himself and mankind But no Jesus spoke of his Father as ldquomy Godrdquo and as lsquothe God of everyone elsersquo (John 2017) It was this God (ldquothe only Godrdquo John 544 NKJV NIV) according to Jesus himself who lsquorevealedrsquo things to Christ (Mark 1332 Revelation 11) Any statementwhich says that lsquoGod gave Jesus Christ a revelationrsquo would sound very odd to anyone taught to believe that Christ is the equal of God in every sense Scripture calls Christ ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 1913) And the record shows that it was this Word who was ldquowith God in the beginning not that he was ldquoGodrdquo but like God (Others render ldquoa Godrdquo ldquodivinerdquo - Tomanek Schonfield Heb 13)

Bible writers always speak of Jesus Christ in a subordinate role as in Ephesians 13 ldquoBlessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christrdquo 1 Corinthians 1528 ldquoThe Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him [God] who put all things in subjection to him that God may be all in allrdquo (Darby) In Colossians 31 we read ldquoKeep on seeking the things above where Christ is seated at the right hand of Godrdquo (Williams) Jesus himself made it clear to others ldquoI seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which hath sent merdquo (John 530)

Do Scriptures allow for a secondary sense of the words ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo

In the Scriptures the term lsquogodrsquo has various connotations and cannot be narrowed to one single meaning as some try to do A few scholars sustain that the notion of Jesus Christ as ldquoa godrdquo as if there were other gods beside God is incompatible with Jewish ldquomonotheismrdquo which is the belief in only one God and that it implies polytheism Nevertheless the concept itself that God as an entity is composed of three coequal persons runs counter with Jewish monotheism ldquoThe Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheismrdquo so states the Jewish Encyclopedia (ldquoTrinityrdquo) The teaching of the ldquoShemardquo consisted as has been noted in that ldquoJehovah our God is one Jehovahrdquo (Deuteronomy 64 ASV) What purpose would there be for the ldquoShemardquo to stress that Jehovah is ldquoonerdquo and then confound the matter by stating that that

must mean the Divine One is ldquothree personsrdquo in ldquoonerdquo It is explained frequently that the teaching of theTrinity is a ldquomysteryrdquo The problem with such reasoning is that nowhere does Scripture gives us reason to believe in such a concept It is possible that a person who has been exposed to this doctrine for a long time may see ldquoinsinuationsrdquo of it in the Bible However those individuals must in sincerity ask themselves whether their belief is based on ldquofactsrdquo or instead on emotional ldquofancyrdquo

Certain Scriptures are frequently cited as proof by supporters of the Trinity doctrine that Christ is God Isaiah 446 and Hosea 134 are two such Scriptures which have God Jehovah saying ldquoI am the first and I am the last and beside me there is no Godrdquo ldquoAnd thou shalt know no god but me for there is nosavior [Hebrew עע שהש םי beside merdquo These words are strictly taken literally out of their [(u˙moshia) וומוsetting to mean that there can be no ldquogodrdquo or ldquosaviorrdquo but God almighty In the context in which these words were pronounced Israel Gods people were inclined to worship vain hand-made idols (Isaiah 4217) Hence Gods warning in Isaiah and Hosea People brought up in trinitarian dogma tend to restrict the meaning of the term ldquoGodrdquo to those statements found within the context of Isaiah and Hosea leading them to the conclusion that anyone other than the True God must be a ldquofalserdquo god They define the word God within the context of modern trinitarian mentality instead of ancient Scriptural doctrine Trinitarians reason that if the appellative ldquoGodrdquo is applied to Jesus Christ then reasonably Jesus could be no other than the Lord God himself

However such trinitarian reasonings are missing an important element It has to do with the fact that the word ldquogodrdquo can be applied to others since the term itself seems to be related to someone with power and authority The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explains ldquoThis word [rsquoelōhicircm] can in fact be used for other gods (Gen 3130) and even for men (cf Ex 416 71 cf BDB p43)The derivation [of rsquoelōhicircm] is obscure but the implied sense seems to be that of strength or authorityrdquo (Vol II pg 497 italics added) The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words says ldquoThe word itself [אא ל (rsquoēl) Hebrew word for God] derives from a root term meaning lsquopowerrsquo lsquostrengthrsquo orlsquomightrsquo (Stephen D Renn p 439) And the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible states ldquoCommon to these four suggested root meanings [of El God] is the idea of strength power and of supreme excellence and greatnessrdquo (Vol 1 p 881) This may explain why various Bible versions at John 11c describe the Logos as ldquoa powerful divine beingrdquo or the like instead of saying ldquoGodrdquo When the whole context of Scripture is considered it is evident that the words spoken by God found in Isaiah and Hosea are very true in a specific sense namely that there is but one Supreme God and one Main Savior This truth does not rule out the existence of lsquogodlike onesrsquo under God (Job 387 Psalms 291 896)

Is it possible to speak of divine beings (ldquogodsrdquo) existing alongside God

Scholar John Macquarrie in Jesus Christ in Modern Thought claims that the Jewish monotheistic culturewould never tolerate the idea of the Logos belonging to a class of divine beings (P 110) Not quite Other scholars have a different view Ernst Haenchen for example claims the opposite in accord with Scripture ldquoIn the period in which the hymn [at John 11] took its rise it was quite possible in Jewishand Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him Phil 26-10 proves thatrdquo (A Commentary on the Gospel of John John 1Transl by Robert W Funk from Das Johannesevangelium Ein Kommentar p 109)

Another source has this to say ldquoOn the other hand it was a matter of general knowledge and one which the Bible itself shares and does not attempt to conceal that recognition and worship have often been extended to others than the Jewish-Christian God and the term lsquogodrsquo or lsquogodsrsquo is used for them

also as are the respective Greek and Hebrew words It is the custom to use a capital letter G for the God of the Jewish- Christian tradition and a small letter for the othersrdquo (Dictionary of the Bible JamesHastings Revised Edition 1963 Page 333 Grant amp Rowley Charles Scribners Sons New York)

Lets briefly look at how the Bible itself employs the words for ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture At Exodus 71 we read that God made a man Moses ldquoa godrdquo (Hebrew elohim) before Pharaoh God said to Moses ldquoSee I have made thee a god [Others ldquoa Godrdquo ldquoGodrdquo] to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophetrdquo Would this mean then that Moses himself did become an intrinsic part of the Great Divinity by the mere fact of him being called ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo by the Lord Jehovah himself Of coursenot Other translations clarify the meaning of ldquoGodrdquo used here by the LORD The English Standard Version expresses it this way ldquoSee I have made you like God to Pharaohrdquo And the International Standard Version has the LORD saying ldquoListen Ive put you in the role of God to Pharaohrdquo

And in Exodus 416 God making reference to Aaron tells Moses ldquoYou shall be as God to himrdquo (ESV NAB Hebrew lelohim ldquoas Godrdquo Darby ldquoGodrdquo Leeser ldquoa Godrdquo LXX theon ldquoGodrdquo Vulgate Deum)rdquo Moses was simply given a powerful role as Gods emissary who represented his will In Psalm 456 a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) when he became lsquoking of Israelrsquo was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo Obviously this human king was not in fact the One True God Neither was he a false God as trinitarian reasonings would lead one to believe Simply put Solomons throne was ldquodivinerdquo in the sense that he represented God in a position of authority over others

In the Scriptures we find that Jesus is described in Isaiah 96 as ldquoMighty Godrdquo and as ldquoSon of Godrdquo in other places (John 134) What about angels What do we call them Humans Not Angels are in nature heavenly beings closer to God than to men They are powerful divine spirits that reflect Gods glory and Godship They are ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 16) They are ldquogodsrdquo themselves What do we call aldquosonrdquo of a ldquohumanrdquo This ldquosonrdquo is himself a ldquohumanrdquo is he not Just as there is a family of human beings sharing ldquohumanityrdquo there is also a family of celestial beings yes ldquodivine beingsrdquo or ldquogodsrdquo sharing ldquodivinityrdquo A ldquosonrdquo of ldquoGodrdquo is ldquoa godrdquo or a lsquoreflectionrsquo of God Or it could simply refer to ldquoOne who shares a close relationship with Godrdquo (The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary) Notwithstanding the expression ldquoson of Godrdquo is never synonymous with God ( Some argue that the expression ldquoAlmightyrdquo in Revelation 18 applies to Christ but there is no concrete evidence for the claim)

Psalm 821 tells us that ldquoGod standeth in the congregation of the mighty [Brenton ldquogodsrdquo] he judgeth among the godsrdquo The Syriac Peshitta here has ldquoangelsrdquo instead of ldquogodsrdquo while Tanakh has ldquodivine beingsrdquo The Targums offer the alternate reading of ldquojudgesrdquo Whether we apply the term ldquogodsrdquo in verse one of this psalm (Psalm 821) to angels or human judges as Gods representatives (as in verse 6) as the Targums do it still proves that in the Bible other living beings other than God Almighty are spoken of as ldquogodsrdquo or ldquosons of Godrdquo with no hint of polytheism by such use The Andrews Study Bible explains under Psalm 821 ldquogods Term designates earthly rulers leaders mighty ones judges andor princes (v 7) who were Gods representatives and whose work was divinely appointed (Ex 2228 Deut 117 1618 2 Chr 196 compare with Heb 137)rdquo And The NIV Study Bible has this footnote on Psalm 821 ldquogods See v 6 In the language of the OTmdashand in accordance with the conceptual world of the ancient Near Eastmdashrulers and judges as deputies of the heavenly King could be given the honorific title lsquogodrsquo [hellip] or be called lsquoson of Godrsquo []rdquo See also the Psalm 821 footnotes of The Believers Study Bible The Wesley Bible and the HCSB Study Bible

Mighty angels and powerful human rulers or judges called ldquogodsrdquo in Scripture were considered ldquodivinerdquo or ldquogodlikerdquo when they acted on behalf of God As the Lord told Moses ldquoI will make you seem like God to Pharaohrdquo (Exodus 71 NLT) Even people of biblical times used the term ldquoGodrdquo freely in reference to powerful human leaders or people who displayed ldquosupernaturalrdquo feats Acts 1222informs us that when king Herod gave a public speech in royal robes the crowd cheered him on shouting ldquoIt is the voice of a god and not of a manrdquo On another occasion the people of a small island called Paul theos that is ldquoa godrdquo when they witnessed his superhuman powers (Acts 286 Compare with Acts 1411) With this information at hand Robert Young a master of various ancient languages concluded ldquoGodmdashis used of any one (professedly) mighty whether truly so or not and is applied not only to the true God but to false gods Magistratesjudges angels prophets etc eg Ex 71 John 11 1033 34 35 2028 rdquo ndash Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible Eerdmans Publ 1978

Then why do religious writers out there act like no one but God can be referred to as ldquodivinerdquo or ldquoa godrdquo For them anyone else but the true God is a false god They are confining themselves within a box with the Scriptural context of Isaiah chapter 43 44 and 45 discussed above where they refuse to seethe term ldquogodrdquo being used elsewhere in Scripture in a more broadly manner than their biased narrowed definition allows them to In fact even Satan is called ldquothe god [Gr ὁ θεὸς] of this worldrdquo because he actually lsquorulesrsquo this wicked world by the power he exerts over mankind (2 Cor 44 John 1231 1 John 519) Was calling Satan ldquothe god of this worldrdquo meant to promote polytheism Thus the original words for ldquogodrdquo of themselves do not signal whether a god is true or false With some exceptions the Inspired Scriptures commonly affixes the definite article (ldquotherdquo) before the word ldquoGodrdquo to distinguish the Supreme God from other gods This holds true for both the Hebrew and Greek Bible portions

It is clear from the biblical record that in ancient Jewish culture people saw no problem speaking of ldquodivine beingsrdquo under the Supreme God To them it was not exclusively a matter of whether they were true or false ldquogodsrdquo In their cultural mindset the term ldquogodsrdquo when applied positively to others beside the Most High God meant that they were powerful representatives of God whether it was Christ spokenof angels or human judges When speaking of powerful heavenly beings in glory the term ldquosons of Godrdquo was fully acceptable There is no record of Jesus displaying any feelings of disgust when claiming he was ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 1036 NIV) Why should we then

Hence anyone else other than God labeled ldquogodrdquo in Scripture in a positive light are simply divine beings created in the image of the True God belonging to the heavenly family of ldquogodlikerdquo ones The term ldquogodrdquo may also be Scripturally used to describe human beings holding a position of power and authority when appointed by God When the term is used this way polytheism is not an issue

What about the Christ

At John 1033-36 Christ himself appealed to Psalm 82 where the term ldquogodsrdquo was applied to persons other than God Jesus was refuting the charge of blasphemy that he was making himself ldquoGgodrdquo as invalid because he was only claiming to be not God but ldquoGods Sonrdquo which is totally different Jesus had an excellent opportunity here to claim once and for all that he was ldquoGodrdquo but once again he did not do so Jesus Christ holds a much higher position than any angel or man but is still subordinate to his Father God (1 Corinthians 113 Hebrews 32 Colossians 13)

Angels were made subject to Christ after he himself was placed at Gods right hand (1 Peter 322) Although both angels and Christ are described as lsquosons of Godrsquo only Jesus Christ is distinctively called

ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo according to some manuscripts (John 118 Murdock Noyes Concordant Literal Version) Or ldquothe one-begotten Godrdquo (Etheridge) The Word Study Greek-English New Testament describes the Logos as the ldquoonly born Godrdquo (John 118 Paul R McReynolds) Only Christ is called ldquothe firstborn of all creationrdquo a term never used for the lsquoSuperiorityrsquo of God or the holy spirit (Colossians 115) Could Trinitarians ever answer the following question If Christ was not created as some claim who then was the first creation by God Also who is ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo Surely someone lsquocreated firstrsquo in the universe would be honored with the title lsquothe firstborn of all creationrsquo Is there any other way to express such event The Bible simply points to Christ as such of which is said ldquoThese things saith the Amen the faithful and true witness the beginning of the creation of Godrdquo Whatdoes lsquothe beginning of Gods creationrsquo really mean Another Bible translation puts it this way ldquoThe one who is in the origin of things created by God [El que estaacute en el origen de las cosas creadas por Dios]rdquo (Biblia de Ameacuterica approved by various Episcopalian dioceses in Central and South America Casa de la Biblia Madrid) No ldquomysteryrdquo here Its that simple

Could there be any ldquosaviorrdquo other than God

The Sovereign Lord God is the main Savior but he may allow others to act as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo on his behalf in certain situations We find that the term is applied to Christ as the prime agent of salvation (2 Peter 220 1 John 414 Titus 14) We are told that men too like Othniel and Ehud were used as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo of their people (Judges 216 3915 Hebrew moshia same word used for God at Isaiah Compare with Isaiah 452 Hebrew u˙moshia Nehemiah 927 Hebrew moshiim plural of moshia) Would this mean then that those men called ldquosaviorsrdquo in Scripture form a part of the Supreme Divinity No there is a better explanation as found in the NIV

The NIV Study Bible has this to say of Israels leaders or judges ldquoTheir principal purpose is best expressed in [Judges] 216 lsquoThen the LORD raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of hellip raidersrsquo Since it was God who permitted the oppressions and raised up deliverers [saviors] he himself was Israels ultimate Judge and Deliverer [Savior] (1127 see 823 where Gideon a judge insists that the Lord is Israels true rulerrdquo (p 325) The Bible uses the same original words (ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo) for God Christ and men Does it mean they all are the same person or co-equal The context then iswhat determines the correct application for each occurrence of those terms

Who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo

In contrast to others who were called ldquosaviorsrdquo of the people of Israel Jesus is called ldquoSavior of the worldrdquo Jesus can potentially save not only Israel but all of mankind from bondage to sin and from death itself (John 316 1 John 414) Although Christ is undoubtedly a greater Savior than any man heis still subject to the Grandest Savior of all (Isaiah 4311 Acts 412 1 Corinthians 1528) Christ himself came to be in a situation where he had to cry out with a loud voice for salvation Right before his death he implored ldquoMy God my God why hast thou forsaken merdquo He had to be saved by God (Matthew 2746 Hebrews 57 Psalm 288)

Acts 531 tells us who was the One who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquoGod exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israelrdquo (NRSV) According to this scripture whatever capacity Jesus had as ldquosaviorrdquo was due to God To insist that Jesus is ldquoGodrdquo because of his description as ldquosaviorrdquo then we could reason all the same that men such as Othniel and Ehud were alsoldquoGodrdquo because they too were called saviors Overall ldquocontextrdquo should be the guiding principle for the

right comprehension of biblical terms

Jesus as ldquoSon of manrdquo

Jesus made reference to himself in the Gospels nearly 80 times as ldquothe Son of manrdquo an expression indicating he was truly a ldquomanrdquo while on earth not a God-man (Matthew 820 etc) According to Hebrews 29 Jesus ldquowas made a little lower than the angelsrdquo so he could taste death for everyone God cannot ever become ldquolower than the angelsrdquo he created John 114 tells us that it was lsquothe Word who became fleshrsquo not God The doctrine of the ldquoincarnationrdquo as commonly taught actually twists the meaning of John 114 because the text does not say at all that lsquoGod became fleshrsquo Instead it says ldquothe Wordrdquo did Plain and simple 2 John 7 only confirms this In other words the Logos Jesus Christ became ldquohumanrdquo or ldquoa human beingrdquo One scripture often misused to prove that God was made flesh is 1 Timothy 316 but this text did not originally say ldquoGod was manifest in the fleshrdquo as it reads in a few Bible versions since such reading is defective Other translations of the Bible have corrected this error in translation saying instead ldquoHe [or ldquoWhordquo] was manifested in the fleshrdquo allowing for lsquoChrist as the One being manifested in the fleshrsquo For a consideration of 1 Tim 316 see httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

In an effort to simplify the meaning of the expression ldquoSon of manrdquo in reference to Christ in our culture a modern Bible version used the expression ldquothe Human Onerdquo repeatedly (Common English Bible) ldquoThe general use of lsquoson of manrsquo occurs in poetic texts in which the phrase functions as a synonym for lsquomanrsquo or lsquohuman beingrsquo rdquo (The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary) The NIV at Daniel 713 confirms the meaning of the expression ldquoson of manrdquo in a footnote ldquoThe Aramaic phrase bar enash [son of man]means human being The phrase son of man is retained here because of its use in the New Testament as a title of Jesus probably based largely on this verserdquo (2011 Edition) The apostle was very familiar withthis much used expression of Jesus If ldquoSon of manrdquo meant he was a ldquohuman beingrdquo on earth then John would use the similar expression a son of God (or Gods Son) in a way humans would naturally understand it That is lsquoof divine originrsquo (ldquoa godrdquo) without any foreign trinitarian speculation of a later era which Jesus disciples were unaware of (John 1033-36) Jesus divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship As noted the expression may also refer to lsquoone who shares a close relationship with Godrsquo As future co-heirs in the kingdom of Christ human creatures too are designated as ldquosons of Godrdquo but never become identical to the Sovereign God Again polytheism is not an issue here No need to make this into a ldquomysteryrdquo

Why does the Bible speak sometimes as if Jesus Christ himself was ldquoGodrdquo

The Jewish nation already believed and sought lsquoto honorrsquo the Father of Abraham Isaac and Jacob This monotheistic culture adhered to the Mosaic Law as they worshiped the true God But many prophecies which appeared in the Hebrew code identified the Messiah as lsquoemancipatorrsquo of their bondage to sin Themajority of the Jews where hoping the foretold Messiah would rescue them from the Roman yoke Instead of getting involved in earthly politics Jesus repeatedly spoke of lsquoGods kingdomrsquo hence comparatively few exercised faith in him In contrast to the few who believed in Jesus as being ldquosentrdquo by God the majority of Jews could look no further from the man they considered their Father AbrahamThey were blind in their self-sufficiency

There was thus an urgent need to communicate to the Jewish people that exercising faith in Christ was essential to their salvation But how would one do that To start by making them see that Jesus Christ

itself teaches

What does the Bible really say about Jesus Christ

Simply put Jesus is ldquoSon of Godrdquo not ldquoGod the Sonrdquo (Luke 135 NRSV) There is a vast difference in meaning between those two expressions There are more than two hundred references (200x) in the New Testament that explicitly declare that Jesus Christ is the ldquoSon of Godrdquo or that lsquoGod is the Father of Jesus Christrsquo (For a list of instances see The Preachers Outline and Sermon Bible ldquoJohnrdquo p 27) Yet Christendom prefers to dwell on a handful of texts which are said to describe Jesus as God None of those texts are explicit in declaring Jesus equality with God In Scripture Jesus place in the broad picture is one of sonship that is as Son of God not God Furthermore the word ldquosonrdquo is never used to describe God or the ldquoholy spiritrdquo

Christ is also described as ldquothe image of the invisible God [not God] the firstborn of all creationrdquo (Colossians 115) the ldquomediator between God and menrdquo (1 Timothy 25) Yes it is possible to spin these clear statements to make them say something else but is this what we seek One who plays the role of ldquomediatorrdquo cannot in the name of justice be one and the same person as one of the two parts that he is said to represent Otherwise such individual could not be truly impartial in his judgment Moses as a separate entity was able to really serve as ldquomediatorrdquo between God and Israel Now if Jesus the greater Moses was really one-and-the-same ldquoGodrdquo what ldquojusticerdquo could he convey acting as ldquomediatorrdquo between himself and mankind But no Jesus spoke of his Father as ldquomy Godrdquo and as lsquothe God of everyone elsersquo (John 2017) It was this God (ldquothe only Godrdquo John 544 NKJV NIV) according to Jesus himself who lsquorevealedrsquo things to Christ (Mark 1332 Revelation 11) Any statementwhich says that lsquoGod gave Jesus Christ a revelationrsquo would sound very odd to anyone taught to believe that Christ is the equal of God in every sense Scripture calls Christ ldquoThe Word of Godrdquo (Revelation 1913) And the record shows that it was this Word who was ldquowith God in the beginning not that he was ldquoGodrdquo but like God (Others render ldquoa Godrdquo ldquodivinerdquo - Tomanek Schonfield Heb 13)

Bible writers always speak of Jesus Christ in a subordinate role as in Ephesians 13 ldquoBlessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christrdquo 1 Corinthians 1528 ldquoThe Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him [God] who put all things in subjection to him that God may be all in allrdquo (Darby) In Colossians 31 we read ldquoKeep on seeking the things above where Christ is seated at the right hand of Godrdquo (Williams) Jesus himself made it clear to others ldquoI seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which hath sent merdquo (John 530)

Do Scriptures allow for a secondary sense of the words ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo

In the Scriptures the term lsquogodrsquo has various connotations and cannot be narrowed to one single meaning as some try to do A few scholars sustain that the notion of Jesus Christ as ldquoa godrdquo as if there were other gods beside God is incompatible with Jewish ldquomonotheismrdquo which is the belief in only one God and that it implies polytheism Nevertheless the concept itself that God as an entity is composed of three coequal persons runs counter with Jewish monotheism ldquoThe Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheismrdquo so states the Jewish Encyclopedia (ldquoTrinityrdquo) The teaching of the ldquoShemardquo consisted as has been noted in that ldquoJehovah our God is one Jehovahrdquo (Deuteronomy 64 ASV) What purpose would there be for the ldquoShemardquo to stress that Jehovah is ldquoonerdquo and then confound the matter by stating that that

must mean the Divine One is ldquothree personsrdquo in ldquoonerdquo It is explained frequently that the teaching of theTrinity is a ldquomysteryrdquo The problem with such reasoning is that nowhere does Scripture gives us reason to believe in such a concept It is possible that a person who has been exposed to this doctrine for a long time may see ldquoinsinuationsrdquo of it in the Bible However those individuals must in sincerity ask themselves whether their belief is based on ldquofactsrdquo or instead on emotional ldquofancyrdquo

Certain Scriptures are frequently cited as proof by supporters of the Trinity doctrine that Christ is God Isaiah 446 and Hosea 134 are two such Scriptures which have God Jehovah saying ldquoI am the first and I am the last and beside me there is no Godrdquo ldquoAnd thou shalt know no god but me for there is nosavior [Hebrew עע שהש םי beside merdquo These words are strictly taken literally out of their [(u˙moshia) וומוsetting to mean that there can be no ldquogodrdquo or ldquosaviorrdquo but God almighty In the context in which these words were pronounced Israel Gods people were inclined to worship vain hand-made idols (Isaiah 4217) Hence Gods warning in Isaiah and Hosea People brought up in trinitarian dogma tend to restrict the meaning of the term ldquoGodrdquo to those statements found within the context of Isaiah and Hosea leading them to the conclusion that anyone other than the True God must be a ldquofalserdquo god They define the word God within the context of modern trinitarian mentality instead of ancient Scriptural doctrine Trinitarians reason that if the appellative ldquoGodrdquo is applied to Jesus Christ then reasonably Jesus could be no other than the Lord God himself

However such trinitarian reasonings are missing an important element It has to do with the fact that the word ldquogodrdquo can be applied to others since the term itself seems to be related to someone with power and authority The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explains ldquoThis word [rsquoelōhicircm] can in fact be used for other gods (Gen 3130) and even for men (cf Ex 416 71 cf BDB p43)The derivation [of rsquoelōhicircm] is obscure but the implied sense seems to be that of strength or authorityrdquo (Vol II pg 497 italics added) The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words says ldquoThe word itself [אא ל (rsquoēl) Hebrew word for God] derives from a root term meaning lsquopowerrsquo lsquostrengthrsquo orlsquomightrsquo (Stephen D Renn p 439) And the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible states ldquoCommon to these four suggested root meanings [of El God] is the idea of strength power and of supreme excellence and greatnessrdquo (Vol 1 p 881) This may explain why various Bible versions at John 11c describe the Logos as ldquoa powerful divine beingrdquo or the like instead of saying ldquoGodrdquo When the whole context of Scripture is considered it is evident that the words spoken by God found in Isaiah and Hosea are very true in a specific sense namely that there is but one Supreme God and one Main Savior This truth does not rule out the existence of lsquogodlike onesrsquo under God (Job 387 Psalms 291 896)

Is it possible to speak of divine beings (ldquogodsrdquo) existing alongside God

Scholar John Macquarrie in Jesus Christ in Modern Thought claims that the Jewish monotheistic culturewould never tolerate the idea of the Logos belonging to a class of divine beings (P 110) Not quite Other scholars have a different view Ernst Haenchen for example claims the opposite in accord with Scripture ldquoIn the period in which the hymn [at John 11] took its rise it was quite possible in Jewishand Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him Phil 26-10 proves thatrdquo (A Commentary on the Gospel of John John 1Transl by Robert W Funk from Das Johannesevangelium Ein Kommentar p 109)

Another source has this to say ldquoOn the other hand it was a matter of general knowledge and one which the Bible itself shares and does not attempt to conceal that recognition and worship have often been extended to others than the Jewish-Christian God and the term lsquogodrsquo or lsquogodsrsquo is used for them

also as are the respective Greek and Hebrew words It is the custom to use a capital letter G for the God of the Jewish- Christian tradition and a small letter for the othersrdquo (Dictionary of the Bible JamesHastings Revised Edition 1963 Page 333 Grant amp Rowley Charles Scribners Sons New York)

Lets briefly look at how the Bible itself employs the words for ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture At Exodus 71 we read that God made a man Moses ldquoa godrdquo (Hebrew elohim) before Pharaoh God said to Moses ldquoSee I have made thee a god [Others ldquoa Godrdquo ldquoGodrdquo] to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophetrdquo Would this mean then that Moses himself did become an intrinsic part of the Great Divinity by the mere fact of him being called ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo by the Lord Jehovah himself Of coursenot Other translations clarify the meaning of ldquoGodrdquo used here by the LORD The English Standard Version expresses it this way ldquoSee I have made you like God to Pharaohrdquo And the International Standard Version has the LORD saying ldquoListen Ive put you in the role of God to Pharaohrdquo

And in Exodus 416 God making reference to Aaron tells Moses ldquoYou shall be as God to himrdquo (ESV NAB Hebrew lelohim ldquoas Godrdquo Darby ldquoGodrdquo Leeser ldquoa Godrdquo LXX theon ldquoGodrdquo Vulgate Deum)rdquo Moses was simply given a powerful role as Gods emissary who represented his will In Psalm 456 a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) when he became lsquoking of Israelrsquo was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo Obviously this human king was not in fact the One True God Neither was he a false God as trinitarian reasonings would lead one to believe Simply put Solomons throne was ldquodivinerdquo in the sense that he represented God in a position of authority over others

In the Scriptures we find that Jesus is described in Isaiah 96 as ldquoMighty Godrdquo and as ldquoSon of Godrdquo in other places (John 134) What about angels What do we call them Humans Not Angels are in nature heavenly beings closer to God than to men They are powerful divine spirits that reflect Gods glory and Godship They are ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 16) They are ldquogodsrdquo themselves What do we call aldquosonrdquo of a ldquohumanrdquo This ldquosonrdquo is himself a ldquohumanrdquo is he not Just as there is a family of human beings sharing ldquohumanityrdquo there is also a family of celestial beings yes ldquodivine beingsrdquo or ldquogodsrdquo sharing ldquodivinityrdquo A ldquosonrdquo of ldquoGodrdquo is ldquoa godrdquo or a lsquoreflectionrsquo of God Or it could simply refer to ldquoOne who shares a close relationship with Godrdquo (The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary) Notwithstanding the expression ldquoson of Godrdquo is never synonymous with God ( Some argue that the expression ldquoAlmightyrdquo in Revelation 18 applies to Christ but there is no concrete evidence for the claim)

Psalm 821 tells us that ldquoGod standeth in the congregation of the mighty [Brenton ldquogodsrdquo] he judgeth among the godsrdquo The Syriac Peshitta here has ldquoangelsrdquo instead of ldquogodsrdquo while Tanakh has ldquodivine beingsrdquo The Targums offer the alternate reading of ldquojudgesrdquo Whether we apply the term ldquogodsrdquo in verse one of this psalm (Psalm 821) to angels or human judges as Gods representatives (as in verse 6) as the Targums do it still proves that in the Bible other living beings other than God Almighty are spoken of as ldquogodsrdquo or ldquosons of Godrdquo with no hint of polytheism by such use The Andrews Study Bible explains under Psalm 821 ldquogods Term designates earthly rulers leaders mighty ones judges andor princes (v 7) who were Gods representatives and whose work was divinely appointed (Ex 2228 Deut 117 1618 2 Chr 196 compare with Heb 137)rdquo And The NIV Study Bible has this footnote on Psalm 821 ldquogods See v 6 In the language of the OTmdashand in accordance with the conceptual world of the ancient Near Eastmdashrulers and judges as deputies of the heavenly King could be given the honorific title lsquogodrsquo [hellip] or be called lsquoson of Godrsquo []rdquo See also the Psalm 821 footnotes of The Believers Study Bible The Wesley Bible and the HCSB Study Bible

Mighty angels and powerful human rulers or judges called ldquogodsrdquo in Scripture were considered ldquodivinerdquo or ldquogodlikerdquo when they acted on behalf of God As the Lord told Moses ldquoI will make you seem like God to Pharaohrdquo (Exodus 71 NLT) Even people of biblical times used the term ldquoGodrdquo freely in reference to powerful human leaders or people who displayed ldquosupernaturalrdquo feats Acts 1222informs us that when king Herod gave a public speech in royal robes the crowd cheered him on shouting ldquoIt is the voice of a god and not of a manrdquo On another occasion the people of a small island called Paul theos that is ldquoa godrdquo when they witnessed his superhuman powers (Acts 286 Compare with Acts 1411) With this information at hand Robert Young a master of various ancient languages concluded ldquoGodmdashis used of any one (professedly) mighty whether truly so or not and is applied not only to the true God but to false gods Magistratesjudges angels prophets etc eg Ex 71 John 11 1033 34 35 2028 rdquo ndash Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible Eerdmans Publ 1978

Then why do religious writers out there act like no one but God can be referred to as ldquodivinerdquo or ldquoa godrdquo For them anyone else but the true God is a false god They are confining themselves within a box with the Scriptural context of Isaiah chapter 43 44 and 45 discussed above where they refuse to seethe term ldquogodrdquo being used elsewhere in Scripture in a more broadly manner than their biased narrowed definition allows them to In fact even Satan is called ldquothe god [Gr ὁ θεὸς] of this worldrdquo because he actually lsquorulesrsquo this wicked world by the power he exerts over mankind (2 Cor 44 John 1231 1 John 519) Was calling Satan ldquothe god of this worldrdquo meant to promote polytheism Thus the original words for ldquogodrdquo of themselves do not signal whether a god is true or false With some exceptions the Inspired Scriptures commonly affixes the definite article (ldquotherdquo) before the word ldquoGodrdquo to distinguish the Supreme God from other gods This holds true for both the Hebrew and Greek Bible portions

It is clear from the biblical record that in ancient Jewish culture people saw no problem speaking of ldquodivine beingsrdquo under the Supreme God To them it was not exclusively a matter of whether they were true or false ldquogodsrdquo In their cultural mindset the term ldquogodsrdquo when applied positively to others beside the Most High God meant that they were powerful representatives of God whether it was Christ spokenof angels or human judges When speaking of powerful heavenly beings in glory the term ldquosons of Godrdquo was fully acceptable There is no record of Jesus displaying any feelings of disgust when claiming he was ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 1036 NIV) Why should we then

Hence anyone else other than God labeled ldquogodrdquo in Scripture in a positive light are simply divine beings created in the image of the True God belonging to the heavenly family of ldquogodlikerdquo ones The term ldquogodrdquo may also be Scripturally used to describe human beings holding a position of power and authority when appointed by God When the term is used this way polytheism is not an issue

What about the Christ

At John 1033-36 Christ himself appealed to Psalm 82 where the term ldquogodsrdquo was applied to persons other than God Jesus was refuting the charge of blasphemy that he was making himself ldquoGgodrdquo as invalid because he was only claiming to be not God but ldquoGods Sonrdquo which is totally different Jesus had an excellent opportunity here to claim once and for all that he was ldquoGodrdquo but once again he did not do so Jesus Christ holds a much higher position than any angel or man but is still subordinate to his Father God (1 Corinthians 113 Hebrews 32 Colossians 13)

Angels were made subject to Christ after he himself was placed at Gods right hand (1 Peter 322) Although both angels and Christ are described as lsquosons of Godrsquo only Jesus Christ is distinctively called

ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo according to some manuscripts (John 118 Murdock Noyes Concordant Literal Version) Or ldquothe one-begotten Godrdquo (Etheridge) The Word Study Greek-English New Testament describes the Logos as the ldquoonly born Godrdquo (John 118 Paul R McReynolds) Only Christ is called ldquothe firstborn of all creationrdquo a term never used for the lsquoSuperiorityrsquo of God or the holy spirit (Colossians 115) Could Trinitarians ever answer the following question If Christ was not created as some claim who then was the first creation by God Also who is ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo Surely someone lsquocreated firstrsquo in the universe would be honored with the title lsquothe firstborn of all creationrsquo Is there any other way to express such event The Bible simply points to Christ as such of which is said ldquoThese things saith the Amen the faithful and true witness the beginning of the creation of Godrdquo Whatdoes lsquothe beginning of Gods creationrsquo really mean Another Bible translation puts it this way ldquoThe one who is in the origin of things created by God [El que estaacute en el origen de las cosas creadas por Dios]rdquo (Biblia de Ameacuterica approved by various Episcopalian dioceses in Central and South America Casa de la Biblia Madrid) No ldquomysteryrdquo here Its that simple

Could there be any ldquosaviorrdquo other than God

The Sovereign Lord God is the main Savior but he may allow others to act as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo on his behalf in certain situations We find that the term is applied to Christ as the prime agent of salvation (2 Peter 220 1 John 414 Titus 14) We are told that men too like Othniel and Ehud were used as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo of their people (Judges 216 3915 Hebrew moshia same word used for God at Isaiah Compare with Isaiah 452 Hebrew u˙moshia Nehemiah 927 Hebrew moshiim plural of moshia) Would this mean then that those men called ldquosaviorsrdquo in Scripture form a part of the Supreme Divinity No there is a better explanation as found in the NIV

The NIV Study Bible has this to say of Israels leaders or judges ldquoTheir principal purpose is best expressed in [Judges] 216 lsquoThen the LORD raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of hellip raidersrsquo Since it was God who permitted the oppressions and raised up deliverers [saviors] he himself was Israels ultimate Judge and Deliverer [Savior] (1127 see 823 where Gideon a judge insists that the Lord is Israels true rulerrdquo (p 325) The Bible uses the same original words (ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo) for God Christ and men Does it mean they all are the same person or co-equal The context then iswhat determines the correct application for each occurrence of those terms

Who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo

In contrast to others who were called ldquosaviorsrdquo of the people of Israel Jesus is called ldquoSavior of the worldrdquo Jesus can potentially save not only Israel but all of mankind from bondage to sin and from death itself (John 316 1 John 414) Although Christ is undoubtedly a greater Savior than any man heis still subject to the Grandest Savior of all (Isaiah 4311 Acts 412 1 Corinthians 1528) Christ himself came to be in a situation where he had to cry out with a loud voice for salvation Right before his death he implored ldquoMy God my God why hast thou forsaken merdquo He had to be saved by God (Matthew 2746 Hebrews 57 Psalm 288)

Acts 531 tells us who was the One who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquoGod exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israelrdquo (NRSV) According to this scripture whatever capacity Jesus had as ldquosaviorrdquo was due to God To insist that Jesus is ldquoGodrdquo because of his description as ldquosaviorrdquo then we could reason all the same that men such as Othniel and Ehud were alsoldquoGodrdquo because they too were called saviors Overall ldquocontextrdquo should be the guiding principle for the

right comprehension of biblical terms

Jesus as ldquoSon of manrdquo

Jesus made reference to himself in the Gospels nearly 80 times as ldquothe Son of manrdquo an expression indicating he was truly a ldquomanrdquo while on earth not a God-man (Matthew 820 etc) According to Hebrews 29 Jesus ldquowas made a little lower than the angelsrdquo so he could taste death for everyone God cannot ever become ldquolower than the angelsrdquo he created John 114 tells us that it was lsquothe Word who became fleshrsquo not God The doctrine of the ldquoincarnationrdquo as commonly taught actually twists the meaning of John 114 because the text does not say at all that lsquoGod became fleshrsquo Instead it says ldquothe Wordrdquo did Plain and simple 2 John 7 only confirms this In other words the Logos Jesus Christ became ldquohumanrdquo or ldquoa human beingrdquo One scripture often misused to prove that God was made flesh is 1 Timothy 316 but this text did not originally say ldquoGod was manifest in the fleshrdquo as it reads in a few Bible versions since such reading is defective Other translations of the Bible have corrected this error in translation saying instead ldquoHe [or ldquoWhordquo] was manifested in the fleshrdquo allowing for lsquoChrist as the One being manifested in the fleshrsquo For a consideration of 1 Tim 316 see httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

In an effort to simplify the meaning of the expression ldquoSon of manrdquo in reference to Christ in our culture a modern Bible version used the expression ldquothe Human Onerdquo repeatedly (Common English Bible) ldquoThe general use of lsquoson of manrsquo occurs in poetic texts in which the phrase functions as a synonym for lsquomanrsquo or lsquohuman beingrsquo rdquo (The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary) The NIV at Daniel 713 confirms the meaning of the expression ldquoson of manrdquo in a footnote ldquoThe Aramaic phrase bar enash [son of man]means human being The phrase son of man is retained here because of its use in the New Testament as a title of Jesus probably based largely on this verserdquo (2011 Edition) The apostle was very familiar withthis much used expression of Jesus If ldquoSon of manrdquo meant he was a ldquohuman beingrdquo on earth then John would use the similar expression a son of God (or Gods Son) in a way humans would naturally understand it That is lsquoof divine originrsquo (ldquoa godrdquo) without any foreign trinitarian speculation of a later era which Jesus disciples were unaware of (John 1033-36) Jesus divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship As noted the expression may also refer to lsquoone who shares a close relationship with Godrsquo As future co-heirs in the kingdom of Christ human creatures too are designated as ldquosons of Godrdquo but never become identical to the Sovereign God Again polytheism is not an issue here No need to make this into a ldquomysteryrdquo

Why does the Bible speak sometimes as if Jesus Christ himself was ldquoGodrdquo

The Jewish nation already believed and sought lsquoto honorrsquo the Father of Abraham Isaac and Jacob This monotheistic culture adhered to the Mosaic Law as they worshiped the true God But many prophecies which appeared in the Hebrew code identified the Messiah as lsquoemancipatorrsquo of their bondage to sin Themajority of the Jews where hoping the foretold Messiah would rescue them from the Roman yoke Instead of getting involved in earthly politics Jesus repeatedly spoke of lsquoGods kingdomrsquo hence comparatively few exercised faith in him In contrast to the few who believed in Jesus as being ldquosentrdquo by God the majority of Jews could look no further from the man they considered their Father AbrahamThey were blind in their self-sufficiency

There was thus an urgent need to communicate to the Jewish people that exercising faith in Christ was essential to their salvation But how would one do that To start by making them see that Jesus Christ

must mean the Divine One is ldquothree personsrdquo in ldquoonerdquo It is explained frequently that the teaching of theTrinity is a ldquomysteryrdquo The problem with such reasoning is that nowhere does Scripture gives us reason to believe in such a concept It is possible that a person who has been exposed to this doctrine for a long time may see ldquoinsinuationsrdquo of it in the Bible However those individuals must in sincerity ask themselves whether their belief is based on ldquofactsrdquo or instead on emotional ldquofancyrdquo

Certain Scriptures are frequently cited as proof by supporters of the Trinity doctrine that Christ is God Isaiah 446 and Hosea 134 are two such Scriptures which have God Jehovah saying ldquoI am the first and I am the last and beside me there is no Godrdquo ldquoAnd thou shalt know no god but me for there is nosavior [Hebrew עע שהש םי beside merdquo These words are strictly taken literally out of their [(u˙moshia) וומוsetting to mean that there can be no ldquogodrdquo or ldquosaviorrdquo but God almighty In the context in which these words were pronounced Israel Gods people were inclined to worship vain hand-made idols (Isaiah 4217) Hence Gods warning in Isaiah and Hosea People brought up in trinitarian dogma tend to restrict the meaning of the term ldquoGodrdquo to those statements found within the context of Isaiah and Hosea leading them to the conclusion that anyone other than the True God must be a ldquofalserdquo god They define the word God within the context of modern trinitarian mentality instead of ancient Scriptural doctrine Trinitarians reason that if the appellative ldquoGodrdquo is applied to Jesus Christ then reasonably Jesus could be no other than the Lord God himself

However such trinitarian reasonings are missing an important element It has to do with the fact that the word ldquogodrdquo can be applied to others since the term itself seems to be related to someone with power and authority The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explains ldquoThis word [rsquoelōhicircm] can in fact be used for other gods (Gen 3130) and even for men (cf Ex 416 71 cf BDB p43)The derivation [of rsquoelōhicircm] is obscure but the implied sense seems to be that of strength or authorityrdquo (Vol II pg 497 italics added) The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words says ldquoThe word itself [אא ל (rsquoēl) Hebrew word for God] derives from a root term meaning lsquopowerrsquo lsquostrengthrsquo orlsquomightrsquo (Stephen D Renn p 439) And the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible states ldquoCommon to these four suggested root meanings [of El God] is the idea of strength power and of supreme excellence and greatnessrdquo (Vol 1 p 881) This may explain why various Bible versions at John 11c describe the Logos as ldquoa powerful divine beingrdquo or the like instead of saying ldquoGodrdquo When the whole context of Scripture is considered it is evident that the words spoken by God found in Isaiah and Hosea are very true in a specific sense namely that there is but one Supreme God and one Main Savior This truth does not rule out the existence of lsquogodlike onesrsquo under God (Job 387 Psalms 291 896)

Is it possible to speak of divine beings (ldquogodsrdquo) existing alongside God

Scholar John Macquarrie in Jesus Christ in Modern Thought claims that the Jewish monotheistic culturewould never tolerate the idea of the Logos belonging to a class of divine beings (P 110) Not quite Other scholars have a different view Ernst Haenchen for example claims the opposite in accord with Scripture ldquoIn the period in which the hymn [at John 11] took its rise it was quite possible in Jewishand Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him Phil 26-10 proves thatrdquo (A Commentary on the Gospel of John John 1Transl by Robert W Funk from Das Johannesevangelium Ein Kommentar p 109)

Another source has this to say ldquoOn the other hand it was a matter of general knowledge and one which the Bible itself shares and does not attempt to conceal that recognition and worship have often been extended to others than the Jewish-Christian God and the term lsquogodrsquo or lsquogodsrsquo is used for them

also as are the respective Greek and Hebrew words It is the custom to use a capital letter G for the God of the Jewish- Christian tradition and a small letter for the othersrdquo (Dictionary of the Bible JamesHastings Revised Edition 1963 Page 333 Grant amp Rowley Charles Scribners Sons New York)

Lets briefly look at how the Bible itself employs the words for ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture At Exodus 71 we read that God made a man Moses ldquoa godrdquo (Hebrew elohim) before Pharaoh God said to Moses ldquoSee I have made thee a god [Others ldquoa Godrdquo ldquoGodrdquo] to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophetrdquo Would this mean then that Moses himself did become an intrinsic part of the Great Divinity by the mere fact of him being called ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo by the Lord Jehovah himself Of coursenot Other translations clarify the meaning of ldquoGodrdquo used here by the LORD The English Standard Version expresses it this way ldquoSee I have made you like God to Pharaohrdquo And the International Standard Version has the LORD saying ldquoListen Ive put you in the role of God to Pharaohrdquo

And in Exodus 416 God making reference to Aaron tells Moses ldquoYou shall be as God to himrdquo (ESV NAB Hebrew lelohim ldquoas Godrdquo Darby ldquoGodrdquo Leeser ldquoa Godrdquo LXX theon ldquoGodrdquo Vulgate Deum)rdquo Moses was simply given a powerful role as Gods emissary who represented his will In Psalm 456 a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) when he became lsquoking of Israelrsquo was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo Obviously this human king was not in fact the One True God Neither was he a false God as trinitarian reasonings would lead one to believe Simply put Solomons throne was ldquodivinerdquo in the sense that he represented God in a position of authority over others

In the Scriptures we find that Jesus is described in Isaiah 96 as ldquoMighty Godrdquo and as ldquoSon of Godrdquo in other places (John 134) What about angels What do we call them Humans Not Angels are in nature heavenly beings closer to God than to men They are powerful divine spirits that reflect Gods glory and Godship They are ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 16) They are ldquogodsrdquo themselves What do we call aldquosonrdquo of a ldquohumanrdquo This ldquosonrdquo is himself a ldquohumanrdquo is he not Just as there is a family of human beings sharing ldquohumanityrdquo there is also a family of celestial beings yes ldquodivine beingsrdquo or ldquogodsrdquo sharing ldquodivinityrdquo A ldquosonrdquo of ldquoGodrdquo is ldquoa godrdquo or a lsquoreflectionrsquo of God Or it could simply refer to ldquoOne who shares a close relationship with Godrdquo (The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary) Notwithstanding the expression ldquoson of Godrdquo is never synonymous with God ( Some argue that the expression ldquoAlmightyrdquo in Revelation 18 applies to Christ but there is no concrete evidence for the claim)

Psalm 821 tells us that ldquoGod standeth in the congregation of the mighty [Brenton ldquogodsrdquo] he judgeth among the godsrdquo The Syriac Peshitta here has ldquoangelsrdquo instead of ldquogodsrdquo while Tanakh has ldquodivine beingsrdquo The Targums offer the alternate reading of ldquojudgesrdquo Whether we apply the term ldquogodsrdquo in verse one of this psalm (Psalm 821) to angels or human judges as Gods representatives (as in verse 6) as the Targums do it still proves that in the Bible other living beings other than God Almighty are spoken of as ldquogodsrdquo or ldquosons of Godrdquo with no hint of polytheism by such use The Andrews Study Bible explains under Psalm 821 ldquogods Term designates earthly rulers leaders mighty ones judges andor princes (v 7) who were Gods representatives and whose work was divinely appointed (Ex 2228 Deut 117 1618 2 Chr 196 compare with Heb 137)rdquo And The NIV Study Bible has this footnote on Psalm 821 ldquogods See v 6 In the language of the OTmdashand in accordance with the conceptual world of the ancient Near Eastmdashrulers and judges as deputies of the heavenly King could be given the honorific title lsquogodrsquo [hellip] or be called lsquoson of Godrsquo []rdquo See also the Psalm 821 footnotes of The Believers Study Bible The Wesley Bible and the HCSB Study Bible

Mighty angels and powerful human rulers or judges called ldquogodsrdquo in Scripture were considered ldquodivinerdquo or ldquogodlikerdquo when they acted on behalf of God As the Lord told Moses ldquoI will make you seem like God to Pharaohrdquo (Exodus 71 NLT) Even people of biblical times used the term ldquoGodrdquo freely in reference to powerful human leaders or people who displayed ldquosupernaturalrdquo feats Acts 1222informs us that when king Herod gave a public speech in royal robes the crowd cheered him on shouting ldquoIt is the voice of a god and not of a manrdquo On another occasion the people of a small island called Paul theos that is ldquoa godrdquo when they witnessed his superhuman powers (Acts 286 Compare with Acts 1411) With this information at hand Robert Young a master of various ancient languages concluded ldquoGodmdashis used of any one (professedly) mighty whether truly so or not and is applied not only to the true God but to false gods Magistratesjudges angels prophets etc eg Ex 71 John 11 1033 34 35 2028 rdquo ndash Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible Eerdmans Publ 1978

Then why do religious writers out there act like no one but God can be referred to as ldquodivinerdquo or ldquoa godrdquo For them anyone else but the true God is a false god They are confining themselves within a box with the Scriptural context of Isaiah chapter 43 44 and 45 discussed above where they refuse to seethe term ldquogodrdquo being used elsewhere in Scripture in a more broadly manner than their biased narrowed definition allows them to In fact even Satan is called ldquothe god [Gr ὁ θεὸς] of this worldrdquo because he actually lsquorulesrsquo this wicked world by the power he exerts over mankind (2 Cor 44 John 1231 1 John 519) Was calling Satan ldquothe god of this worldrdquo meant to promote polytheism Thus the original words for ldquogodrdquo of themselves do not signal whether a god is true or false With some exceptions the Inspired Scriptures commonly affixes the definite article (ldquotherdquo) before the word ldquoGodrdquo to distinguish the Supreme God from other gods This holds true for both the Hebrew and Greek Bible portions

It is clear from the biblical record that in ancient Jewish culture people saw no problem speaking of ldquodivine beingsrdquo under the Supreme God To them it was not exclusively a matter of whether they were true or false ldquogodsrdquo In their cultural mindset the term ldquogodsrdquo when applied positively to others beside the Most High God meant that they were powerful representatives of God whether it was Christ spokenof angels or human judges When speaking of powerful heavenly beings in glory the term ldquosons of Godrdquo was fully acceptable There is no record of Jesus displaying any feelings of disgust when claiming he was ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 1036 NIV) Why should we then

Hence anyone else other than God labeled ldquogodrdquo in Scripture in a positive light are simply divine beings created in the image of the True God belonging to the heavenly family of ldquogodlikerdquo ones The term ldquogodrdquo may also be Scripturally used to describe human beings holding a position of power and authority when appointed by God When the term is used this way polytheism is not an issue

What about the Christ

At John 1033-36 Christ himself appealed to Psalm 82 where the term ldquogodsrdquo was applied to persons other than God Jesus was refuting the charge of blasphemy that he was making himself ldquoGgodrdquo as invalid because he was only claiming to be not God but ldquoGods Sonrdquo which is totally different Jesus had an excellent opportunity here to claim once and for all that he was ldquoGodrdquo but once again he did not do so Jesus Christ holds a much higher position than any angel or man but is still subordinate to his Father God (1 Corinthians 113 Hebrews 32 Colossians 13)

Angels were made subject to Christ after he himself was placed at Gods right hand (1 Peter 322) Although both angels and Christ are described as lsquosons of Godrsquo only Jesus Christ is distinctively called

ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo according to some manuscripts (John 118 Murdock Noyes Concordant Literal Version) Or ldquothe one-begotten Godrdquo (Etheridge) The Word Study Greek-English New Testament describes the Logos as the ldquoonly born Godrdquo (John 118 Paul R McReynolds) Only Christ is called ldquothe firstborn of all creationrdquo a term never used for the lsquoSuperiorityrsquo of God or the holy spirit (Colossians 115) Could Trinitarians ever answer the following question If Christ was not created as some claim who then was the first creation by God Also who is ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo Surely someone lsquocreated firstrsquo in the universe would be honored with the title lsquothe firstborn of all creationrsquo Is there any other way to express such event The Bible simply points to Christ as such of which is said ldquoThese things saith the Amen the faithful and true witness the beginning of the creation of Godrdquo Whatdoes lsquothe beginning of Gods creationrsquo really mean Another Bible translation puts it this way ldquoThe one who is in the origin of things created by God [El que estaacute en el origen de las cosas creadas por Dios]rdquo (Biblia de Ameacuterica approved by various Episcopalian dioceses in Central and South America Casa de la Biblia Madrid) No ldquomysteryrdquo here Its that simple

Could there be any ldquosaviorrdquo other than God

The Sovereign Lord God is the main Savior but he may allow others to act as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo on his behalf in certain situations We find that the term is applied to Christ as the prime agent of salvation (2 Peter 220 1 John 414 Titus 14) We are told that men too like Othniel and Ehud were used as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo of their people (Judges 216 3915 Hebrew moshia same word used for God at Isaiah Compare with Isaiah 452 Hebrew u˙moshia Nehemiah 927 Hebrew moshiim plural of moshia) Would this mean then that those men called ldquosaviorsrdquo in Scripture form a part of the Supreme Divinity No there is a better explanation as found in the NIV

The NIV Study Bible has this to say of Israels leaders or judges ldquoTheir principal purpose is best expressed in [Judges] 216 lsquoThen the LORD raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of hellip raidersrsquo Since it was God who permitted the oppressions and raised up deliverers [saviors] he himself was Israels ultimate Judge and Deliverer [Savior] (1127 see 823 where Gideon a judge insists that the Lord is Israels true rulerrdquo (p 325) The Bible uses the same original words (ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo) for God Christ and men Does it mean they all are the same person or co-equal The context then iswhat determines the correct application for each occurrence of those terms

Who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo

In contrast to others who were called ldquosaviorsrdquo of the people of Israel Jesus is called ldquoSavior of the worldrdquo Jesus can potentially save not only Israel but all of mankind from bondage to sin and from death itself (John 316 1 John 414) Although Christ is undoubtedly a greater Savior than any man heis still subject to the Grandest Savior of all (Isaiah 4311 Acts 412 1 Corinthians 1528) Christ himself came to be in a situation where he had to cry out with a loud voice for salvation Right before his death he implored ldquoMy God my God why hast thou forsaken merdquo He had to be saved by God (Matthew 2746 Hebrews 57 Psalm 288)

Acts 531 tells us who was the One who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquoGod exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israelrdquo (NRSV) According to this scripture whatever capacity Jesus had as ldquosaviorrdquo was due to God To insist that Jesus is ldquoGodrdquo because of his description as ldquosaviorrdquo then we could reason all the same that men such as Othniel and Ehud were alsoldquoGodrdquo because they too were called saviors Overall ldquocontextrdquo should be the guiding principle for the

right comprehension of biblical terms

Jesus as ldquoSon of manrdquo

Jesus made reference to himself in the Gospels nearly 80 times as ldquothe Son of manrdquo an expression indicating he was truly a ldquomanrdquo while on earth not a God-man (Matthew 820 etc) According to Hebrews 29 Jesus ldquowas made a little lower than the angelsrdquo so he could taste death for everyone God cannot ever become ldquolower than the angelsrdquo he created John 114 tells us that it was lsquothe Word who became fleshrsquo not God The doctrine of the ldquoincarnationrdquo as commonly taught actually twists the meaning of John 114 because the text does not say at all that lsquoGod became fleshrsquo Instead it says ldquothe Wordrdquo did Plain and simple 2 John 7 only confirms this In other words the Logos Jesus Christ became ldquohumanrdquo or ldquoa human beingrdquo One scripture often misused to prove that God was made flesh is 1 Timothy 316 but this text did not originally say ldquoGod was manifest in the fleshrdquo as it reads in a few Bible versions since such reading is defective Other translations of the Bible have corrected this error in translation saying instead ldquoHe [or ldquoWhordquo] was manifested in the fleshrdquo allowing for lsquoChrist as the One being manifested in the fleshrsquo For a consideration of 1 Tim 316 see httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

In an effort to simplify the meaning of the expression ldquoSon of manrdquo in reference to Christ in our culture a modern Bible version used the expression ldquothe Human Onerdquo repeatedly (Common English Bible) ldquoThe general use of lsquoson of manrsquo occurs in poetic texts in which the phrase functions as a synonym for lsquomanrsquo or lsquohuman beingrsquo rdquo (The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary) The NIV at Daniel 713 confirms the meaning of the expression ldquoson of manrdquo in a footnote ldquoThe Aramaic phrase bar enash [son of man]means human being The phrase son of man is retained here because of its use in the New Testament as a title of Jesus probably based largely on this verserdquo (2011 Edition) The apostle was very familiar withthis much used expression of Jesus If ldquoSon of manrdquo meant he was a ldquohuman beingrdquo on earth then John would use the similar expression a son of God (or Gods Son) in a way humans would naturally understand it That is lsquoof divine originrsquo (ldquoa godrdquo) without any foreign trinitarian speculation of a later era which Jesus disciples were unaware of (John 1033-36) Jesus divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship As noted the expression may also refer to lsquoone who shares a close relationship with Godrsquo As future co-heirs in the kingdom of Christ human creatures too are designated as ldquosons of Godrdquo but never become identical to the Sovereign God Again polytheism is not an issue here No need to make this into a ldquomysteryrdquo

Why does the Bible speak sometimes as if Jesus Christ himself was ldquoGodrdquo

The Jewish nation already believed and sought lsquoto honorrsquo the Father of Abraham Isaac and Jacob This monotheistic culture adhered to the Mosaic Law as they worshiped the true God But many prophecies which appeared in the Hebrew code identified the Messiah as lsquoemancipatorrsquo of their bondage to sin Themajority of the Jews where hoping the foretold Messiah would rescue them from the Roman yoke Instead of getting involved in earthly politics Jesus repeatedly spoke of lsquoGods kingdomrsquo hence comparatively few exercised faith in him In contrast to the few who believed in Jesus as being ldquosentrdquo by God the majority of Jews could look no further from the man they considered their Father AbrahamThey were blind in their self-sufficiency

There was thus an urgent need to communicate to the Jewish people that exercising faith in Christ was essential to their salvation But how would one do that To start by making them see that Jesus Christ

also as are the respective Greek and Hebrew words It is the custom to use a capital letter G for the God of the Jewish- Christian tradition and a small letter for the othersrdquo (Dictionary of the Bible JamesHastings Revised Edition 1963 Page 333 Grant amp Rowley Charles Scribners Sons New York)

Lets briefly look at how the Bible itself employs the words for ldquoGodrdquo in Scripture At Exodus 71 we read that God made a man Moses ldquoa godrdquo (Hebrew elohim) before Pharaoh God said to Moses ldquoSee I have made thee a god [Others ldquoa Godrdquo ldquoGodrdquo] to Pharaoh and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophetrdquo Would this mean then that Moses himself did become an intrinsic part of the Great Divinity by the mere fact of him being called ldquoGodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo by the Lord Jehovah himself Of coursenot Other translations clarify the meaning of ldquoGodrdquo used here by the LORD The English Standard Version expresses it this way ldquoSee I have made you like God to Pharaohrdquo And the International Standard Version has the LORD saying ldquoListen Ive put you in the role of God to Pharaohrdquo

And in Exodus 416 God making reference to Aaron tells Moses ldquoYou shall be as God to himrdquo (ESV NAB Hebrew lelohim ldquoas Godrdquo Darby ldquoGodrdquo Leeser ldquoa Godrdquo LXX theon ldquoGodrdquo Vulgate Deum)rdquo Moses was simply given a powerful role as Gods emissary who represented his will In Psalm 456 a ldquomanrdquo (perhaps Solomon) when he became lsquoking of Israelrsquo was addressed literally in divine terms ldquoYour throne God forever and everrdquo Obviously this human king was not in fact the One True God Neither was he a false God as trinitarian reasonings would lead one to believe Simply put Solomons throne was ldquodivinerdquo in the sense that he represented God in a position of authority over others

In the Scriptures we find that Jesus is described in Isaiah 96 as ldquoMighty Godrdquo and as ldquoSon of Godrdquo in other places (John 134) What about angels What do we call them Humans Not Angels are in nature heavenly beings closer to God than to men They are powerful divine spirits that reflect Gods glory and Godship They are ldquosons of Godrdquo (Job 16) They are ldquogodsrdquo themselves What do we call aldquosonrdquo of a ldquohumanrdquo This ldquosonrdquo is himself a ldquohumanrdquo is he not Just as there is a family of human beings sharing ldquohumanityrdquo there is also a family of celestial beings yes ldquodivine beingsrdquo or ldquogodsrdquo sharing ldquodivinityrdquo A ldquosonrdquo of ldquoGodrdquo is ldquoa godrdquo or a lsquoreflectionrsquo of God Or it could simply refer to ldquoOne who shares a close relationship with Godrdquo (The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary) Notwithstanding the expression ldquoson of Godrdquo is never synonymous with God ( Some argue that the expression ldquoAlmightyrdquo in Revelation 18 applies to Christ but there is no concrete evidence for the claim)

Psalm 821 tells us that ldquoGod standeth in the congregation of the mighty [Brenton ldquogodsrdquo] he judgeth among the godsrdquo The Syriac Peshitta here has ldquoangelsrdquo instead of ldquogodsrdquo while Tanakh has ldquodivine beingsrdquo The Targums offer the alternate reading of ldquojudgesrdquo Whether we apply the term ldquogodsrdquo in verse one of this psalm (Psalm 821) to angels or human judges as Gods representatives (as in verse 6) as the Targums do it still proves that in the Bible other living beings other than God Almighty are spoken of as ldquogodsrdquo or ldquosons of Godrdquo with no hint of polytheism by such use The Andrews Study Bible explains under Psalm 821 ldquogods Term designates earthly rulers leaders mighty ones judges andor princes (v 7) who were Gods representatives and whose work was divinely appointed (Ex 2228 Deut 117 1618 2 Chr 196 compare with Heb 137)rdquo And The NIV Study Bible has this footnote on Psalm 821 ldquogods See v 6 In the language of the OTmdashand in accordance with the conceptual world of the ancient Near Eastmdashrulers and judges as deputies of the heavenly King could be given the honorific title lsquogodrsquo [hellip] or be called lsquoson of Godrsquo []rdquo See also the Psalm 821 footnotes of The Believers Study Bible The Wesley Bible and the HCSB Study Bible

Mighty angels and powerful human rulers or judges called ldquogodsrdquo in Scripture were considered ldquodivinerdquo or ldquogodlikerdquo when they acted on behalf of God As the Lord told Moses ldquoI will make you seem like God to Pharaohrdquo (Exodus 71 NLT) Even people of biblical times used the term ldquoGodrdquo freely in reference to powerful human leaders or people who displayed ldquosupernaturalrdquo feats Acts 1222informs us that when king Herod gave a public speech in royal robes the crowd cheered him on shouting ldquoIt is the voice of a god and not of a manrdquo On another occasion the people of a small island called Paul theos that is ldquoa godrdquo when they witnessed his superhuman powers (Acts 286 Compare with Acts 1411) With this information at hand Robert Young a master of various ancient languages concluded ldquoGodmdashis used of any one (professedly) mighty whether truly so or not and is applied not only to the true God but to false gods Magistratesjudges angels prophets etc eg Ex 71 John 11 1033 34 35 2028 rdquo ndash Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible Eerdmans Publ 1978

Then why do religious writers out there act like no one but God can be referred to as ldquodivinerdquo or ldquoa godrdquo For them anyone else but the true God is a false god They are confining themselves within a box with the Scriptural context of Isaiah chapter 43 44 and 45 discussed above where they refuse to seethe term ldquogodrdquo being used elsewhere in Scripture in a more broadly manner than their biased narrowed definition allows them to In fact even Satan is called ldquothe god [Gr ὁ θεὸς] of this worldrdquo because he actually lsquorulesrsquo this wicked world by the power he exerts over mankind (2 Cor 44 John 1231 1 John 519) Was calling Satan ldquothe god of this worldrdquo meant to promote polytheism Thus the original words for ldquogodrdquo of themselves do not signal whether a god is true or false With some exceptions the Inspired Scriptures commonly affixes the definite article (ldquotherdquo) before the word ldquoGodrdquo to distinguish the Supreme God from other gods This holds true for both the Hebrew and Greek Bible portions

It is clear from the biblical record that in ancient Jewish culture people saw no problem speaking of ldquodivine beingsrdquo under the Supreme God To them it was not exclusively a matter of whether they were true or false ldquogodsrdquo In their cultural mindset the term ldquogodsrdquo when applied positively to others beside the Most High God meant that they were powerful representatives of God whether it was Christ spokenof angels or human judges When speaking of powerful heavenly beings in glory the term ldquosons of Godrdquo was fully acceptable There is no record of Jesus displaying any feelings of disgust when claiming he was ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 1036 NIV) Why should we then

Hence anyone else other than God labeled ldquogodrdquo in Scripture in a positive light are simply divine beings created in the image of the True God belonging to the heavenly family of ldquogodlikerdquo ones The term ldquogodrdquo may also be Scripturally used to describe human beings holding a position of power and authority when appointed by God When the term is used this way polytheism is not an issue

What about the Christ

At John 1033-36 Christ himself appealed to Psalm 82 where the term ldquogodsrdquo was applied to persons other than God Jesus was refuting the charge of blasphemy that he was making himself ldquoGgodrdquo as invalid because he was only claiming to be not God but ldquoGods Sonrdquo which is totally different Jesus had an excellent opportunity here to claim once and for all that he was ldquoGodrdquo but once again he did not do so Jesus Christ holds a much higher position than any angel or man but is still subordinate to his Father God (1 Corinthians 113 Hebrews 32 Colossians 13)

Angels were made subject to Christ after he himself was placed at Gods right hand (1 Peter 322) Although both angels and Christ are described as lsquosons of Godrsquo only Jesus Christ is distinctively called

ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo according to some manuscripts (John 118 Murdock Noyes Concordant Literal Version) Or ldquothe one-begotten Godrdquo (Etheridge) The Word Study Greek-English New Testament describes the Logos as the ldquoonly born Godrdquo (John 118 Paul R McReynolds) Only Christ is called ldquothe firstborn of all creationrdquo a term never used for the lsquoSuperiorityrsquo of God or the holy spirit (Colossians 115) Could Trinitarians ever answer the following question If Christ was not created as some claim who then was the first creation by God Also who is ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo Surely someone lsquocreated firstrsquo in the universe would be honored with the title lsquothe firstborn of all creationrsquo Is there any other way to express such event The Bible simply points to Christ as such of which is said ldquoThese things saith the Amen the faithful and true witness the beginning of the creation of Godrdquo Whatdoes lsquothe beginning of Gods creationrsquo really mean Another Bible translation puts it this way ldquoThe one who is in the origin of things created by God [El que estaacute en el origen de las cosas creadas por Dios]rdquo (Biblia de Ameacuterica approved by various Episcopalian dioceses in Central and South America Casa de la Biblia Madrid) No ldquomysteryrdquo here Its that simple

Could there be any ldquosaviorrdquo other than God

The Sovereign Lord God is the main Savior but he may allow others to act as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo on his behalf in certain situations We find that the term is applied to Christ as the prime agent of salvation (2 Peter 220 1 John 414 Titus 14) We are told that men too like Othniel and Ehud were used as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo of their people (Judges 216 3915 Hebrew moshia same word used for God at Isaiah Compare with Isaiah 452 Hebrew u˙moshia Nehemiah 927 Hebrew moshiim plural of moshia) Would this mean then that those men called ldquosaviorsrdquo in Scripture form a part of the Supreme Divinity No there is a better explanation as found in the NIV

The NIV Study Bible has this to say of Israels leaders or judges ldquoTheir principal purpose is best expressed in [Judges] 216 lsquoThen the LORD raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of hellip raidersrsquo Since it was God who permitted the oppressions and raised up deliverers [saviors] he himself was Israels ultimate Judge and Deliverer [Savior] (1127 see 823 where Gideon a judge insists that the Lord is Israels true rulerrdquo (p 325) The Bible uses the same original words (ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo) for God Christ and men Does it mean they all are the same person or co-equal The context then iswhat determines the correct application for each occurrence of those terms

Who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo

In contrast to others who were called ldquosaviorsrdquo of the people of Israel Jesus is called ldquoSavior of the worldrdquo Jesus can potentially save not only Israel but all of mankind from bondage to sin and from death itself (John 316 1 John 414) Although Christ is undoubtedly a greater Savior than any man heis still subject to the Grandest Savior of all (Isaiah 4311 Acts 412 1 Corinthians 1528) Christ himself came to be in a situation where he had to cry out with a loud voice for salvation Right before his death he implored ldquoMy God my God why hast thou forsaken merdquo He had to be saved by God (Matthew 2746 Hebrews 57 Psalm 288)

Acts 531 tells us who was the One who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquoGod exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israelrdquo (NRSV) According to this scripture whatever capacity Jesus had as ldquosaviorrdquo was due to God To insist that Jesus is ldquoGodrdquo because of his description as ldquosaviorrdquo then we could reason all the same that men such as Othniel and Ehud were alsoldquoGodrdquo because they too were called saviors Overall ldquocontextrdquo should be the guiding principle for the

right comprehension of biblical terms

Jesus as ldquoSon of manrdquo

Jesus made reference to himself in the Gospels nearly 80 times as ldquothe Son of manrdquo an expression indicating he was truly a ldquomanrdquo while on earth not a God-man (Matthew 820 etc) According to Hebrews 29 Jesus ldquowas made a little lower than the angelsrdquo so he could taste death for everyone God cannot ever become ldquolower than the angelsrdquo he created John 114 tells us that it was lsquothe Word who became fleshrsquo not God The doctrine of the ldquoincarnationrdquo as commonly taught actually twists the meaning of John 114 because the text does not say at all that lsquoGod became fleshrsquo Instead it says ldquothe Wordrdquo did Plain and simple 2 John 7 only confirms this In other words the Logos Jesus Christ became ldquohumanrdquo or ldquoa human beingrdquo One scripture often misused to prove that God was made flesh is 1 Timothy 316 but this text did not originally say ldquoGod was manifest in the fleshrdquo as it reads in a few Bible versions since such reading is defective Other translations of the Bible have corrected this error in translation saying instead ldquoHe [or ldquoWhordquo] was manifested in the fleshrdquo allowing for lsquoChrist as the One being manifested in the fleshrsquo For a consideration of 1 Tim 316 see httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

In an effort to simplify the meaning of the expression ldquoSon of manrdquo in reference to Christ in our culture a modern Bible version used the expression ldquothe Human Onerdquo repeatedly (Common English Bible) ldquoThe general use of lsquoson of manrsquo occurs in poetic texts in which the phrase functions as a synonym for lsquomanrsquo or lsquohuman beingrsquo rdquo (The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary) The NIV at Daniel 713 confirms the meaning of the expression ldquoson of manrdquo in a footnote ldquoThe Aramaic phrase bar enash [son of man]means human being The phrase son of man is retained here because of its use in the New Testament as a title of Jesus probably based largely on this verserdquo (2011 Edition) The apostle was very familiar withthis much used expression of Jesus If ldquoSon of manrdquo meant he was a ldquohuman beingrdquo on earth then John would use the similar expression a son of God (or Gods Son) in a way humans would naturally understand it That is lsquoof divine originrsquo (ldquoa godrdquo) without any foreign trinitarian speculation of a later era which Jesus disciples were unaware of (John 1033-36) Jesus divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship As noted the expression may also refer to lsquoone who shares a close relationship with Godrsquo As future co-heirs in the kingdom of Christ human creatures too are designated as ldquosons of Godrdquo but never become identical to the Sovereign God Again polytheism is not an issue here No need to make this into a ldquomysteryrdquo

Why does the Bible speak sometimes as if Jesus Christ himself was ldquoGodrdquo

The Jewish nation already believed and sought lsquoto honorrsquo the Father of Abraham Isaac and Jacob This monotheistic culture adhered to the Mosaic Law as they worshiped the true God But many prophecies which appeared in the Hebrew code identified the Messiah as lsquoemancipatorrsquo of their bondage to sin Themajority of the Jews where hoping the foretold Messiah would rescue them from the Roman yoke Instead of getting involved in earthly politics Jesus repeatedly spoke of lsquoGods kingdomrsquo hence comparatively few exercised faith in him In contrast to the few who believed in Jesus as being ldquosentrdquo by God the majority of Jews could look no further from the man they considered their Father AbrahamThey were blind in their self-sufficiency

There was thus an urgent need to communicate to the Jewish people that exercising faith in Christ was essential to their salvation But how would one do that To start by making them see that Jesus Christ

Mighty angels and powerful human rulers or judges called ldquogodsrdquo in Scripture were considered ldquodivinerdquo or ldquogodlikerdquo when they acted on behalf of God As the Lord told Moses ldquoI will make you seem like God to Pharaohrdquo (Exodus 71 NLT) Even people of biblical times used the term ldquoGodrdquo freely in reference to powerful human leaders or people who displayed ldquosupernaturalrdquo feats Acts 1222informs us that when king Herod gave a public speech in royal robes the crowd cheered him on shouting ldquoIt is the voice of a god and not of a manrdquo On another occasion the people of a small island called Paul theos that is ldquoa godrdquo when they witnessed his superhuman powers (Acts 286 Compare with Acts 1411) With this information at hand Robert Young a master of various ancient languages concluded ldquoGodmdashis used of any one (professedly) mighty whether truly so or not and is applied not only to the true God but to false gods Magistratesjudges angels prophets etc eg Ex 71 John 11 1033 34 35 2028 rdquo ndash Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible Eerdmans Publ 1978

Then why do religious writers out there act like no one but God can be referred to as ldquodivinerdquo or ldquoa godrdquo For them anyone else but the true God is a false god They are confining themselves within a box with the Scriptural context of Isaiah chapter 43 44 and 45 discussed above where they refuse to seethe term ldquogodrdquo being used elsewhere in Scripture in a more broadly manner than their biased narrowed definition allows them to In fact even Satan is called ldquothe god [Gr ὁ θεὸς] of this worldrdquo because he actually lsquorulesrsquo this wicked world by the power he exerts over mankind (2 Cor 44 John 1231 1 John 519) Was calling Satan ldquothe god of this worldrdquo meant to promote polytheism Thus the original words for ldquogodrdquo of themselves do not signal whether a god is true or false With some exceptions the Inspired Scriptures commonly affixes the definite article (ldquotherdquo) before the word ldquoGodrdquo to distinguish the Supreme God from other gods This holds true for both the Hebrew and Greek Bible portions

It is clear from the biblical record that in ancient Jewish culture people saw no problem speaking of ldquodivine beingsrdquo under the Supreme God To them it was not exclusively a matter of whether they were true or false ldquogodsrdquo In their cultural mindset the term ldquogodsrdquo when applied positively to others beside the Most High God meant that they were powerful representatives of God whether it was Christ spokenof angels or human judges When speaking of powerful heavenly beings in glory the term ldquosons of Godrdquo was fully acceptable There is no record of Jesus displaying any feelings of disgust when claiming he was ldquoGods Sonrdquo (John 1036 NIV) Why should we then

Hence anyone else other than God labeled ldquogodrdquo in Scripture in a positive light are simply divine beings created in the image of the True God belonging to the heavenly family of ldquogodlikerdquo ones The term ldquogodrdquo may also be Scripturally used to describe human beings holding a position of power and authority when appointed by God When the term is used this way polytheism is not an issue

What about the Christ

At John 1033-36 Christ himself appealed to Psalm 82 where the term ldquogodsrdquo was applied to persons other than God Jesus was refuting the charge of blasphemy that he was making himself ldquoGgodrdquo as invalid because he was only claiming to be not God but ldquoGods Sonrdquo which is totally different Jesus had an excellent opportunity here to claim once and for all that he was ldquoGodrdquo but once again he did not do so Jesus Christ holds a much higher position than any angel or man but is still subordinate to his Father God (1 Corinthians 113 Hebrews 32 Colossians 13)

Angels were made subject to Christ after he himself was placed at Gods right hand (1 Peter 322) Although both angels and Christ are described as lsquosons of Godrsquo only Jesus Christ is distinctively called

ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo according to some manuscripts (John 118 Murdock Noyes Concordant Literal Version) Or ldquothe one-begotten Godrdquo (Etheridge) The Word Study Greek-English New Testament describes the Logos as the ldquoonly born Godrdquo (John 118 Paul R McReynolds) Only Christ is called ldquothe firstborn of all creationrdquo a term never used for the lsquoSuperiorityrsquo of God or the holy spirit (Colossians 115) Could Trinitarians ever answer the following question If Christ was not created as some claim who then was the first creation by God Also who is ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo Surely someone lsquocreated firstrsquo in the universe would be honored with the title lsquothe firstborn of all creationrsquo Is there any other way to express such event The Bible simply points to Christ as such of which is said ldquoThese things saith the Amen the faithful and true witness the beginning of the creation of Godrdquo Whatdoes lsquothe beginning of Gods creationrsquo really mean Another Bible translation puts it this way ldquoThe one who is in the origin of things created by God [El que estaacute en el origen de las cosas creadas por Dios]rdquo (Biblia de Ameacuterica approved by various Episcopalian dioceses in Central and South America Casa de la Biblia Madrid) No ldquomysteryrdquo here Its that simple

Could there be any ldquosaviorrdquo other than God

The Sovereign Lord God is the main Savior but he may allow others to act as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo on his behalf in certain situations We find that the term is applied to Christ as the prime agent of salvation (2 Peter 220 1 John 414 Titus 14) We are told that men too like Othniel and Ehud were used as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo of their people (Judges 216 3915 Hebrew moshia same word used for God at Isaiah Compare with Isaiah 452 Hebrew u˙moshia Nehemiah 927 Hebrew moshiim plural of moshia) Would this mean then that those men called ldquosaviorsrdquo in Scripture form a part of the Supreme Divinity No there is a better explanation as found in the NIV

The NIV Study Bible has this to say of Israels leaders or judges ldquoTheir principal purpose is best expressed in [Judges] 216 lsquoThen the LORD raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of hellip raidersrsquo Since it was God who permitted the oppressions and raised up deliverers [saviors] he himself was Israels ultimate Judge and Deliverer [Savior] (1127 see 823 where Gideon a judge insists that the Lord is Israels true rulerrdquo (p 325) The Bible uses the same original words (ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo) for God Christ and men Does it mean they all are the same person or co-equal The context then iswhat determines the correct application for each occurrence of those terms

Who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo

In contrast to others who were called ldquosaviorsrdquo of the people of Israel Jesus is called ldquoSavior of the worldrdquo Jesus can potentially save not only Israel but all of mankind from bondage to sin and from death itself (John 316 1 John 414) Although Christ is undoubtedly a greater Savior than any man heis still subject to the Grandest Savior of all (Isaiah 4311 Acts 412 1 Corinthians 1528) Christ himself came to be in a situation where he had to cry out with a loud voice for salvation Right before his death he implored ldquoMy God my God why hast thou forsaken merdquo He had to be saved by God (Matthew 2746 Hebrews 57 Psalm 288)

Acts 531 tells us who was the One who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquoGod exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israelrdquo (NRSV) According to this scripture whatever capacity Jesus had as ldquosaviorrdquo was due to God To insist that Jesus is ldquoGodrdquo because of his description as ldquosaviorrdquo then we could reason all the same that men such as Othniel and Ehud were alsoldquoGodrdquo because they too were called saviors Overall ldquocontextrdquo should be the guiding principle for the

right comprehension of biblical terms

Jesus as ldquoSon of manrdquo

Jesus made reference to himself in the Gospels nearly 80 times as ldquothe Son of manrdquo an expression indicating he was truly a ldquomanrdquo while on earth not a God-man (Matthew 820 etc) According to Hebrews 29 Jesus ldquowas made a little lower than the angelsrdquo so he could taste death for everyone God cannot ever become ldquolower than the angelsrdquo he created John 114 tells us that it was lsquothe Word who became fleshrsquo not God The doctrine of the ldquoincarnationrdquo as commonly taught actually twists the meaning of John 114 because the text does not say at all that lsquoGod became fleshrsquo Instead it says ldquothe Wordrdquo did Plain and simple 2 John 7 only confirms this In other words the Logos Jesus Christ became ldquohumanrdquo or ldquoa human beingrdquo One scripture often misused to prove that God was made flesh is 1 Timothy 316 but this text did not originally say ldquoGod was manifest in the fleshrdquo as it reads in a few Bible versions since such reading is defective Other translations of the Bible have corrected this error in translation saying instead ldquoHe [or ldquoWhordquo] was manifested in the fleshrdquo allowing for lsquoChrist as the One being manifested in the fleshrsquo For a consideration of 1 Tim 316 see httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

In an effort to simplify the meaning of the expression ldquoSon of manrdquo in reference to Christ in our culture a modern Bible version used the expression ldquothe Human Onerdquo repeatedly (Common English Bible) ldquoThe general use of lsquoson of manrsquo occurs in poetic texts in which the phrase functions as a synonym for lsquomanrsquo or lsquohuman beingrsquo rdquo (The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary) The NIV at Daniel 713 confirms the meaning of the expression ldquoson of manrdquo in a footnote ldquoThe Aramaic phrase bar enash [son of man]means human being The phrase son of man is retained here because of its use in the New Testament as a title of Jesus probably based largely on this verserdquo (2011 Edition) The apostle was very familiar withthis much used expression of Jesus If ldquoSon of manrdquo meant he was a ldquohuman beingrdquo on earth then John would use the similar expression a son of God (or Gods Son) in a way humans would naturally understand it That is lsquoof divine originrsquo (ldquoa godrdquo) without any foreign trinitarian speculation of a later era which Jesus disciples were unaware of (John 1033-36) Jesus divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship As noted the expression may also refer to lsquoone who shares a close relationship with Godrsquo As future co-heirs in the kingdom of Christ human creatures too are designated as ldquosons of Godrdquo but never become identical to the Sovereign God Again polytheism is not an issue here No need to make this into a ldquomysteryrdquo

Why does the Bible speak sometimes as if Jesus Christ himself was ldquoGodrdquo

The Jewish nation already believed and sought lsquoto honorrsquo the Father of Abraham Isaac and Jacob This monotheistic culture adhered to the Mosaic Law as they worshiped the true God But many prophecies which appeared in the Hebrew code identified the Messiah as lsquoemancipatorrsquo of their bondage to sin Themajority of the Jews where hoping the foretold Messiah would rescue them from the Roman yoke Instead of getting involved in earthly politics Jesus repeatedly spoke of lsquoGods kingdomrsquo hence comparatively few exercised faith in him In contrast to the few who believed in Jesus as being ldquosentrdquo by God the majority of Jews could look no further from the man they considered their Father AbrahamThey were blind in their self-sufficiency

There was thus an urgent need to communicate to the Jewish people that exercising faith in Christ was essential to their salvation But how would one do that To start by making them see that Jesus Christ

ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo according to some manuscripts (John 118 Murdock Noyes Concordant Literal Version) Or ldquothe one-begotten Godrdquo (Etheridge) The Word Study Greek-English New Testament describes the Logos as the ldquoonly born Godrdquo (John 118 Paul R McReynolds) Only Christ is called ldquothe firstborn of all creationrdquo a term never used for the lsquoSuperiorityrsquo of God or the holy spirit (Colossians 115) Could Trinitarians ever answer the following question If Christ was not created as some claim who then was the first creation by God Also who is ldquothe only-begotten Godrdquo Surely someone lsquocreated firstrsquo in the universe would be honored with the title lsquothe firstborn of all creationrsquo Is there any other way to express such event The Bible simply points to Christ as such of which is said ldquoThese things saith the Amen the faithful and true witness the beginning of the creation of Godrdquo Whatdoes lsquothe beginning of Gods creationrsquo really mean Another Bible translation puts it this way ldquoThe one who is in the origin of things created by God [El que estaacute en el origen de las cosas creadas por Dios]rdquo (Biblia de Ameacuterica approved by various Episcopalian dioceses in Central and South America Casa de la Biblia Madrid) No ldquomysteryrdquo here Its that simple

Could there be any ldquosaviorrdquo other than God

The Sovereign Lord God is the main Savior but he may allow others to act as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo on his behalf in certain situations We find that the term is applied to Christ as the prime agent of salvation (2 Peter 220 1 John 414 Titus 14) We are told that men too like Othniel and Ehud were used as ldquosaviorsrdquo or ldquodeliverersrdquo of their people (Judges 216 3915 Hebrew moshia same word used for God at Isaiah Compare with Isaiah 452 Hebrew u˙moshia Nehemiah 927 Hebrew moshiim plural of moshia) Would this mean then that those men called ldquosaviorsrdquo in Scripture form a part of the Supreme Divinity No there is a better explanation as found in the NIV

The NIV Study Bible has this to say of Israels leaders or judges ldquoTheir principal purpose is best expressed in [Judges] 216 lsquoThen the LORD raised up judges who saved them out of the hands of hellip raidersrsquo Since it was God who permitted the oppressions and raised up deliverers [saviors] he himself was Israels ultimate Judge and Deliverer [Savior] (1127 see 823 where Gideon a judge insists that the Lord is Israels true rulerrdquo (p 325) The Bible uses the same original words (ldquogodrdquo and ldquosaviorrdquo) for God Christ and men Does it mean they all are the same person or co-equal The context then iswhat determines the correct application for each occurrence of those terms

Who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo

In contrast to others who were called ldquosaviorsrdquo of the people of Israel Jesus is called ldquoSavior of the worldrdquo Jesus can potentially save not only Israel but all of mankind from bondage to sin and from death itself (John 316 1 John 414) Although Christ is undoubtedly a greater Savior than any man heis still subject to the Grandest Savior of all (Isaiah 4311 Acts 412 1 Corinthians 1528) Christ himself came to be in a situation where he had to cry out with a loud voice for salvation Right before his death he implored ldquoMy God my God why hast thou forsaken merdquo He had to be saved by God (Matthew 2746 Hebrews 57 Psalm 288)

Acts 531 tells us who was the One who made Jesus ldquoSaviorrdquo ldquoGod exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israelrdquo (NRSV) According to this scripture whatever capacity Jesus had as ldquosaviorrdquo was due to God To insist that Jesus is ldquoGodrdquo because of his description as ldquosaviorrdquo then we could reason all the same that men such as Othniel and Ehud were alsoldquoGodrdquo because they too were called saviors Overall ldquocontextrdquo should be the guiding principle for the

right comprehension of biblical terms

Jesus as ldquoSon of manrdquo

Jesus made reference to himself in the Gospels nearly 80 times as ldquothe Son of manrdquo an expression indicating he was truly a ldquomanrdquo while on earth not a God-man (Matthew 820 etc) According to Hebrews 29 Jesus ldquowas made a little lower than the angelsrdquo so he could taste death for everyone God cannot ever become ldquolower than the angelsrdquo he created John 114 tells us that it was lsquothe Word who became fleshrsquo not God The doctrine of the ldquoincarnationrdquo as commonly taught actually twists the meaning of John 114 because the text does not say at all that lsquoGod became fleshrsquo Instead it says ldquothe Wordrdquo did Plain and simple 2 John 7 only confirms this In other words the Logos Jesus Christ became ldquohumanrdquo or ldquoa human beingrdquo One scripture often misused to prove that God was made flesh is 1 Timothy 316 but this text did not originally say ldquoGod was manifest in the fleshrdquo as it reads in a few Bible versions since such reading is defective Other translations of the Bible have corrected this error in translation saying instead ldquoHe [or ldquoWhordquo] was manifested in the fleshrdquo allowing for lsquoChrist as the One being manifested in the fleshrsquo For a consideration of 1 Tim 316 see httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

In an effort to simplify the meaning of the expression ldquoSon of manrdquo in reference to Christ in our culture a modern Bible version used the expression ldquothe Human Onerdquo repeatedly (Common English Bible) ldquoThe general use of lsquoson of manrsquo occurs in poetic texts in which the phrase functions as a synonym for lsquomanrsquo or lsquohuman beingrsquo rdquo (The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary) The NIV at Daniel 713 confirms the meaning of the expression ldquoson of manrdquo in a footnote ldquoThe Aramaic phrase bar enash [son of man]means human being The phrase son of man is retained here because of its use in the New Testament as a title of Jesus probably based largely on this verserdquo (2011 Edition) The apostle was very familiar withthis much used expression of Jesus If ldquoSon of manrdquo meant he was a ldquohuman beingrdquo on earth then John would use the similar expression a son of God (or Gods Son) in a way humans would naturally understand it That is lsquoof divine originrsquo (ldquoa godrdquo) without any foreign trinitarian speculation of a later era which Jesus disciples were unaware of (John 1033-36) Jesus divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship As noted the expression may also refer to lsquoone who shares a close relationship with Godrsquo As future co-heirs in the kingdom of Christ human creatures too are designated as ldquosons of Godrdquo but never become identical to the Sovereign God Again polytheism is not an issue here No need to make this into a ldquomysteryrdquo

Why does the Bible speak sometimes as if Jesus Christ himself was ldquoGodrdquo

The Jewish nation already believed and sought lsquoto honorrsquo the Father of Abraham Isaac and Jacob This monotheistic culture adhered to the Mosaic Law as they worshiped the true God But many prophecies which appeared in the Hebrew code identified the Messiah as lsquoemancipatorrsquo of their bondage to sin Themajority of the Jews where hoping the foretold Messiah would rescue them from the Roman yoke Instead of getting involved in earthly politics Jesus repeatedly spoke of lsquoGods kingdomrsquo hence comparatively few exercised faith in him In contrast to the few who believed in Jesus as being ldquosentrdquo by God the majority of Jews could look no further from the man they considered their Father AbrahamThey were blind in their self-sufficiency

There was thus an urgent need to communicate to the Jewish people that exercising faith in Christ was essential to their salvation But how would one do that To start by making them see that Jesus Christ

right comprehension of biblical terms

Jesus as ldquoSon of manrdquo

Jesus made reference to himself in the Gospels nearly 80 times as ldquothe Son of manrdquo an expression indicating he was truly a ldquomanrdquo while on earth not a God-man (Matthew 820 etc) According to Hebrews 29 Jesus ldquowas made a little lower than the angelsrdquo so he could taste death for everyone God cannot ever become ldquolower than the angelsrdquo he created John 114 tells us that it was lsquothe Word who became fleshrsquo not God The doctrine of the ldquoincarnationrdquo as commonly taught actually twists the meaning of John 114 because the text does not say at all that lsquoGod became fleshrsquo Instead it says ldquothe Wordrdquo did Plain and simple 2 John 7 only confirms this In other words the Logos Jesus Christ became ldquohumanrdquo or ldquoa human beingrdquo One scripture often misused to prove that God was made flesh is 1 Timothy 316 but this text did not originally say ldquoGod was manifest in the fleshrdquo as it reads in a few Bible versions since such reading is defective Other translations of the Bible have corrected this error in translation saying instead ldquoHe [or ldquoWhordquo] was manifested in the fleshrdquo allowing for lsquoChrist as the One being manifested in the fleshrsquo For a consideration of 1 Tim 316 see httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

In an effort to simplify the meaning of the expression ldquoSon of manrdquo in reference to Christ in our culture a modern Bible version used the expression ldquothe Human Onerdquo repeatedly (Common English Bible) ldquoThe general use of lsquoson of manrsquo occurs in poetic texts in which the phrase functions as a synonym for lsquomanrsquo or lsquohuman beingrsquo rdquo (The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary) The NIV at Daniel 713 confirms the meaning of the expression ldquoson of manrdquo in a footnote ldquoThe Aramaic phrase bar enash [son of man]means human being The phrase son of man is retained here because of its use in the New Testament as a title of Jesus probably based largely on this verserdquo (2011 Edition) The apostle was very familiar withthis much used expression of Jesus If ldquoSon of manrdquo meant he was a ldquohuman beingrdquo on earth then John would use the similar expression a son of God (or Gods Son) in a way humans would naturally understand it That is lsquoof divine originrsquo (ldquoa godrdquo) without any foreign trinitarian speculation of a later era which Jesus disciples were unaware of (John 1033-36) Jesus divine sonship is closely linked to his messiahship As noted the expression may also refer to lsquoone who shares a close relationship with Godrsquo As future co-heirs in the kingdom of Christ human creatures too are designated as ldquosons of Godrdquo but never become identical to the Sovereign God Again polytheism is not an issue here No need to make this into a ldquomysteryrdquo

Why does the Bible speak sometimes as if Jesus Christ himself was ldquoGodrdquo

The Jewish nation already believed and sought lsquoto honorrsquo the Father of Abraham Isaac and Jacob This monotheistic culture adhered to the Mosaic Law as they worshiped the true God But many prophecies which appeared in the Hebrew code identified the Messiah as lsquoemancipatorrsquo of their bondage to sin Themajority of the Jews where hoping the foretold Messiah would rescue them from the Roman yoke Instead of getting involved in earthly politics Jesus repeatedly spoke of lsquoGods kingdomrsquo hence comparatively few exercised faith in him In contrast to the few who believed in Jesus as being ldquosentrdquo by God the majority of Jews could look no further from the man they considered their Father AbrahamThey were blind in their self-sufficiency

There was thus an urgent need to communicate to the Jewish people that exercising faith in Christ was essential to their salvation But how would one do that To start by making them see that Jesus Christ

was greater than any man known to them even greater than Abraham and David (John 858 Matthew 2241-45) Also that Christ is above angels in heaven and far superior to any human philosophy that men could ever devise (Hebrews 14 Colossians 28-10) They urgently needed to comprehend that Jesus is the ldquoonly begotten Sonrdquo of God ldquothe Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the worldrdquo (John 316 John 129) And since Jesus Christ resembled his Father in every way yes even acknowledge him as ldquoMighty Godrdquo (Isaiah 96) When glorified this Jesus was placed lsquoat the right hand of Godrsquo becoming the ldquoone mediator between God and menrdquo much greater than the admired Moses (1 Timothy 25) The Jews like the rest of the world needed to understand that Christ is lsquothe exact representation of Godrsquo and that obedience to Him was now necessary (Hebrews 13 NIV 59)

When the birth of Gods Son was announced in addition to his personal name Jesus was given a prophetic name ldquoGod with usrdquo (Matthew 123) There are those who see a description of Jesus deity in these words but it should be noted that the expression is also applied to humans The point is that God can be with mankind by means of his representatives On several occasions during biblical history it was said that lsquoGod was with his peoplersquo or that lsquoGod was with some servant of hisrsquo (2 Samuel 510 2 Chronicles 11 1312 Isaiah 810 Zechariah 823) Of Joseph son of Jacob for instance it was said that ldquoGod was with himrdquo (Acts 79) None of those men were ldquodeityrdquo No one physically saw God nextto these men and there is no reason to believe that God was physically in all his glory inside these men (John 118 1 Kings 827) However he could be with them by simply leading his attention toward them by guiding them and by fulfilling his will through them just as is described prophetically of ndash lsquoGod being with mankindrsquo ndash in the last book of the Bible (Revelation 213)

The same with Christ Some erroneously believe that Jesus Christ was both equally ldquoGodrdquo and ldquomanrdquo atthe same time because he manifested superhuman power But the Bible says that God was the source ofhis power Scripture can rightly say that lsquoGod was with mankindrsquo through Jesus Christ Gods representative because it is specifically through Jesus that God accomplishes his will of the salvation of mankind Religious fanatics have a regrettable habit of twisting simple biblical statements The Bible clearly states that ldquoGod was with him [Jesus Christ]rdquo not that lsquoGod was himrsquo ndash physically inside of Christ (Acts 103438)

Since lsquoGod was with Christrsquo everyone could finally see what God is like through Christ (John 519 1030) lsquoAnyone who looks at Jesus indeed is like looking at God himselfrsquo since Christ being in Gods image is the only one that can make lsquothe Father knownrsquo (John 149 118 Col 115) ldquoEverything of God gets expressed in him so you can see and hear him clearlyrdquo (Colossians 29 The Message) There is no doubt then that this Logos or lsquoGods Wordrsquo was himself ldquodivinerdquo (Revelation 1913)

By no means did Jesus imply that he was the Father in flesh To make clear the distinction between himself and the Father immediately afterwards he said the following words ldquoHe who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent himrdquo (John 523) After God presented ldquothe only begotten Sonrdquo as ldquoSaviorrdquo to the world and after lsquoplacing everything under the power of Christ the Son himself will have to submit to the power of Godrsquo (Titus 14 1 Corinthians 152728)

Consequently we must all lsquohonor the Son as we honor the Fatherrsquo (John 523) When the Inspired Writers spoke of Gods Son in Scripture they saw fitting to use the loftiest language to describe this prominent Divine Being Nonetheless Jesus is never equated with God A few centuries after Christs death due to pagan influence a state of confusion arose where many strongly argued about Jesus identity The controversy was finally won by those supporting the doctrine that Christ was equal to the

Father However those victors went beyond what Scripture simply stated On the one hand the Jews never gave Jesus the place befitting of Christ while those in the opposite side who centuries later adopted the Trinity doctrine actually ended up giving Christ a position equal-to-God a position Jesus never acknowledged Thus we are in the presence of two extremist groups This Christ-centered approach is the one commonly taught in churches and colleges today True the New Testament centers around the life of Jesus Christ and how he provides ldquothe wayrdquo to the Father in order for mankind to besaved But it is never stated in Scripture that Christ is ldquoequalrdquo to the ldquoholy spiritrdquo or to ldquoGodrdquo The truth about the person of Christ is somewhere between these two extreme points of view

Even after Christian efforts were spent trying to convince the Jewish people to accept Christ as ldquoSon of Godrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo and as their ldquoSaviorrdquo for the most part they rejected him To this day Jews overall have not accepted Christ as their Messiah With so much emphasis placed on Christ in the New Testament later ldquoChristianrdquo followers picked up on this and influenced by Greek philosophers who eloquently spoke of ldquothreesrdquo ended up giving Christ equal status with God himself Not long after that they introduced the ldquoholy spiritrdquo into the trinitarian equation

Jesus Christ himself affirmed ldquoThe Father is superior to myselfrdquo (John 1428 The Authentic New Testament) Jesus always did the will of his Father and not his own (John 530 Luke 2242) This subordinated role of Jesus on earth did not change when he was lsquoglorifiedrsquo after his ascension to heavenand placed at the right hand of God where Scripture declares ldquoBlessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christrdquo (1 Peter 13) Scripturally speaking the rendering of ldquoa godrdquo (or ldquoa Godrdquo) as applied to Jesus found in various versions at John 11 is not demeaning or disgraceful in any way nor does it promote polytheism The Father of Jesus Christ is still Supreme Jesus himself asked others to worship his Father (John 423) After his ascension to heaven Christ is described in divine terms lsquoReflecting Gods bright glory and stamped with Gods own character[having] sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on highrsquo (Hebrews 13 Moffatt) ldquoFor it was Gods good pleasure to let all completeness [ldquofullness of the Godnessrdquo Colossians 29 Paul R McReynolds] dwell in himrdquo (Colossians 119 Knox) Jesus himself said that he lsquolived because of the Father but whoever feeds on Christ will live because of himrsquo (John 657) The Grand Creator has no need to feed or live of anyone - ever After all he is Almighty God But he gave life power and authority to his Son Jesus Christ offering Him as the ldquobread of Godrdquo so others can feed of him and live (John 526 Matthew 2818 John 633) There is no doubt that by lsquoreceiving power and authority from Godrsquo and lsquosent to do his Fathers willrsquo (John 638) he was more than ever lsquoGodlikersquo (Or ldquoa godrdquo John 11 - translator Siegfried Schulz cf Isaiah 96 Ex 71)

Only when the expression ldquoa godrdquo is applied to Christ -as in John 11- do we find theologians reluctant to admit that such rendering is not only possible but that is also standard practice to translate singular anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb in an indefinite or qualitative manner where they occur asin (Mark 649 ldquoa spiritrdquo 1132 ldquoa prophetrdquo John 670 ldquoa devilrdquo 848 ldquoa Samaritanrdquo 1837 ldquoa kingrdquo twice) Could it be that they want to fit their preconceived ideas with Scripture and have everyone else support their personal belief

The ldquoTrinityrdquo ldquoColwells Rulerdquo and the indefinite article (ldquoardquo)

Since the Trinity teaching is not explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture some of their advocates go to great lengths in their search of anything they can use to prop up the doctrine In their obsession to

discredit the viability of the translation ldquoa godrdquo at John 11c some scholars mentioned earlier and their legion of followers have seized the so-called ldquoColwellrsquos rulerdquo with great fondness I must say which seemed to favor the traditional rendering ldquoGodrdquo and used it for decades as if it were Inspired Scripture Why Dr Rodney J Decker pointed out one motive ldquo[Colwells rule] has often been misused by well-intentioned defenders of the deity of Christrdquo (Colwells Rule February 1995) Good intentions thoughare not enough to make an extraneous doctrine true Certainly the misuse and abuse of Colwellrsquos rule has certainly become an embarrassment to a segment of the scholarly community

Though Colwellrsquos study provides interesting data for technical discussion it should be seen as one scholars theological view Only the Bible is final word Those individuals who used it to bolster their own dogmatic views were wrong Those who zealously pushed Colwellrsquos rule to the front-line were fallible not inspired And those who fell for it were misled After more studies were done on the subject other scholars have questioned the validity of Colwellrsquos rule and have argued against it in some areas (See published works by Harner Dixon Wallace Hartley and BeDuhn on the subject In my opinion Professor David Alan Black is therefore incorrect citing Colwell for support as recent as 2009)

Even though Daniel B Wallace successfully reported the mishandling and abuse of ldquoColwellrsquos rulerdquo by scholars who ldquosaw the benefit for affirming the deity of Christ in John 11rdquo Wallace himself could not resist misusing another scholars conclusion about the New World Translation a translation that does notsupport the Trinity doctrine Wallace writes ldquoThe grammatical argument that the P[redicate] N[ominative of John 11c] here is indefinite is weak Often those who argue for such a view (in particular the translators of the NWT) do so on the sole basis that the term is anarthrous Yet they are inconsistent as R H Countess pointed out lsquoIn the New Testament there are 282 occurrences of the anarthrous θεός At sixteen places NWT has either a god god gods or godly Sixteen out of 282 means that the translators were faithful to their translation principle only six percent of the timeThe first section of John 11-18 furnishes a lucid example of NWT arbitrary dogmatismrsquo rdquo (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics quoting from The Jehovahs Witnesses New Testament A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation Presbyterian Italics belong to Countess Page 267)

Wow These numbers may sound impressive to someone unfamiliar with Greek grammatical patterns but it is a totally flawed conclusion How so It is strange that Wallace would quote Robert Countess another scholar who also sought to take advantage of ldquoColwells rulerdquo to condemn the NWT Both Wallace (P 262) and Rodney Decker (as well as other scholars) agreed that the rule does not prove definiteness at John 11c Decker said ldquoNote that the [Colwells] rule does not help by determining definiteness (Colwells Rule Feb 1995) Furthermore Wallace is cognizant as his Grammar shows that predicate nominatives preceding the verb are for the most part ldquoqualitativerdquo He himself said so ldquoWhen one sees an anarthrous preverbal P[redicate] N[ominative] he should consider its force to be most likely qualitative and only to be definite if the context or other factors strongly suggest otherwiserdquo(op cit p 261 Italics his) John 11c fits in that category Wallace should know that Scriptures used byRobert Countess to condemn the NWT do not adequately fit in the same category as John 11 does

Considering the evidence Rolf Furuli lecturer of Semitic languages at Oslo University (who also studied Greek) wrote ldquoCountess ascribes to the NWT translators rules for translation which they have never expressed and then he shows inconsistently the translators have followed these rulesrdquo Furuli adds ldquoHis account of the NWT therefore is not a balanced scholarly presentation rather it surrendersboth to emotionally inspired caricature and a partisan spiritrdquo (The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation pp 294-295) Even Evangelical Robert M Bowman Jr a harsh critic himself of the NWT

had this to say of Countess book ldquoEvangelical critique some good information but (in my opinion) not entirely accuraterdquo (Jehovahs Witnesses Bibliography) And here is Dr BeDuhns view of Countessbook ldquoI have read Dr Countess book While I found a few good points in it its argument is mostly tendentious and disputablerdquo httpsitesgooglecomsiteabdijahhomedebuhn-vs-scholars

For instance Countess in page 55 of his book went over the first eighteen verses of John chapter one noting eight occurrences of theos without the article Countess was expecting the NW translators for consistency reasons to employ the indefinite article ldquoardquo equally with all 8 instances of theos However Wallace as well as other grammarians have noted that lsquothere are several constructions in which a noun may be definite though anarthrousrsquo (op cit p 245) That includes proper names and the genitive construction (the ldquoofrdquo case) More importantly Countess (or Wallace for that matter) did not mention that outside of the first two verses of John none of the examples have a context where theos is used of two individuals who are said to be with each other In top of that in verse one an instance of theos has the article the other does not How many times do you find that grammatical structure in the New Testament within that context (John 118 is no counterpart to John 11 in structure even the manuscript evidence for verse 18 is inconclusive) Therefore all efforts to point out the number of timestheos (or any other noun) is used elsewhere without the article (which may or may not suggest definiteness) are not valid simply because the contextual structure of John 11 is so unique It can only be said of Jesus Christ the Son of God to be in the beginning with God So we are not going to find another single text which matches John 11 in conveying the thought of someone else other than Christ being with God from the very start With good reason the Bible speaks of Christ Jesus as ldquothe only-begotten Son of Godrdquo What is noted here though is that a certain grammatical pattern found in John 11c and elsewhere (where anarthrous predicates occur before the verb) may justify an indefinite or qualitative translation within the context of John 11

Wallace in his criticism of the NWT also failed to acknowledge that Countess as Furuli noted attributeda ldquotranslation principlerdquo (of nouns with and without the article) to the NWT translators which they have never expressed The NW translators were not responsible for coming up with the ldquotranslation principlerdquo (that every noun without the Greek article must be translated with an indefinite article) attributed to them by Countess and those who quote him If anyone was instrumental in fueling the debate of Greek nouns without the article appearing before the verb it was likely E C Colwell and Philip B Harner most responsible for it rather than those quoting their respective studies afterwards The NW translators merely quoted Dr Harner and Dana amp Manteys Grammar earlier where the scholars sustained that anarthrous predicate nouns (before the verb per Harner) are indicative of character or quality not identity (or definiteness) It was ldquoHarnerrdquo who concluded that lsquoin John 11 thequalitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definitersquo (op cit lsquoQualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nounsrsquo in JBL p 87) Incidentally isnt the opposite of definite ldquoindefiniterdquo Thus the only thing ldquolucidrdquo in Wallace quoting Countess analysis is that two well-known scholars made an embarrassing simple mistake by attributing and applying a ldquorulerdquo the NW translators never made Neither did the NW translators ever state that Harner Dana amp Mantey postulated lsquoa strict rulersquo which must be followed slavishly at all times Hence the claim of Wallace and Countess had no relevance whatsoever with the reasoning posited by the NWT when citing these scholars

Another scholar Paul S Dixon added the results of his own study of predicates without the article where in John 11c it precedes the verb ldquoThe use of the anarthrous predicate nominative in John is significant It is qualitative in 65 of 74 occurrences or 88 probability When the anarthrous predicate

Father However those victors went beyond what Scripture simply stated On the one hand the Jews never gave Jesus the place befitting of Christ while those in the opposite side who centuries later adopted the Trinity doctrine actually ended up giving Christ a position equal-to-God a position Jesus never acknowledged Thus we are in the presence of two extremist groups This Christ-centered approach is the one commonly taught in churches and colleges today True the New Testament centers around the life of Jesus Christ and how he provides ldquothe wayrdquo to the Father in order for mankind to besaved But it is never stated in Scripture that Christ is ldquoequalrdquo to the ldquoholy spiritrdquo or to ldquoGodrdquo The truth about the person of Christ is somewhere between these two extreme points of view

Even after Christian efforts were spent trying to convince the Jewish people to accept Christ as ldquoSon of Godrdquo ldquothe Messiahrdquo and as their ldquoSaviorrdquo for the most part they rejected him To this day Jews overall have not accepted Christ as their Messiah With so much emphasis placed on Christ in the New Testament later ldquoChristianrdquo followers picked up on this and influenced by Greek philosophers who eloquently spoke of ldquothreesrdquo ended up giving Christ equal status with God himself Not long after that they introduced the ldquoholy spiritrdquo into the trinitarian equation

Jesus Christ himself affirmed ldquoThe Father is superior to myselfrdquo (John 1428 The Authentic New Testament) Jesus always did the will of his Father and not his own (John 530 Luke 2242) This subordinated role of Jesus on earth did not change when he was lsquoglorifiedrsquo after his ascension to heavenand placed at the right hand of God where Scripture declares ldquoBlessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christrdquo (1 Peter 13) Scripturally speaking the rendering of ldquoa godrdquo (or ldquoa Godrdquo) as applied to Jesus found in various versions at John 11 is not demeaning or disgraceful in any way nor does it promote polytheism The Father of Jesus Christ is still Supreme Jesus himself asked others to worship his Father (John 423) After his ascension to heaven Christ is described in divine terms lsquoReflecting Gods bright glory and stamped with Gods own character[having] sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on highrsquo (Hebrews 13 Moffatt) ldquoFor it was Gods good pleasure to let all completeness [ldquofullness of the Godnessrdquo Colossians 29 Paul R McReynolds] dwell in himrdquo (Colossians 119 Knox) Jesus himself said that he lsquolived because of the Father but whoever feeds on Christ will live because of himrsquo (John 657) The Grand Creator has no need to feed or live of anyone - ever After all he is Almighty God But he gave life power and authority to his Son Jesus Christ offering Him as the ldquobread of Godrdquo so others can feed of him and live (John 526 Matthew 2818 John 633) There is no doubt that by lsquoreceiving power and authority from Godrsquo and lsquosent to do his Fathers willrsquo (John 638) he was more than ever lsquoGodlikersquo (Or ldquoa godrdquo John 11 - translator Siegfried Schulz cf Isaiah 96 Ex 71)

Only when the expression ldquoa godrdquo is applied to Christ -as in John 11- do we find theologians reluctant to admit that such rendering is not only possible but that is also standard practice to translate singular anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb in an indefinite or qualitative manner where they occur asin (Mark 649 ldquoa spiritrdquo 1132 ldquoa prophetrdquo John 670 ldquoa devilrdquo 848 ldquoa Samaritanrdquo 1837 ldquoa kingrdquo twice) Could it be that they want to fit their preconceived ideas with Scripture and have everyone else support their personal belief

The ldquoTrinityrdquo ldquoColwells Rulerdquo and the indefinite article (ldquoardquo)

Since the Trinity teaching is not explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture some of their advocates go to great lengths in their search of anything they can use to prop up the doctrine In their obsession to

discredit the viability of the translation ldquoa godrdquo at John 11c some scholars mentioned earlier and their legion of followers have seized the so-called ldquoColwellrsquos rulerdquo with great fondness I must say which seemed to favor the traditional rendering ldquoGodrdquo and used it for decades as if it were Inspired Scripture Why Dr Rodney J Decker pointed out one motive ldquo[Colwells rule] has often been misused by well-intentioned defenders of the deity of Christrdquo (Colwells Rule February 1995) Good intentions thoughare not enough to make an extraneous doctrine true Certainly the misuse and abuse of Colwellrsquos rule has certainly become an embarrassment to a segment of the scholarly community

Though Colwellrsquos study provides interesting data for technical discussion it should be seen as one scholars theological view Only the Bible is final word Those individuals who used it to bolster their own dogmatic views were wrong Those who zealously pushed Colwellrsquos rule to the front-line were fallible not inspired And those who fell for it were misled After more studies were done on the subject other scholars have questioned the validity of Colwellrsquos rule and have argued against it in some areas (See published works by Harner Dixon Wallace Hartley and BeDuhn on the subject In my opinion Professor David Alan Black is therefore incorrect citing Colwell for support as recent as 2009)

Even though Daniel B Wallace successfully reported the mishandling and abuse of ldquoColwellrsquos rulerdquo by scholars who ldquosaw the benefit for affirming the deity of Christ in John 11rdquo Wallace himself could not resist misusing another scholars conclusion about the New World Translation a translation that does notsupport the Trinity doctrine Wallace writes ldquoThe grammatical argument that the P[redicate] N[ominative of John 11c] here is indefinite is weak Often those who argue for such a view (in particular the translators of the NWT) do so on the sole basis that the term is anarthrous Yet they are inconsistent as R H Countess pointed out lsquoIn the New Testament there are 282 occurrences of the anarthrous θεός At sixteen places NWT has either a god god gods or godly Sixteen out of 282 means that the translators were faithful to their translation principle only six percent of the timeThe first section of John 11-18 furnishes a lucid example of NWT arbitrary dogmatismrsquo rdquo (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics quoting from The Jehovahs Witnesses New Testament A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation Presbyterian Italics belong to Countess Page 267)

Wow These numbers may sound impressive to someone unfamiliar with Greek grammatical patterns but it is a totally flawed conclusion How so It is strange that Wallace would quote Robert Countess another scholar who also sought to take advantage of ldquoColwells rulerdquo to condemn the NWT Both Wallace (P 262) and Rodney Decker (as well as other scholars) agreed that the rule does not prove definiteness at John 11c Decker said ldquoNote that the [Colwells] rule does not help by determining definiteness (Colwells Rule Feb 1995) Furthermore Wallace is cognizant as his Grammar shows that predicate nominatives preceding the verb are for the most part ldquoqualitativerdquo He himself said so ldquoWhen one sees an anarthrous preverbal P[redicate] N[ominative] he should consider its force to be most likely qualitative and only to be definite if the context or other factors strongly suggest otherwiserdquo(op cit p 261 Italics his) John 11c fits in that category Wallace should know that Scriptures used byRobert Countess to condemn the NWT do not adequately fit in the same category as John 11 does

Considering the evidence Rolf Furuli lecturer of Semitic languages at Oslo University (who also studied Greek) wrote ldquoCountess ascribes to the NWT translators rules for translation which they have never expressed and then he shows inconsistently the translators have followed these rulesrdquo Furuli adds ldquoHis account of the NWT therefore is not a balanced scholarly presentation rather it surrendersboth to emotionally inspired caricature and a partisan spiritrdquo (The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation pp 294-295) Even Evangelical Robert M Bowman Jr a harsh critic himself of the NWT

had this to say of Countess book ldquoEvangelical critique some good information but (in my opinion) not entirely accuraterdquo (Jehovahs Witnesses Bibliography) And here is Dr BeDuhns view of Countessbook ldquoI have read Dr Countess book While I found a few good points in it its argument is mostly tendentious and disputablerdquo httpsitesgooglecomsiteabdijahhomedebuhn-vs-scholars

For instance Countess in page 55 of his book went over the first eighteen verses of John chapter one noting eight occurrences of theos without the article Countess was expecting the NW translators for consistency reasons to employ the indefinite article ldquoardquo equally with all 8 instances of theos However Wallace as well as other grammarians have noted that lsquothere are several constructions in which a noun may be definite though anarthrousrsquo (op cit p 245) That includes proper names and the genitive construction (the ldquoofrdquo case) More importantly Countess (or Wallace for that matter) did not mention that outside of the first two verses of John none of the examples have a context where theos is used of two individuals who are said to be with each other In top of that in verse one an instance of theos has the article the other does not How many times do you find that grammatical structure in the New Testament within that context (John 118 is no counterpart to John 11 in structure even the manuscript evidence for verse 18 is inconclusive) Therefore all efforts to point out the number of timestheos (or any other noun) is used elsewhere without the article (which may or may not suggest definiteness) are not valid simply because the contextual structure of John 11 is so unique It can only be said of Jesus Christ the Son of God to be in the beginning with God So we are not going to find another single text which matches John 11 in conveying the thought of someone else other than Christ being with God from the very start With good reason the Bible speaks of Christ Jesus as ldquothe only-begotten Son of Godrdquo What is noted here though is that a certain grammatical pattern found in John 11c and elsewhere (where anarthrous predicates occur before the verb) may justify an indefinite or qualitative translation within the context of John 11

Wallace in his criticism of the NWT also failed to acknowledge that Countess as Furuli noted attributeda ldquotranslation principlerdquo (of nouns with and without the article) to the NWT translators which they have never expressed The NW translators were not responsible for coming up with the ldquotranslation principlerdquo (that every noun without the Greek article must be translated with an indefinite article) attributed to them by Countess and those who quote him If anyone was instrumental in fueling the debate of Greek nouns without the article appearing before the verb it was likely E C Colwell and Philip B Harner most responsible for it rather than those quoting their respective studies afterwards The NW translators merely quoted Dr Harner and Dana amp Manteys Grammar earlier where the scholars sustained that anarthrous predicate nouns (before the verb per Harner) are indicative of character or quality not identity (or definiteness) It was ldquoHarnerrdquo who concluded that lsquoin John 11 thequalitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definitersquo (op cit lsquoQualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nounsrsquo in JBL p 87) Incidentally isnt the opposite of definite ldquoindefiniterdquo Thus the only thing ldquolucidrdquo in Wallace quoting Countess analysis is that two well-known scholars made an embarrassing simple mistake by attributing and applying a ldquorulerdquo the NW translators never made Neither did the NW translators ever state that Harner Dana amp Mantey postulated lsquoa strict rulersquo which must be followed slavishly at all times Hence the claim of Wallace and Countess had no relevance whatsoever with the reasoning posited by the NWT when citing these scholars

Another scholar Paul S Dixon added the results of his own study of predicates without the article where in John 11c it precedes the verb ldquoThe use of the anarthrous predicate nominative in John is significant It is qualitative in 65 of 74 occurrences or 88 probability When the anarthrous predicate

discredit the viability of the translation ldquoa godrdquo at John 11c some scholars mentioned earlier and their legion of followers have seized the so-called ldquoColwellrsquos rulerdquo with great fondness I must say which seemed to favor the traditional rendering ldquoGodrdquo and used it for decades as if it were Inspired Scripture Why Dr Rodney J Decker pointed out one motive ldquo[Colwells rule] has often been misused by well-intentioned defenders of the deity of Christrdquo (Colwells Rule February 1995) Good intentions thoughare not enough to make an extraneous doctrine true Certainly the misuse and abuse of Colwellrsquos rule has certainly become an embarrassment to a segment of the scholarly community

Though Colwellrsquos study provides interesting data for technical discussion it should be seen as one scholars theological view Only the Bible is final word Those individuals who used it to bolster their own dogmatic views were wrong Those who zealously pushed Colwellrsquos rule to the front-line were fallible not inspired And those who fell for it were misled After more studies were done on the subject other scholars have questioned the validity of Colwellrsquos rule and have argued against it in some areas (See published works by Harner Dixon Wallace Hartley and BeDuhn on the subject In my opinion Professor David Alan Black is therefore incorrect citing Colwell for support as recent as 2009)

Even though Daniel B Wallace successfully reported the mishandling and abuse of ldquoColwellrsquos rulerdquo by scholars who ldquosaw the benefit for affirming the deity of Christ in John 11rdquo Wallace himself could not resist misusing another scholars conclusion about the New World Translation a translation that does notsupport the Trinity doctrine Wallace writes ldquoThe grammatical argument that the P[redicate] N[ominative of John 11c] here is indefinite is weak Often those who argue for such a view (in particular the translators of the NWT) do so on the sole basis that the term is anarthrous Yet they are inconsistent as R H Countess pointed out lsquoIn the New Testament there are 282 occurrences of the anarthrous θεός At sixteen places NWT has either a god god gods or godly Sixteen out of 282 means that the translators were faithful to their translation principle only six percent of the timeThe first section of John 11-18 furnishes a lucid example of NWT arbitrary dogmatismrsquo rdquo (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics quoting from The Jehovahs Witnesses New Testament A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation Presbyterian Italics belong to Countess Page 267)

Wow These numbers may sound impressive to someone unfamiliar with Greek grammatical patterns but it is a totally flawed conclusion How so It is strange that Wallace would quote Robert Countess another scholar who also sought to take advantage of ldquoColwells rulerdquo to condemn the NWT Both Wallace (P 262) and Rodney Decker (as well as other scholars) agreed that the rule does not prove definiteness at John 11c Decker said ldquoNote that the [Colwells] rule does not help by determining definiteness (Colwells Rule Feb 1995) Furthermore Wallace is cognizant as his Grammar shows that predicate nominatives preceding the verb are for the most part ldquoqualitativerdquo He himself said so ldquoWhen one sees an anarthrous preverbal P[redicate] N[ominative] he should consider its force to be most likely qualitative and only to be definite if the context or other factors strongly suggest otherwiserdquo(op cit p 261 Italics his) John 11c fits in that category Wallace should know that Scriptures used byRobert Countess to condemn the NWT do not adequately fit in the same category as John 11 does

Considering the evidence Rolf Furuli lecturer of Semitic languages at Oslo University (who also studied Greek) wrote ldquoCountess ascribes to the NWT translators rules for translation which they have never expressed and then he shows inconsistently the translators have followed these rulesrdquo Furuli adds ldquoHis account of the NWT therefore is not a balanced scholarly presentation rather it surrendersboth to emotionally inspired caricature and a partisan spiritrdquo (The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation pp 294-295) Even Evangelical Robert M Bowman Jr a harsh critic himself of the NWT

had this to say of Countess book ldquoEvangelical critique some good information but (in my opinion) not entirely accuraterdquo (Jehovahs Witnesses Bibliography) And here is Dr BeDuhns view of Countessbook ldquoI have read Dr Countess book While I found a few good points in it its argument is mostly tendentious and disputablerdquo httpsitesgooglecomsiteabdijahhomedebuhn-vs-scholars

For instance Countess in page 55 of his book went over the first eighteen verses of John chapter one noting eight occurrences of theos without the article Countess was expecting the NW translators for consistency reasons to employ the indefinite article ldquoardquo equally with all 8 instances of theos However Wallace as well as other grammarians have noted that lsquothere are several constructions in which a noun may be definite though anarthrousrsquo (op cit p 245) That includes proper names and the genitive construction (the ldquoofrdquo case) More importantly Countess (or Wallace for that matter) did not mention that outside of the first two verses of John none of the examples have a context where theos is used of two individuals who are said to be with each other In top of that in verse one an instance of theos has the article the other does not How many times do you find that grammatical structure in the New Testament within that context (John 118 is no counterpart to John 11 in structure even the manuscript evidence for verse 18 is inconclusive) Therefore all efforts to point out the number of timestheos (or any other noun) is used elsewhere without the article (which may or may not suggest definiteness) are not valid simply because the contextual structure of John 11 is so unique It can only be said of Jesus Christ the Son of God to be in the beginning with God So we are not going to find another single text which matches John 11 in conveying the thought of someone else other than Christ being with God from the very start With good reason the Bible speaks of Christ Jesus as ldquothe only-begotten Son of Godrdquo What is noted here though is that a certain grammatical pattern found in John 11c and elsewhere (where anarthrous predicates occur before the verb) may justify an indefinite or qualitative translation within the context of John 11

Wallace in his criticism of the NWT also failed to acknowledge that Countess as Furuli noted attributeda ldquotranslation principlerdquo (of nouns with and without the article) to the NWT translators which they have never expressed The NW translators were not responsible for coming up with the ldquotranslation principlerdquo (that every noun without the Greek article must be translated with an indefinite article) attributed to them by Countess and those who quote him If anyone was instrumental in fueling the debate of Greek nouns without the article appearing before the verb it was likely E C Colwell and Philip B Harner most responsible for it rather than those quoting their respective studies afterwards The NW translators merely quoted Dr Harner and Dana amp Manteys Grammar earlier where the scholars sustained that anarthrous predicate nouns (before the verb per Harner) are indicative of character or quality not identity (or definiteness) It was ldquoHarnerrdquo who concluded that lsquoin John 11 thequalitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definitersquo (op cit lsquoQualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nounsrsquo in JBL p 87) Incidentally isnt the opposite of definite ldquoindefiniterdquo Thus the only thing ldquolucidrdquo in Wallace quoting Countess analysis is that two well-known scholars made an embarrassing simple mistake by attributing and applying a ldquorulerdquo the NW translators never made Neither did the NW translators ever state that Harner Dana amp Mantey postulated lsquoa strict rulersquo which must be followed slavishly at all times Hence the claim of Wallace and Countess had no relevance whatsoever with the reasoning posited by the NWT when citing these scholars

Another scholar Paul S Dixon added the results of his own study of predicates without the article where in John 11c it precedes the verb ldquoThe use of the anarthrous predicate nominative in John is significant It is qualitative in 65 of 74 occurrences or 88 probability When the anarthrous predicate

had this to say of Countess book ldquoEvangelical critique some good information but (in my opinion) not entirely accuraterdquo (Jehovahs Witnesses Bibliography) And here is Dr BeDuhns view of Countessbook ldquoI have read Dr Countess book While I found a few good points in it its argument is mostly tendentious and disputablerdquo httpsitesgooglecomsiteabdijahhomedebuhn-vs-scholars

For instance Countess in page 55 of his book went over the first eighteen verses of John chapter one noting eight occurrences of theos without the article Countess was expecting the NW translators for consistency reasons to employ the indefinite article ldquoardquo equally with all 8 instances of theos However Wallace as well as other grammarians have noted that lsquothere are several constructions in which a noun may be definite though anarthrousrsquo (op cit p 245) That includes proper names and the genitive construction (the ldquoofrdquo case) More importantly Countess (or Wallace for that matter) did not mention that outside of the first two verses of John none of the examples have a context where theos is used of two individuals who are said to be with each other In top of that in verse one an instance of theos has the article the other does not How many times do you find that grammatical structure in the New Testament within that context (John 118 is no counterpart to John 11 in structure even the manuscript evidence for verse 18 is inconclusive) Therefore all efforts to point out the number of timestheos (or any other noun) is used elsewhere without the article (which may or may not suggest definiteness) are not valid simply because the contextual structure of John 11 is so unique It can only be said of Jesus Christ the Son of God to be in the beginning with God So we are not going to find another single text which matches John 11 in conveying the thought of someone else other than Christ being with God from the very start With good reason the Bible speaks of Christ Jesus as ldquothe only-begotten Son of Godrdquo What is noted here though is that a certain grammatical pattern found in John 11c and elsewhere (where anarthrous predicates occur before the verb) may justify an indefinite or qualitative translation within the context of John 11

Wallace in his criticism of the NWT also failed to acknowledge that Countess as Furuli noted attributeda ldquotranslation principlerdquo (of nouns with and without the article) to the NWT translators which they have never expressed The NW translators were not responsible for coming up with the ldquotranslation principlerdquo (that every noun without the Greek article must be translated with an indefinite article) attributed to them by Countess and those who quote him If anyone was instrumental in fueling the debate of Greek nouns without the article appearing before the verb it was likely E C Colwell and Philip B Harner most responsible for it rather than those quoting their respective studies afterwards The NW translators merely quoted Dr Harner and Dana amp Manteys Grammar earlier where the scholars sustained that anarthrous predicate nouns (before the verb per Harner) are indicative of character or quality not identity (or definiteness) It was ldquoHarnerrdquo who concluded that lsquoin John 11 thequalitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definitersquo (op cit lsquoQualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nounsrsquo in JBL p 87) Incidentally isnt the opposite of definite ldquoindefiniterdquo Thus the only thing ldquolucidrdquo in Wallace quoting Countess analysis is that two well-known scholars made an embarrassing simple mistake by attributing and applying a ldquorulerdquo the NW translators never made Neither did the NW translators ever state that Harner Dana amp Mantey postulated lsquoa strict rulersquo which must be followed slavishly at all times Hence the claim of Wallace and Countess had no relevance whatsoever with the reasoning posited by the NWT when citing these scholars

Another scholar Paul S Dixon added the results of his own study of predicates without the article where in John 11c it precedes the verb ldquoThe use of the anarthrous predicate nominative in John is significant It is qualitative in 65 of 74 occurrences or 88 probability When the anarthrous predicate

nominative precedes the verb it is qualitative in 50 of 53 occurrences or 94 probability When it follows the verb the anarthrous predicate nominative is qualitative 13 of 19 occurrences or 68rdquo (TheSignificance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John) Because of John 11 Trinitarian scholarsare reluctant to express the fact that in some cases the semantic difference between the indefinite and thequalitative factor is not clear As Wallace acknowledged in a footnote ldquoIt is nevertheless difficult to distinguish indefinite from qualitative nouns at timesrdquo (op cit Wallace p 266) Although Dixon a Trinitarian does not welcome an indefinite translation for John 11c he acknowledges the following ldquoOften the only way to effectively communicate a qualitative noun in the English idiom is byprefacing the noun with lsquoarsquo rdquo (Page 47) In other words some nouns without the Greek article can be described in English as ldquoindefinite-qualitativerdquo as demonstrated in previous examples (i e John 419 toname one according to Wallace)

Also Dana amp Manteys Grammar claim there is ldquoa parallel caserdquo to what we have in John 11 and Xenophons statement in Anabasis The authors suggest the following rendering for John 11c ldquoand theword was deityrdquo to correspond to Xenophons statement ldquoand the place was a marketrdquo But Xenophons Greek statement has a similar grammatical construction to John 11c where Dana amp Mantey find it perfectly adequate to render it with an indefinite article in English But when it comes to describing the Word as theos Dana amp Mantey chose a rendering emphasizing ldquocharacterrdquo or ldquoqualityrdquo (ldquodeityrdquo) rather than indefiniteness This is an unintended admission that both options are grammatically acceptable except for the theological implications that each could convey to those of trinitarian or non-trinitarian persuasion The point is that Wallace did not criticize Dana amp Mantey at all for translating the Greek in Xenophons statement which ldquoparallelsrdquo John 11 with an indefinite article However when it comes to the NWT he finds the ldquogrammaticalrdquo argument for an indefinite ldquoweakrdquo Wallace could have understandably said instead ldquoThe theological argument for an indefinite is weakrdquo which would have made better sense from a trinitarian standpoint

In spite of his theological objection other authoritative Greek Grammars used in university courses regularly point out that a noun lacking the Greek article can be rendered as indefinite (with an ldquoardquo) in English context allowing For instance

Basics of Biblical Greek ldquoIf there is no [Greek] article you may insert lsquoarsquo before the noun if it makes better sense in Englishrdquo (William D Mounce p 37 Note Mounce is against the ldquoa godrdquo rendering) Learn to Read New Testament Greek ldquoWhere no article appears in Greek the indefinite article lsquoarsquo or lsquoanrsquo may be used in English when the context suggests this translationrdquo (David Alan Black p 30) New Testament Greek For Beginners ldquoThere is no indefinite article in Greek and so ἀδελφός means either brother or a brother (usually the latter) Greek has however a definite article and where the Greek article does not appear the definite article should not be inserted in the English translation Thus ἀδελφός [adelphos] does not mean the brotherrdquo (Page 23 26) ldquoThe use of the article in Greek corresponds roughly to the use of the definite article in English Thus λόγος [logos] means a word ὁ λόγος (ho logos) means the wordrdquo (J Gresham Machen p 35 67) The Elements of NT Greek ldquoThere is no indefinite article in Greek When therefore a word like λογος stands alone it usually means lsquoa wordrsquo But it can also mean simply lsquowordrsquo The right translationis nearly always obvious from the contextrdquo (J W Wenham Cambridge Univ Press p 30)

Countess Wallace and Mounce among other scholars are not being equitable by targeting the NWT alleged mishandling of the Greek article or lack of in translation when other scholars have made it clearthat it is a matter of personal choice A charge of ldquoarbitrary dogmatismrdquo could then be made of every

translator we dont agree with in their handling of the article It bears repeating something many folks would love to ignore in regards to John 11 Alfred Marshall D Litt wrote in his Interlinear NT lsquoTheuse of the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) in translation is a matter of individual judgmentrsquo He adds that lsquothe indefinite article is used in translation where it seems called forrsquo That being the case one wonders why so much effort is spent in repeated attempts to use grammar to ldquoproverdquo that those who translate John 11 differently are wrong when grammar alone is not totally decisive in this

It is fair to say then that translators who choose to use the (a) in John 11 as ldquoa godrdquo ldquowhere it seems called forrdquo based on grammar and Bible context do so making use of their ldquoindividual judgmentrdquo a prerogative shared with other translators no less

In view of the above Wallace citing Countess flawed conclusion does not change the fact that an anarthrous ldquopredicate nominative preceding the verbrdquo can also be rendered in an indefinite manner no matter how many Trinitarian scholars gang up against the concept

Does word order change the meaning of predicate nouns

Some writers like Dr Richard B Ramsay (citing Colwell amp Hanna) bring out the fact that theos in John 11c is emphatic claiming that placing a predicate noun before the verb in John 11c makes Jesus emphatically ldquoGODrdquo (Griego y Exeacutegesis p 108 Editorial CLIE) Greek truly offers more freedom in word order than other languages It has been duly noted ldquoThe first word or phrase normally carries the greatest emphasisrdquo (Introduction to Attic Greek Mastronarde p 59) That said it is misleading for Ramsay to claim that Christ is ldquoGodrdquo based on this emphasis E mphasis alone does not transform qualitative or indefinite nouns into ldquodefiniterdquo ones Actually such emphasis enhances the qualitative factor rather than suggest definiteness Even Colwell admitted that an exception to his ldquorulerdquo is the lsquoemphasisrsquo that an author makes (ldquoA Definite Rulerdquo p 18) The examples provided earlier clearly demonstrate this For example at Acts 284 Paul was not being called ldquoThe Murdererrdquo by the islandershe was said to be at most ldquoa murdererrdquo At 1 Kings 1827 (LXX) Baal was not being called ldquoGODrdquo byElijah (similar syntax with John 11c) but was only making an emphatic reference to Baal as ldquoa godrdquo At Mark 649 when Jesus unexpectedly appeared walking over the waters during a storm the frightened disciples seeing what they thought was a phantom did not scream ldquoIts The Ghostrdquo (or ldquoThePhantomrdquo) Instead they emphatically cried out in fear ldquoIts lsquoa ghostrsquo or lsquoa phantomrsquo rdquo Did they not

And in Acts 286 we find Paul being called ldquoa godrdquo (accusative case) by the islanders of Malta Some Greek manuscripts have ldquoθεόνrdquo (ldquoa godrdquo) before the verb and some others after the verb In this case the meaning does not change whether θεόν appears before or after the verb Simply the account describes the islanders as saying emphatically that Paul was ldquoa godrdquo not that Paul was being identified as ldquoGODrdquo In English one would naturally translate both syntactical structures like this ldquoand [the islanders] began to say he was a godrdquo Likewise at John 11c the writer was not identifying the Word with God He simply was emphatically stating that the Word like God was lsquodivinely powerfulrsquo but not that he was the Almighty God See ldquoA glance at Acts 286rdquo at the end of this essay

ldquoTruthrdquo sacrificed in the altar of fat profits

Nowadays selling Bibles is big business and publishing houses and their religious leaders are quick to introduce popular beliefs right into the text of their Bible translations and they sell for the better One

thing that really drive Bible sales is to make them more Christ-centered We have whole segments of ldquoChristianrdquo population rejecting Bible versions that dont emphasize this ldquoChrist-centerednessrdquo enough They demand that Bible publishers cater to their wants It is not all that rare for Bible translators to modify their versions to make them more popular And that includes modifications to Scriptures such asJohn 11 and John 858 This can be seen when many scholars explain that ldquoGodrdquo in John 11c should not be interpreted as generally understood and preached Regardless they still forge ahead publicly withthis confusing rendering in their speeches and writings for fear of being criticized For a consideration of John 858 look here httpwwwscribdcomdoc35318309The-correct-translation-of-John-8-58-List-of-alternate-readings-to-I-am

This brings up a question Should Bible readers dictate by demand how theologically-driven scriptures are to be translated Should ldquotruthrdquo be compromised by such measures

Another popular move is to remove the divine name from the Bible text Please do not take the publishers explanations for not using it in their versions too seriously The fact is No one knows with certainty how Bible names were pronounced thousands of years ago In the interest of promoting the Trinity doctrine removing the divine name from Scripture makes it easier to focus solely on Christ but creates further confusion as to who Christ really is (Matthew 2241-46 Psalm 1101) Whenever a Bible version removes the Divine Name (YHWH) from Scripture for petty reasons it is a telling sign that ldquotraditionrdquo rules over truth in their version Although some are passionate about their favorite Bibletranslation the thought of translation teams quietly doing adjustments on some popular versions to keeptheir customers happy is disturbing to say the least Bible versions are marketed just like any commercial product such as mouthwash or automobiles The difference here is that this business is done in the name of Christ Many a times ldquotruthrdquo is sacrificed in the altar of fat profits This is something to keep in mind before we go out and passionately argue in defense of a Scriptural rendering of our favorite Bible version I am glad to see some Bible translations resisting popular trends standing steadfast for what is right

In search of a counterbalance in interpretation

Another tactic used by opponents of translations which support the reading ldquoa godrdquo is one of engaging in a mission of destruction of ldquocharacterrdquo That is they do everything within their might to discredit the scholarship of the divergent translators and to justify their charges quote some ldquoreliablerdquo Greek authority agreeing with their view as if that was the final word Have you noticed that The truth is thatif we go digging for human flaws we are going to find them perhaps in plenty in both camps Humans fall short of perfection Period So we dont want to go around looking for personal issues to carp about What is most sad though is finding so many ldquoChristianrdquo writers stooping so low unscrupulouslytwisting the facts and using half-truths to smear their dissidents Reader beware Gladly many other writers dont fit that description and the reader is advised to get a second opinion

It is sort of a challenge nowadays to see what the Bible basically says on the subject without mixing a post-biblical mindset with Scripture The religious people of Jesus day could not see some of the simpletruths he would preach them So today many would rather have the intricate philosophies of higher learning than plain truth Greek philosophers would look down at the ldquounlearnedrdquo Some Jewish groups too would speak of common people as ldquo`am ha-aretzrdquo (ldquopeople of the landrdquo or perhaps ldquodirt peoplerdquo) a pejorative term insinuating ignorance uneducated Yet there are times when ldquounschooledrdquo people are right and the ldquolearnedrdquo folks are not

translator we dont agree with in their handling of the article It bears repeating something many folks would love to ignore in regards to John 11 Alfred Marshall D Litt wrote in his Interlinear NT lsquoTheuse of the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) in translation is a matter of individual judgmentrsquo He adds that lsquothe indefinite article is used in translation where it seems called forrsquo That being the case one wonders why so much effort is spent in repeated attempts to use grammar to ldquoproverdquo that those who translate John 11 differently are wrong when grammar alone is not totally decisive in this

It is fair to say then that translators who choose to use the (a) in John 11 as ldquoa godrdquo ldquowhere it seems called forrdquo based on grammar and Bible context do so making use of their ldquoindividual judgmentrdquo a prerogative shared with other translators no less

In view of the above Wallace citing Countess flawed conclusion does not change the fact that an anarthrous ldquopredicate nominative preceding the verbrdquo can also be rendered in an indefinite manner no matter how many Trinitarian scholars gang up against the concept

Does word order change the meaning of predicate nouns

Some writers like Dr Richard B Ramsay (citing Colwell amp Hanna) bring out the fact that theos in John 11c is emphatic claiming that placing a predicate noun before the verb in John 11c makes Jesus emphatically ldquoGODrdquo (Griego y Exeacutegesis p 108 Editorial CLIE) Greek truly offers more freedom in word order than other languages It has been duly noted ldquoThe first word or phrase normally carries the greatest emphasisrdquo (Introduction to Attic Greek Mastronarde p 59) That said it is misleading for Ramsay to claim that Christ is ldquoGodrdquo based on this emphasis E mphasis alone does not transform qualitative or indefinite nouns into ldquodefiniterdquo ones Actually such emphasis enhances the qualitative factor rather than suggest definiteness Even Colwell admitted that an exception to his ldquorulerdquo is the lsquoemphasisrsquo that an author makes (ldquoA Definite Rulerdquo p 18) The examples provided earlier clearly demonstrate this For example at Acts 284 Paul was not being called ldquoThe Murdererrdquo by the islandershe was said to be at most ldquoa murdererrdquo At 1 Kings 1827 (LXX) Baal was not being called ldquoGODrdquo byElijah (similar syntax with John 11c) but was only making an emphatic reference to Baal as ldquoa godrdquo At Mark 649 when Jesus unexpectedly appeared walking over the waters during a storm the frightened disciples seeing what they thought was a phantom did not scream ldquoIts The Ghostrdquo (or ldquoThePhantomrdquo) Instead they emphatically cried out in fear ldquoIts lsquoa ghostrsquo or lsquoa phantomrsquo rdquo Did they not

And in Acts 286 we find Paul being called ldquoa godrdquo (accusative case) by the islanders of Malta Some Greek manuscripts have ldquoθεόνrdquo (ldquoa godrdquo) before the verb and some others after the verb In this case the meaning does not change whether θεόν appears before or after the verb Simply the account describes the islanders as saying emphatically that Paul was ldquoa godrdquo not that Paul was being identified as ldquoGODrdquo In English one would naturally translate both syntactical structures like this ldquoand [the islanders] began to say he was a godrdquo Likewise at John 11c the writer was not identifying the Word with God He simply was emphatically stating that the Word like God was lsquodivinely powerfulrsquo but not that he was the Almighty God See ldquoA glance at Acts 286rdquo at the end of this essay

ldquoTruthrdquo sacrificed in the altar of fat profits

Nowadays selling Bibles is big business and publishing houses and their religious leaders are quick to introduce popular beliefs right into the text of their Bible translations and they sell for the better One

thing that really drive Bible sales is to make them more Christ-centered We have whole segments of ldquoChristianrdquo population rejecting Bible versions that dont emphasize this ldquoChrist-centerednessrdquo enough They demand that Bible publishers cater to their wants It is not all that rare for Bible translators to modify their versions to make them more popular And that includes modifications to Scriptures such asJohn 11 and John 858 This can be seen when many scholars explain that ldquoGodrdquo in John 11c should not be interpreted as generally understood and preached Regardless they still forge ahead publicly withthis confusing rendering in their speeches and writings for fear of being criticized For a consideration of John 858 look here httpwwwscribdcomdoc35318309The-correct-translation-of-John-8-58-List-of-alternate-readings-to-I-am

This brings up a question Should Bible readers dictate by demand how theologically-driven scriptures are to be translated Should ldquotruthrdquo be compromised by such measures

Another popular move is to remove the divine name from the Bible text Please do not take the publishers explanations for not using it in their versions too seriously The fact is No one knows with certainty how Bible names were pronounced thousands of years ago In the interest of promoting the Trinity doctrine removing the divine name from Scripture makes it easier to focus solely on Christ but creates further confusion as to who Christ really is (Matthew 2241-46 Psalm 1101) Whenever a Bible version removes the Divine Name (YHWH) from Scripture for petty reasons it is a telling sign that ldquotraditionrdquo rules over truth in their version Although some are passionate about their favorite Bibletranslation the thought of translation teams quietly doing adjustments on some popular versions to keeptheir customers happy is disturbing to say the least Bible versions are marketed just like any commercial product such as mouthwash or automobiles The difference here is that this business is done in the name of Christ Many a times ldquotruthrdquo is sacrificed in the altar of fat profits This is something to keep in mind before we go out and passionately argue in defense of a Scriptural rendering of our favorite Bible version I am glad to see some Bible translations resisting popular trends standing steadfast for what is right

In search of a counterbalance in interpretation

Another tactic used by opponents of translations which support the reading ldquoa godrdquo is one of engaging in a mission of destruction of ldquocharacterrdquo That is they do everything within their might to discredit the scholarship of the divergent translators and to justify their charges quote some ldquoreliablerdquo Greek authority agreeing with their view as if that was the final word Have you noticed that The truth is thatif we go digging for human flaws we are going to find them perhaps in plenty in both camps Humans fall short of perfection Period So we dont want to go around looking for personal issues to carp about What is most sad though is finding so many ldquoChristianrdquo writers stooping so low unscrupulouslytwisting the facts and using half-truths to smear their dissidents Reader beware Gladly many other writers dont fit that description and the reader is advised to get a second opinion

It is sort of a challenge nowadays to see what the Bible basically says on the subject without mixing a post-biblical mindset with Scripture The religious people of Jesus day could not see some of the simpletruths he would preach them So today many would rather have the intricate philosophies of higher learning than plain truth Greek philosophers would look down at the ldquounlearnedrdquo Some Jewish groups too would speak of common people as ldquo`am ha-aretzrdquo (ldquopeople of the landrdquo or perhaps ldquodirt peoplerdquo) a pejorative term insinuating ignorance uneducated Yet there are times when ldquounschooledrdquo people are right and the ldquolearnedrdquo folks are not

thing that really drive Bible sales is to make them more Christ-centered We have whole segments of ldquoChristianrdquo population rejecting Bible versions that dont emphasize this ldquoChrist-centerednessrdquo enough They demand that Bible publishers cater to their wants It is not all that rare for Bible translators to modify their versions to make them more popular And that includes modifications to Scriptures such asJohn 11 and John 858 This can be seen when many scholars explain that ldquoGodrdquo in John 11c should not be interpreted as generally understood and preached Regardless they still forge ahead publicly withthis confusing rendering in their speeches and writings for fear of being criticized For a consideration of John 858 look here httpwwwscribdcomdoc35318309The-correct-translation-of-John-8-58-List-of-alternate-readings-to-I-am

This brings up a question Should Bible readers dictate by demand how theologically-driven scriptures are to be translated Should ldquotruthrdquo be compromised by such measures

Another popular move is to remove the divine name from the Bible text Please do not take the publishers explanations for not using it in their versions too seriously The fact is No one knows with certainty how Bible names were pronounced thousands of years ago In the interest of promoting the Trinity doctrine removing the divine name from Scripture makes it easier to focus solely on Christ but creates further confusion as to who Christ really is (Matthew 2241-46 Psalm 1101) Whenever a Bible version removes the Divine Name (YHWH) from Scripture for petty reasons it is a telling sign that ldquotraditionrdquo rules over truth in their version Although some are passionate about their favorite Bibletranslation the thought of translation teams quietly doing adjustments on some popular versions to keeptheir customers happy is disturbing to say the least Bible versions are marketed just like any commercial product such as mouthwash or automobiles The difference here is that this business is done in the name of Christ Many a times ldquotruthrdquo is sacrificed in the altar of fat profits This is something to keep in mind before we go out and passionately argue in defense of a Scriptural rendering of our favorite Bible version I am glad to see some Bible translations resisting popular trends standing steadfast for what is right

In search of a counterbalance in interpretation

Another tactic used by opponents of translations which support the reading ldquoa godrdquo is one of engaging in a mission of destruction of ldquocharacterrdquo That is they do everything within their might to discredit the scholarship of the divergent translators and to justify their charges quote some ldquoreliablerdquo Greek authority agreeing with their view as if that was the final word Have you noticed that The truth is thatif we go digging for human flaws we are going to find them perhaps in plenty in both camps Humans fall short of perfection Period So we dont want to go around looking for personal issues to carp about What is most sad though is finding so many ldquoChristianrdquo writers stooping so low unscrupulouslytwisting the facts and using half-truths to smear their dissidents Reader beware Gladly many other writers dont fit that description and the reader is advised to get a second opinion

It is sort of a challenge nowadays to see what the Bible basically says on the subject without mixing a post-biblical mindset with Scripture The religious people of Jesus day could not see some of the simpletruths he would preach them So today many would rather have the intricate philosophies of higher learning than plain truth Greek philosophers would look down at the ldquounlearnedrdquo Some Jewish groups too would speak of common people as ldquo`am ha-aretzrdquo (ldquopeople of the landrdquo or perhaps ldquodirt peoplerdquo) a pejorative term insinuating ignorance uneducated Yet there are times when ldquounschooledrdquo people are right and the ldquolearnedrdquo folks are not

I want to make something clear I certainly do not want to draw away in any way from the exalted glorious position that Christ holds as the Logos of God ldquothe only begotten Sonrdquo who has explained the invisible Father God (John 118) Likewise I would not want to err by endeavoring to place Christ to a position he never claimed to have namely that he was equal to God Almighty He stated clearly that lsquothe Father was greater than he wasrsquo (John 1428) Even in heaven Christ speaks of his Father as lsquohis Godrsquo in harmony with John 11 (Revelation 312) And how about this The apostle Peter clearly tells the world who the exalted Christ really was in relation to God ldquoBlessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christrdquo (1 Peter 13) If we compare this scripture with Psalm 4113 which says ldquoBlessed be Yahweh the God of Israelrdquo ndash we cannot conclude that Israel is God Yahweh almighty (NJB) Just as Israel was a separate subordinate entity from God so is Christ a separate entity from God subordinate to the Supreme God as Peter shows Thus the God of Israel Yahweh is the same God of Christ (John 2017)

I find religious groups going to extremes here Some by not accepting the important role Christ plays inGods purpose by not lsquohonoring him as they honor the Fatherrsquo by relegating him to a position equal to or below a human (or human organization) (John 316 523) At the other extreme we find plenty of people making Jesus the equal of God a charge Jews of his day made a charge Christ denied (John 518 1033-36) One would think that ldquoChristiansrdquo would have learned a lesson from chapters 5 and 10 of John but no they have become guilty of committing the same error that Jews made in Jesus day

I simply accept the Bible statements as they were inspired I accept Jesus Christ as my Savior as ldquothe Son of Godrdquo not ldquoGod the Sonrdquo which is a different and incorrect statement The Father God is neverregistered in Scripture as saying ldquomy Godrdquo to someone else In fact never is the Father God spoken ofas subordinate to the Son or to anyone else Ever Neither is holy spirit ever spoken directly of as ldquoGodrdquo or even seen in heavenly visions at the throne or nearby Although there is no hard rule on Greek gender the holy spirit with few exceptions is generally referred to as an ldquoitrdquo (not a ldquoherdquo) in the neuter gender used for impersonal things rather than the masculine gender used throughout for the Father and his Son See Matthew 2819 and other places in the Greek text So why should we add our own ideas into Scripture

It was stated earlier that the renderings ldquothe Word was god [divine]rdquo and ldquothe Word was a godrdquo are bothgrammatically possible just as one could both say of John of 114 that ldquothe Word became flesh [ie human]rdquo or ldquothe Word became a human beingrdquo And in John 660 ldquoThis saying [of munching Jesus flesh and drinking his blood] is hard [to deal with]rdquo Or ldquoThis is a hard saying [or ldquoa difficult statementrdquo]rdquo Both are equally true In John 848 similar in syntax to John 11 we have the Jews accusing Jesus of being a Samaritan It would be odd though to render this verse qualitatively in English ldquothou art Samaritanrdquo Hence English Bibles render it with an indefinite ldquothou art a Samaritanrdquo (Not ldquothe Samaritanrdquo) The emphasis in these statements fall on the descriptive (quality) or the indefinite status of the subject noun at hand Identity is not the issue

As others have aptly observed ldquoGrammar alone cannot prove how the predicate in this verse [John 11c] should be translated whether lsquoGodrsquo or lsquoa godrsquordquo (The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Vol XIII No4 Oct 1951) Trinitarians are correct when they claim that the Greek can be rendered word by word ldquogod was the Wordrdquo In fact this is the rendering which appears in the left column of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation an acknowledgement by the New World Bible translators that this basic rendering is acceptable What is clearly incorrect though is the common interpretation among traditionalists where the literal reading can only mean ldquothe Word was Godrdquo that is that the Word was

himself Almighty God Bible versions which transmit this thought are misleading Verse 2 argues against such interpretation

A case was made in this article that grammatical patterns (not a hard rule) and contextual matters favora qualitative or indefinite translation at John 11 where various examples were given As a matter of fact most English Bible translators use the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) in translation with predicate nouns without the Greek article throughout the New Testament In the case of the NWT rendering at John 11 I see their choice as an attempt to further clarify a distinction between the Father and the Son withinthe context of John to their projected audience

What was Johns own conclusion (the author of John 11) about the Logos

If John wanted to establish the Logos as lsquoGodrsquo he would have added the definite article (ldquotherdquo) before ldquotheosrdquo (as ldquoho theosrdquo) in this clause just as he did in the prior clause at John 11 as Zerwick noted Hechose not to Being brought up in a monotheistic society (ldquoShemardquo Deut 64) John offered no suggestion of Christ being a second part of a trinitarian Godhead a teaching that admittedly was established centuries later to stop controversies around the person of Christ And he was by no means suggesting polytheism in pagan style by ascribing the appellative theos (ldquogodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo) to the LogosRather the Apostle wanted to tell the world that the Word was very much like God in the same way that the author of the Bible book of Hebrews was telling us ldquo[Jesus] is the reflection of Godrsquos glory and the exact imprint of Godrsquos very beingrdquo (13 New Revised Standard Version) Other Bible versionsexpress the second part of this statement in the following manner

ldquoThe Sonexpresses the very character of Godrdquo (New Living Translation) ldquoHis Son is the exact likeness of Godrsquos beingrdquo (GODS WORD) ldquoThe Son is as God is in every wayrdquo (New Life Version) ldquoHe is just like God himselfrdquo (Worldwide English New Testament) ldquoHes exactly like Godrdquo (The Clear Word) ldquoGods Sonis like him [God] in every wayrdquo (Contemporary English Version) ldquoThe Sonshows exactly what God is likerdquo (New Century Version) ldquo[Christ] is the perfect copy of his naturerdquo (Jerusalem Bible) ldquoHe is ldquothe precise counterpart of his very beingrdquo (Gods New Covenant Cassirer)

Thus if Christ is very much like God enough for a version to say he is an ldquoexact replicardquo of God isnt that in essence a description of the ldquoreplicardquo as ldquoa godrdquo (21st Century New Testament)

After everything was said and done John summed up his gospel by saying ldquoBut these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ [=anointed by God] the Son of God and that believing ye might have life through his namerdquo (KJV) Notice the Apostle did not say ldquoThese are written that you may believe that Jesus is Godrdquo Big difference The statement that Jesus Christ is the lsquoSon of Godrsquo appear dozens of times in the Gospel of John Trinitarians can only come up with two scriptures in ldquoJohnrdquo in which it is said Jesus is God (John 11 amp 2028) But according to many scholars the traditional interpretation of these two texts is questionable In other words the claim that Christ is ldquoGodrdquo as Trinitarians understand it is highly unlikely However what is quite certain and not open to debate at all is the fact that the Bible writers often speak of Christ as lsquoGods Sonrsquo repeatedly and not asldquoGodrdquo We are better off imitating the apostle John than someone who contradicts him Truth-seeking Bible readers agree with those who teach that what God offered the world as a Savior was not God

himself incarnated but the Son of him a God a Powerful Being Divine but always subordinate to the-one-true-God (Luke 132 35 John 114 316 1 Corinthians 1528 2 John 7) The submitted list showing alternate readings of John 11 indicate there are a good number of voices seeing not a mystery but a simpler truth

Concluding Remarks

Remember scholar William Barclay who once claimed the translation ldquothe Word was a godrsquo at John 11c was ldquogrammatically impossiblerdquo and later came to admit the Greek language did allow for such rendering Well Barclay also had this to say about the Greek structure of John 11

ldquoWhen the definite article is removed from a noun in Greek as in English the noun becomes the equivalent of an adjective Take the following example in English If I say lsquoJohn is the manrsquo I identify John with some particular man if I say lsquoJohn is manrsquo omitting the definite article I simply describe John as a man What that particular sentence of John says is that the Word was in the same class as God God is an adjective rather than a noun and the perfect translation is the New English Bible translation lsquoWhat God was the Word wasrsquo rdquo (op cit ldquoEver Yoursrdquo p 205) (Note The NEB translation of John 11c is preferred over the traditional rendering but is not ldquoperfectrdquo either because it is ambiguous not to mention that it is a paraphrase)

Accordingly we can interpret Barclays reasoning as following

Barclay John is the man = John is lsquoidentified with some particular manrsquo Barclay John is man = John is a man Jn 11c The Word was god = The Word was a god

Barclay concludes ldquoWhen John said [in traditional translations] the word was God he was not saying that Jesus was identical with God he was saying that Jesus was so perfectly the same as God in mind inheart in being that in him we perfectly see what God is likerdquo (The Gospel of John Vol 1 p 39) (Barclay himself translates John 11c ldquoand the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of Godrdquo)Truly Jesus is lsquothe reflection of Gods gloryrsquo (Hebrews 13)

Whether we prefer one particular rendering over another in John 11c (be it ldquoGodrdquo ldquodivinerdquo or ldquoa godrdquo) it is proper to note that due to human limitation it would be wise on our part to be reasonable and respectful of others who harbor a different understanding from ours There is no one on earth who knows it all Moreover Gods Word aptly said ldquoKind mercy wins over harsh judgment every timerdquo (James 213 TM) In the end only God and Christ as Divine ldquoJudgesrdquo have the faculty and authority needed to issue the final verdict

What then is the correct translation of John 11c

The traditional translation of this verse (lsquoAnd the Word was Godrsquo) is a good representation of the Latin Vulgate itself a translation rather than the Greek text and leads to great confusion as seen by the manycalling on this Scripture as a ldquoproofrdquo text in support of a doctrine that is generally accepted as post-biblical dogma Herein I will list some Bible translations which correctly convey what John said as it appears in the Greek Text

ldquothe Word was a divine being rdquo (La Bible du Centenaire Socieacuteteacute Biblique de Paris) ldquo a god was the Wordrdquo (The Sahidic Coptic Version c 200) ldquothe Word was a god rdquo (New World Translation)

ldquothe Word was god rdquo (Professor Charles Cutler Torrey)

ldquoGod of a sort was the Logosrdquo (Ernst Haenchen)

ldquogodlike sort was the Logosrdquo (Johannes Schneider)

ldquothe Logos was divine rdquo (James Moffatt)

ldquothe Word was divine rdquo (JMP Smith and E J Goodspeed)

ldquothe Word was divine rdquo (The Original New Testament by Hugh J Schonfield)

ldquowhat God was the Word wasrdquo (New English Bible acceptable paraphrase)

____________________________

After a careful analysis of John 11 one scholar arrived at this conclusion

ldquoThe preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar from literary context and from cultural environment supports this translation [ldquothe Word was a godrdquo] of which lsquothe Word was divinersquo would be a slightly more polished variant carrying the same basic meaningrdquo (Professor Jason BeDuhn op cit Truth in Translation p 132)

Thus the translation of ldquoa godrdquo as applied to Jesus (ldquothe Wordrdquo at John 11c) the Son of Godrdquo though controversial does no violence to Scripture and is fully in accord with it

======

ldquoWho can defeat the world Only the person who believes that Jesus is the Son of Godrdquo ndash 1 John 55 Good News Translation

- End -

__________________________________________

Addendum A glance at Acts 286

Following the statement above at Acts 284 (in main list 2nd example) by the islanders of Malta and after seeing that Paul did not swell up and die they quickly changed their minds and began saying according to the last clause of verse 6 that ldquohe was a god [theon]rdquo

Acts 286 literally reads

ἔλεγον αὐτὸν εἶναι θεόν ndash (Wescott-Hort Nestle-Aland UBS SBLGNT they were saying him to be god Greek Texts)

ἔλεγον θεὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ndash (ReceivedMajorityRobinson-Pierpont Greek Texts) they were saying god him to be

Notice that in the sample above theon (god) without the article in the first reading follows the verb to be whereas in the bottom reading theon (god) precedes the verb to be (Note This sample has one notable grammatical difference and some relevance with John 11c The word theon is the accusative form of theos (theos nominative case in John 11c) Because of case difference Acts 286 is not an exact syntactical parallel to John 11c However the case ending difference has no theological import Furthermore the Received Text Majority Text Robinson-Pierpont Greek Texts (used by the King James Version New King James Version Youngs Literal Translation the German Elberfelder the Dutch Statenvertaling the Spanish Reina-Valera and the Portuguese Almeida among others) show a sentence structure at Acts 286 similar to John 11 where a singular anarthrous predicate noun precedes the verb Now consider this How do most translators render these Greek readings into other languages Answer

ldquoand said That he was a Godrdquo (Geneva Bible 1560) ldquothey were saying he was a god [un dios]rdquo (Sagradas Escrituras 1569) ldquosaid that he was a godrdquo (King James Version 1602) ldquoand said that he was a godrdquo (John Wesley New Testament 1755) ldquothey were saying he was a god [un dios]rdquo (Nuevo Testamento Pablo Besson) ldquoand said that he was a god rdquo (The Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible NT) ldquo were saying a god him to be rdquo (The Complete BIBLICAL LIBRARY) ldquoand said that he a god was [en zeiden dat hij een god was]rdquo (Statenvertaling) ldquothey said he was a god [y dijeron que era un dios]rdquo (Reina-Valera Revisada 1960) ldquothey said a god him to berdquo (Jay P Green Interlinear New Testament) ldquothey were saying that he was a god [e diziam que era um deus]rdquo (Almeida Atualizada) ldquothey were saying he was some god [alguacuten dios]rdquo (Versioacuten Moderna) ldquosaid a god he wasrdquo (Interlinear NT Thomas Newberry) ldquoand said he was a god [und sagten er sei ein Gott]rdquo (Die Elberfelder Bibel 1905) ldquosaid he was a god rdquo (Youngs Literal Translation)

Now lets place the Greek reading from the Received Text right next to the Greek of John 11 elegon theon auton einai (A 286) || kai theos en ho logos (Jn 11c)they were saying god him to be || and god was the logos

This side by side comparison of John 11 and Acts 286 shows some similarity where ldquotheosrdquo ldquotheonrdquo precedes the verb to bewas Grammarians explain that when a singular predicate noun that lacks the

definite article (the) (such as ldquogodrdquo in John 11c and Acts 286 Received Text) and precedes the verb in a sentence it indicates a quality about the subject in discussion It is standard practice in English to insert the indefinite article (a) when anarthrous nouns precede the verb into the text to complete the sense (See Mark 649 1132 John 670 844 twice 848 917 1013 1033 126 1837 twice) In this case though there is no difference in meaning in context at Acts 286 whether ldquotheosrdquo precedes or follows the verb There is only a slight shift of emphasis between the two readings If we were to follow the pattern of Bible translations above we could translate Acts 286 and John 11c this way

Acts 286 ldquothey said he was a god rdquo || John 11 ldquothe logos was a god rdquo

(Compare with the following Greek TextsInterlinears THE EXPOSITORŚ GREEK TESTAMENT (Nicoll)THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ACCORDING TO THE MAJORITY TEXT (HodgesFarstad) The NKJV Greek-English Interlinear New Testament THE ENGLISHMANacuteS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (Newberry) THE APOSTOLIC BIBLE POLYGLOT INTERLINEAR GREEK-ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT (GR Berry)

As noted most translations appropriately add the indefinite article (a) at Acts 286 indicating the peopleat Malta were saying of Paul a human that ldquohe was a godrdquo Most translators may feel that it does not make sense to have the islanders saying that Paul was ldquoGodrdquo Would the reader leave out the indefinite article (a) in this scripture because the Greek text did not use one (Greek had only one article ho ldquotherdquo) However at John 11c most translations do not use the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) there to make Jesus ldquoa godrdquo which would make Jesus a subordinate divine being to God a thought which some Trinitarians consider ldquofrightfulrdquo Hence the strong theological objections for the rendering ldquoa godrdquo when applied to Jesus But grammatically speaking no reasonable objection can be made in translating John 11c as ldquoa godrdquo It is more of a ldquotheologicalrdquo issue than a technical one ___________________________________________________________________________________

Note 1 (About WTS quoting other sources)

In a WT letter to CARIS in response to a question related to their quote of Dana and Manteys Grammar they said

ldquoDana and Manty [sic] may have their personal views about the trinity but their work allows for the rendering found in The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 11rdquo []

rdquo But it must be borne in mind that in quoting a persons statement or presentation of the facts one doesnot have to agree with the interpretation put on those facts We in quoting the facts do not oblige ourselves to agree with the conclusions or interpretations presented by the authorities we quoted Similarly in quoting the lsquorulersquo set out by Dana and Manty [sic] we are not obliged to accept their interpretation of how this rule might bear on the trinity conceptrdquo

In another case when a reader asked Dr Jason BeDuhn if he was quoted fairly by the WTS (Watchtower Feb 1 1998 p 32) BeDuhn replied ldquoI wrote a letter to the WBTS thanking them for providing copies of the KIT free of charge to my class I did this as a gesture of appreciation I also took the opportunity to praise what I found to be the merits of the book The sections of my letter quoted in the Watchtower accurately reflect my views Naturally left out of the article were the few comments I made about individual passages I thought they should reconsider because I found their

translation weak I personally dont find any fault with them quoting the positive statements and leaving out the negative ones this is standard editorial practice and I do not think it to be deceptive [hellip] As for the use of [quoting] lsquoexpertsrsquo -- you will find that all denominations cite anyone who agrees with them and dismisses whoever disagreesrdquo [In a 1998 letter to Ginny Tosken])

______________________________________________

Heres a list of alternate readings to John 11c in contrast to the traditional reading

c 200 ldquoand a god was the Wordrdquo - The Sahidic Coptic Version (an early Egyptian text based on the Greek alphabet) Unlike common Greek Coptic has both the definite article and the indefinite article (a) The Coptic translators of the Greek text chose to employ the Coptic indefinite article in their translation of it This interpretation of the Greek text represents a very early understanding of John 11 free from later ecclesiastical decrees of the 4th and 5th centuries CE which were instrumental in establishing the Trinity doctrine Hence the Sahidic Coptic Version is a significant translation which cannot be ignored 1660 ldquoand the Word (Speech) was a god rdquo - Jeremias Felbinger DAS NEUE TESTAMENT (und di Rede___war ein Gott) (Note German nouns are commonly capitalized but in translation capitals may be dropped) 1694 ldquoand the Word was a god rdquo - Reijnier Rooleeuw MD The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ translated from the Greek 1822 ldquothe Word was a Godrdquo - Abner Kneeland The New Testament in Greek and English Phil 1829 ldquoand the Logos was a god rdquo ndash John Samuel Thompson The Monotessaron or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists Baltimore1864 ldquoan a god was the Wordrdquo - Benjamin Wilson The Emphatic Diaglott (Interlinear reading) ndash New York and London - ldquoand the LOGOS was with GOD and the LOGOS was Godrdquo - Right hand column reading Take note of size and capitalization of ldquoGODrdquo versus ldquoGodrdquo in this rendering here Some websites are misleading here Wilson did show a difference where the article ldquotherdquo was used and where it did not 1872 ldquoThe Word was god rdquo - The Translation of the New Testament Marc Jean Hugues Oltramare (La Parole eacutetait dieu) (Professor of New Testament Exegesis University of Geneva) 1879 ldquothe Word was a god rdquo - Louis Segond and H Oltramare La Sainte Bible Geneva and Paris (la Parole eacutetait un dieu) (In Segondrsquos individual version of 1910 he uses ldquoDieurdquo)

1885 ldquoan a God (ie a Divine Being is the Word) ndash Robert Young Youngs Concise Critical Bible Commentary (also author of Youngs Literal Translation of the Bible of 1862 which rendered John 11 as ldquoand the Word was Godrdquo However in his later commentary he explained it as above Grand Rapids MI Baker Book House

1896 ldquoand the Word was itself of divine being rdquo - Das Neue Testament by Curt Stage Leipzig (und das Wort war selbst goumlttlichen Wesens) Germany 1908 ldquothe Word was of divine essence rdquo - Marc J H Oltramare La Sainte Bible Geneva and Paris (et la Parole eacutetait dessence divine) 1911 ldquoand [a] God was the wordrdquo - George W Horner The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect Vol 3 (Oxford The Clarendon Press Brackets his) 1919 ldquoand god of a sort was the Wordrdquo - Ludwig Thimme Das Neue Testament Stuttgart Germany (und Gott von Art war das Wort)

19221934 ldquothe Logos was divine rdquo - James Moffatt DD DLitt New Translation of the Bible New York Evanston and London 1925 ldquoand the Logos was god rdquo - Hubert Pernot Pages choisies des Eacutevangiles mdash Paris France (et le Logos eacutetait dieu)

1928 ldquothe Word was a divine being rdquo - La Bible du Centenaire Socieacuteteacute Biblique de Paris (la Parole eacutetait un ecirctre divin) 1935 ldquoand the Word was divine rdquo - JMP Smith and E J Goodspeed The Bible-An American Translation Chicago 1947 ldquoand the Word was god rdquo - Professor Charles Cutler Torrey The Four Gospels-A New Translation (2nd edit 1st edit 1933 (Yale Univ) New York amp London 1950 ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo - New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures Brooklyn 1958 ldquoand the Word was a God rdquo - James L Tomanek The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed Pocatello Idaho USA1961 ldquoand what God was the Word wasrdquo - New English Bible New Testament (1970) Oxford and Cambridge amp New York1975 ldquoand a god (or of a divine kind ) was the Wordrdquo - Siegfried Schulz Das Evangelium nach und ein Gott (oder Gott von Art) war das Wort Johannes Das Neue Testament Deutsch Goumlttingen Germany 1978 ldquoand godlike sort was the Logosrdquo - Johannes Schneider Das Evangelium nach Johannes Berlin (und goumlttlicher Art war der Logos)

1979 ldquoand a god was the Logosrdquo - Juumlrgen Becker Das Evangelium nach Johannes Guumltersloh and (und ein Gott war der Logos) Wuumlrzburg Germany 1980 ldquoand god of a sort was the Logosrdquo - Ernst Haenchen Das Johannesevangelium Tuumlbingen Ger und Gott (von Art) war der Logos

1982 ldquoAnd a God was the Project [Loacutegos]rdquo- El Evangelio de Juan Anaacutelisis linguumliacutestico y comentario ldquoY un Dios era el proyectordquo exegeacutetico (alternate reading) by Juan Mateos and Juan Barreto Cristiandad Madrid p 54 Brackets mine1985 ldquoSo the Word was divinerdquo- The Original New Testament by Hugh J Schonfield Aberdeen Scotland

1989 ldquoThe Logos was in the sphere of God rdquo - Lectura del evangelio de Juan 1 (alternate reading) (El Logos estaba en la esfera de Dios) by Xavier Leoacuten-Dufour ediciones Siacutegueme 59 Salamanca Spain 1989 ldquoand what God was the Word wasrdquo - Revised English Bible Oxford and Cambridge Presses

1997 ldquothe Word was divine rdquo - Los escritos originales de la comunidad del disciacutepulo ldquoamigordquo de (la Palabra era divina ) Jesuacutes El evangelio y las cartas de Juan 1997 by Seneacuten Vidal Garciacutea - University Professor of New Testament Valladolid Spain2000 ldquoand the Word was divine rdquo - 21st Century Version of the Christian Scriptures Mark H Miller

2001 ldquoand the Word was a powerful one rdquo - 2001 Translation ndash An American English Version

2002 ldquoand god was the Wordrdquo - Cuarto Evangelio Cartas de Juan Juan Joseacute Bartolomeacute Filologiacutea (y dios era la Palabra) Griega Madrid CCS DL2006 ldquoand the Verb was powerful rdquo - Versioacuten Israelita Nazarena (Holman Publishers Nasville TN) (y el Verbo era poderoso)

2007 ldquoand the Word was what God wasrdquo - The Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible NT parenthesis theirs

For additional sources click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings )

======================COMMENTS MADE BY SCHOLARS====================

185-254 CE ldquothe Word was a god rdquo - ( Origens Commentary on John Book I ch 42 - Bk II ch3) Adamantius died 254 CE1901 ldquoThe Logos was divine not the divine Being himselfrdquo - J Henry Thayer (died 1901) author of THAYERS GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NT ndash Chairman of NT Committee ASV1938 Divinity professor John Martin Creed DD - ldquo[T]he Prologue [John 11] is less explicit with the anarthrous [theoacutes without the article ho (the)] than it appears to be in Englishrdquo - The Divinity of Jesus Christ p 123 Cambridge 1962 Catholic theologian Karl Rahner ldquoIn none of these instances [of theoacutes such as Romans 95 John 11 118 2028 1 John 520 and Titus 213] is lsquotheoacutesrsquo used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as lsquoho theoacutesrsquo that is the Supreme Godrdquo - The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of England January 1962 1965 Jesuit John L Mackenzie SJ ldquoJn 11 should rigorously be translated lsquothe word was with the God [=the Father] and the word was a divine beingrsquordquo - DICTIONARY of the BIBLE 317 Brackets his 1970 ldquoNew American Biblerdquo - ldquoIn John 11 the Word is called lsquoGodrsquo but the original Greek term used here theos [God] is not the usual word for God ho theos [the God]rdquo- ldquoBiblical Terms Explainedrdquo 1977 C H Dodd ldquoIf a translation were a matter of substituting words a possible translation of θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος would be ldquoThe Word was a godrdquo As a word-for-word translation it cannot be

himself Almighty God Bible versions which transmit this thought are misleading Verse 2 argues against such interpretation

A case was made in this article that grammatical patterns (not a hard rule) and contextual matters favora qualitative or indefinite translation at John 11 where various examples were given As a matter of fact most English Bible translators use the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) in translation with predicate nouns without the Greek article throughout the New Testament In the case of the NWT rendering at John 11 I see their choice as an attempt to further clarify a distinction between the Father and the Son withinthe context of John to their projected audience

What was Johns own conclusion (the author of John 11) about the Logos

If John wanted to establish the Logos as lsquoGodrsquo he would have added the definite article (ldquotherdquo) before ldquotheosrdquo (as ldquoho theosrdquo) in this clause just as he did in the prior clause at John 11 as Zerwick noted Hechose not to Being brought up in a monotheistic society (ldquoShemardquo Deut 64) John offered no suggestion of Christ being a second part of a trinitarian Godhead a teaching that admittedly was established centuries later to stop controversies around the person of Christ And he was by no means suggesting polytheism in pagan style by ascribing the appellative theos (ldquogodrdquo or ldquoa godrdquo) to the LogosRather the Apostle wanted to tell the world that the Word was very much like God in the same way that the author of the Bible book of Hebrews was telling us ldquo[Jesus] is the reflection of Godrsquos glory and the exact imprint of Godrsquos very beingrdquo (13 New Revised Standard Version) Other Bible versionsexpress the second part of this statement in the following manner

ldquoThe Sonexpresses the very character of Godrdquo (New Living Translation) ldquoHis Son is the exact likeness of Godrsquos beingrdquo (GODS WORD) ldquoThe Son is as God is in every wayrdquo (New Life Version) ldquoHe is just like God himselfrdquo (Worldwide English New Testament) ldquoHes exactly like Godrdquo (The Clear Word) ldquoGods Sonis like him [God] in every wayrdquo (Contemporary English Version) ldquoThe Sonshows exactly what God is likerdquo (New Century Version) ldquo[Christ] is the perfect copy of his naturerdquo (Jerusalem Bible) ldquoHe is ldquothe precise counterpart of his very beingrdquo (Gods New Covenant Cassirer)

Thus if Christ is very much like God enough for a version to say he is an ldquoexact replicardquo of God isnt that in essence a description of the ldquoreplicardquo as ldquoa godrdquo (21st Century New Testament)

After everything was said and done John summed up his gospel by saying ldquoBut these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ [=anointed by God] the Son of God and that believing ye might have life through his namerdquo (KJV) Notice the Apostle did not say ldquoThese are written that you may believe that Jesus is Godrdquo Big difference The statement that Jesus Christ is the lsquoSon of Godrsquo appear dozens of times in the Gospel of John Trinitarians can only come up with two scriptures in ldquoJohnrdquo in which it is said Jesus is God (John 11 amp 2028) But according to many scholars the traditional interpretation of these two texts is questionable In other words the claim that Christ is ldquoGodrdquo as Trinitarians understand it is highly unlikely However what is quite certain and not open to debate at all is the fact that the Bible writers often speak of Christ as lsquoGods Sonrsquo repeatedly and not asldquoGodrdquo We are better off imitating the apostle John than someone who contradicts him Truth-seeking Bible readers agree with those who teach that what God offered the world as a Savior was not God

himself incarnated but the Son of him a God a Powerful Being Divine but always subordinate to the-one-true-God (Luke 132 35 John 114 316 1 Corinthians 1528 2 John 7) The submitted list showing alternate readings of John 11 indicate there are a good number of voices seeing not a mystery but a simpler truth

Concluding Remarks

Remember scholar William Barclay who once claimed the translation ldquothe Word was a godrsquo at John 11c was ldquogrammatically impossiblerdquo and later came to admit the Greek language did allow for such rendering Well Barclay also had this to say about the Greek structure of John 11

ldquoWhen the definite article is removed from a noun in Greek as in English the noun becomes the equivalent of an adjective Take the following example in English If I say lsquoJohn is the manrsquo I identify John with some particular man if I say lsquoJohn is manrsquo omitting the definite article I simply describe John as a man What that particular sentence of John says is that the Word was in the same class as God God is an adjective rather than a noun and the perfect translation is the New English Bible translation lsquoWhat God was the Word wasrsquo rdquo (op cit ldquoEver Yoursrdquo p 205) (Note The NEB translation of John 11c is preferred over the traditional rendering but is not ldquoperfectrdquo either because it is ambiguous not to mention that it is a paraphrase)

Accordingly we can interpret Barclays reasoning as following

Barclay John is the man = John is lsquoidentified with some particular manrsquo Barclay John is man = John is a man Jn 11c The Word was god = The Word was a god

Barclay concludes ldquoWhen John said [in traditional translations] the word was God he was not saying that Jesus was identical with God he was saying that Jesus was so perfectly the same as God in mind inheart in being that in him we perfectly see what God is likerdquo (The Gospel of John Vol 1 p 39) (Barclay himself translates John 11c ldquoand the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of Godrdquo)Truly Jesus is lsquothe reflection of Gods gloryrsquo (Hebrews 13)

Whether we prefer one particular rendering over another in John 11c (be it ldquoGodrdquo ldquodivinerdquo or ldquoa godrdquo) it is proper to note that due to human limitation it would be wise on our part to be reasonable and respectful of others who harbor a different understanding from ours There is no one on earth who knows it all Moreover Gods Word aptly said ldquoKind mercy wins over harsh judgment every timerdquo (James 213 TM) In the end only God and Christ as Divine ldquoJudgesrdquo have the faculty and authority needed to issue the final verdict

What then is the correct translation of John 11c

The traditional translation of this verse (lsquoAnd the Word was Godrsquo) is a good representation of the Latin Vulgate itself a translation rather than the Greek text and leads to great confusion as seen by the manycalling on this Scripture as a ldquoproofrdquo text in support of a doctrine that is generally accepted as post-biblical dogma Herein I will list some Bible translations which correctly convey what John said as it appears in the Greek Text

ldquothe Word was a divine being rdquo (La Bible du Centenaire Socieacuteteacute Biblique de Paris) ldquo a god was the Wordrdquo (The Sahidic Coptic Version c 200) ldquothe Word was a god rdquo (New World Translation)

ldquothe Word was god rdquo (Professor Charles Cutler Torrey)

ldquoGod of a sort was the Logosrdquo (Ernst Haenchen)

ldquogodlike sort was the Logosrdquo (Johannes Schneider)

ldquothe Logos was divine rdquo (James Moffatt)

ldquothe Word was divine rdquo (JMP Smith and E J Goodspeed)

ldquothe Word was divine rdquo (The Original New Testament by Hugh J Schonfield)

ldquowhat God was the Word wasrdquo (New English Bible acceptable paraphrase)

____________________________

After a careful analysis of John 11 one scholar arrived at this conclusion

ldquoThe preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar from literary context and from cultural environment supports this translation [ldquothe Word was a godrdquo] of which lsquothe Word was divinersquo would be a slightly more polished variant carrying the same basic meaningrdquo (Professor Jason BeDuhn op cit Truth in Translation p 132)

Thus the translation of ldquoa godrdquo as applied to Jesus (ldquothe Wordrdquo at John 11c) the Son of Godrdquo though controversial does no violence to Scripture and is fully in accord with it

======

ldquoWho can defeat the world Only the person who believes that Jesus is the Son of Godrdquo ndash 1 John 55 Good News Translation

- End -

__________________________________________

Addendum A glance at Acts 286

Following the statement above at Acts 284 (in main list 2nd example) by the islanders of Malta and after seeing that Paul did not swell up and die they quickly changed their minds and began saying according to the last clause of verse 6 that ldquohe was a god [theon]rdquo

Acts 286 literally reads

ἔλεγον αὐτὸν εἶναι θεόν ndash (Wescott-Hort Nestle-Aland UBS SBLGNT they were saying him to be god Greek Texts)

ἔλεγον θεὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ndash (ReceivedMajorityRobinson-Pierpont Greek Texts) they were saying god him to be

Notice that in the sample above theon (god) without the article in the first reading follows the verb to be whereas in the bottom reading theon (god) precedes the verb to be (Note This sample has one notable grammatical difference and some relevance with John 11c The word theon is the accusative form of theos (theos nominative case in John 11c) Because of case difference Acts 286 is not an exact syntactical parallel to John 11c However the case ending difference has no theological import Furthermore the Received Text Majority Text Robinson-Pierpont Greek Texts (used by the King James Version New King James Version Youngs Literal Translation the German Elberfelder the Dutch Statenvertaling the Spanish Reina-Valera and the Portuguese Almeida among others) show a sentence structure at Acts 286 similar to John 11 where a singular anarthrous predicate noun precedes the verb Now consider this How do most translators render these Greek readings into other languages Answer

ldquoand said That he was a Godrdquo (Geneva Bible 1560) ldquothey were saying he was a god [un dios]rdquo (Sagradas Escrituras 1569) ldquosaid that he was a godrdquo (King James Version 1602) ldquoand said that he was a godrdquo (John Wesley New Testament 1755) ldquothey were saying he was a god [un dios]rdquo (Nuevo Testamento Pablo Besson) ldquoand said that he was a god rdquo (The Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible NT) ldquo were saying a god him to be rdquo (The Complete BIBLICAL LIBRARY) ldquoand said that he a god was [en zeiden dat hij een god was]rdquo (Statenvertaling) ldquothey said he was a god [y dijeron que era un dios]rdquo (Reina-Valera Revisada 1960) ldquothey said a god him to berdquo (Jay P Green Interlinear New Testament) ldquothey were saying that he was a god [e diziam que era um deus]rdquo (Almeida Atualizada) ldquothey were saying he was some god [alguacuten dios]rdquo (Versioacuten Moderna) ldquosaid a god he wasrdquo (Interlinear NT Thomas Newberry) ldquoand said he was a god [und sagten er sei ein Gott]rdquo (Die Elberfelder Bibel 1905) ldquosaid he was a god rdquo (Youngs Literal Translation)

Now lets place the Greek reading from the Received Text right next to the Greek of John 11 elegon theon auton einai (A 286) || kai theos en ho logos (Jn 11c)they were saying god him to be || and god was the logos

This side by side comparison of John 11 and Acts 286 shows some similarity where ldquotheosrdquo ldquotheonrdquo precedes the verb to bewas Grammarians explain that when a singular predicate noun that lacks the

definite article (the) (such as ldquogodrdquo in John 11c and Acts 286 Received Text) and precedes the verb in a sentence it indicates a quality about the subject in discussion It is standard practice in English to insert the indefinite article (a) when anarthrous nouns precede the verb into the text to complete the sense (See Mark 649 1132 John 670 844 twice 848 917 1013 1033 126 1837 twice) In this case though there is no difference in meaning in context at Acts 286 whether ldquotheosrdquo precedes or follows the verb There is only a slight shift of emphasis between the two readings If we were to follow the pattern of Bible translations above we could translate Acts 286 and John 11c this way

Acts 286 ldquothey said he was a god rdquo || John 11 ldquothe logos was a god rdquo

(Compare with the following Greek TextsInterlinears THE EXPOSITORŚ GREEK TESTAMENT (Nicoll)THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ACCORDING TO THE MAJORITY TEXT (HodgesFarstad) The NKJV Greek-English Interlinear New Testament THE ENGLISHMANacuteS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (Newberry) THE APOSTOLIC BIBLE POLYGLOT INTERLINEAR GREEK-ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT (GR Berry)

As noted most translations appropriately add the indefinite article (a) at Acts 286 indicating the peopleat Malta were saying of Paul a human that ldquohe was a godrdquo Most translators may feel that it does not make sense to have the islanders saying that Paul was ldquoGodrdquo Would the reader leave out the indefinite article (a) in this scripture because the Greek text did not use one (Greek had only one article ho ldquotherdquo) However at John 11c most translations do not use the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) there to make Jesus ldquoa godrdquo which would make Jesus a subordinate divine being to God a thought which some Trinitarians consider ldquofrightfulrdquo Hence the strong theological objections for the rendering ldquoa godrdquo when applied to Jesus But grammatically speaking no reasonable objection can be made in translating John 11c as ldquoa godrdquo It is more of a ldquotheologicalrdquo issue than a technical one ___________________________________________________________________________________

Note 1 (About WTS quoting other sources)

In a WT letter to CARIS in response to a question related to their quote of Dana and Manteys Grammar they said

ldquoDana and Manty [sic] may have their personal views about the trinity but their work allows for the rendering found in The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 11rdquo []

rdquo But it must be borne in mind that in quoting a persons statement or presentation of the facts one doesnot have to agree with the interpretation put on those facts We in quoting the facts do not oblige ourselves to agree with the conclusions or interpretations presented by the authorities we quoted Similarly in quoting the lsquorulersquo set out by Dana and Manty [sic] we are not obliged to accept their interpretation of how this rule might bear on the trinity conceptrdquo

In another case when a reader asked Dr Jason BeDuhn if he was quoted fairly by the WTS (Watchtower Feb 1 1998 p 32) BeDuhn replied ldquoI wrote a letter to the WBTS thanking them for providing copies of the KIT free of charge to my class I did this as a gesture of appreciation I also took the opportunity to praise what I found to be the merits of the book The sections of my letter quoted in the Watchtower accurately reflect my views Naturally left out of the article were the few comments I made about individual passages I thought they should reconsider because I found their

translation weak I personally dont find any fault with them quoting the positive statements and leaving out the negative ones this is standard editorial practice and I do not think it to be deceptive [hellip] As for the use of [quoting] lsquoexpertsrsquo -- you will find that all denominations cite anyone who agrees with them and dismisses whoever disagreesrdquo [In a 1998 letter to Ginny Tosken])

______________________________________________

Heres a list of alternate readings to John 11c in contrast to the traditional reading

c 200 ldquoand a god was the Wordrdquo - The Sahidic Coptic Version (an early Egyptian text based on the Greek alphabet) Unlike common Greek Coptic has both the definite article and the indefinite article (a) The Coptic translators of the Greek text chose to employ the Coptic indefinite article in their translation of it This interpretation of the Greek text represents a very early understanding of John 11 free from later ecclesiastical decrees of the 4th and 5th centuries CE which were instrumental in establishing the Trinity doctrine Hence the Sahidic Coptic Version is a significant translation which cannot be ignored 1660 ldquoand the Word (Speech) was a god rdquo - Jeremias Felbinger DAS NEUE TESTAMENT (und di Rede___war ein Gott) (Note German nouns are commonly capitalized but in translation capitals may be dropped) 1694 ldquoand the Word was a god rdquo - Reijnier Rooleeuw MD The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ translated from the Greek 1822 ldquothe Word was a Godrdquo - Abner Kneeland The New Testament in Greek and English Phil 1829 ldquoand the Logos was a god rdquo ndash John Samuel Thompson The Monotessaron or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists Baltimore1864 ldquoan a god was the Wordrdquo - Benjamin Wilson The Emphatic Diaglott (Interlinear reading) ndash New York and London - ldquoand the LOGOS was with GOD and the LOGOS was Godrdquo - Right hand column reading Take note of size and capitalization of ldquoGODrdquo versus ldquoGodrdquo in this rendering here Some websites are misleading here Wilson did show a difference where the article ldquotherdquo was used and where it did not 1872 ldquoThe Word was god rdquo - The Translation of the New Testament Marc Jean Hugues Oltramare (La Parole eacutetait dieu) (Professor of New Testament Exegesis University of Geneva) 1879 ldquothe Word was a god rdquo - Louis Segond and H Oltramare La Sainte Bible Geneva and Paris (la Parole eacutetait un dieu) (In Segondrsquos individual version of 1910 he uses ldquoDieurdquo)

1885 ldquoan a God (ie a Divine Being is the Word) ndash Robert Young Youngs Concise Critical Bible Commentary (also author of Youngs Literal Translation of the Bible of 1862 which rendered John 11 as ldquoand the Word was Godrdquo However in his later commentary he explained it as above Grand Rapids MI Baker Book House

1896 ldquoand the Word was itself of divine being rdquo - Das Neue Testament by Curt Stage Leipzig (und das Wort war selbst goumlttlichen Wesens) Germany 1908 ldquothe Word was of divine essence rdquo - Marc J H Oltramare La Sainte Bible Geneva and Paris (et la Parole eacutetait dessence divine) 1911 ldquoand [a] God was the wordrdquo - George W Horner The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect Vol 3 (Oxford The Clarendon Press Brackets his) 1919 ldquoand god of a sort was the Wordrdquo - Ludwig Thimme Das Neue Testament Stuttgart Germany (und Gott von Art war das Wort)

19221934 ldquothe Logos was divine rdquo - James Moffatt DD DLitt New Translation of the Bible New York Evanston and London 1925 ldquoand the Logos was god rdquo - Hubert Pernot Pages choisies des Eacutevangiles mdash Paris France (et le Logos eacutetait dieu)

1928 ldquothe Word was a divine being rdquo - La Bible du Centenaire Socieacuteteacute Biblique de Paris (la Parole eacutetait un ecirctre divin) 1935 ldquoand the Word was divine rdquo - JMP Smith and E J Goodspeed The Bible-An American Translation Chicago 1947 ldquoand the Word was god rdquo - Professor Charles Cutler Torrey The Four Gospels-A New Translation (2nd edit 1st edit 1933 (Yale Univ) New York amp London 1950 ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo - New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures Brooklyn 1958 ldquoand the Word was a God rdquo - James L Tomanek The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed Pocatello Idaho USA1961 ldquoand what God was the Word wasrdquo - New English Bible New Testament (1970) Oxford and Cambridge amp New York1975 ldquoand a god (or of a divine kind ) was the Wordrdquo - Siegfried Schulz Das Evangelium nach und ein Gott (oder Gott von Art) war das Wort Johannes Das Neue Testament Deutsch Goumlttingen Germany 1978 ldquoand godlike sort was the Logosrdquo - Johannes Schneider Das Evangelium nach Johannes Berlin (und goumlttlicher Art war der Logos)

1979 ldquoand a god was the Logosrdquo - Juumlrgen Becker Das Evangelium nach Johannes Guumltersloh and (und ein Gott war der Logos) Wuumlrzburg Germany 1980 ldquoand god of a sort was the Logosrdquo - Ernst Haenchen Das Johannesevangelium Tuumlbingen Ger und Gott (von Art) war der Logos

1982 ldquoAnd a God was the Project [Loacutegos]rdquo- El Evangelio de Juan Anaacutelisis linguumliacutestico y comentario ldquoY un Dios era el proyectordquo exegeacutetico (alternate reading) by Juan Mateos and Juan Barreto Cristiandad Madrid p 54 Brackets mine1985 ldquoSo the Word was divinerdquo- The Original New Testament by Hugh J Schonfield Aberdeen Scotland

1989 ldquoThe Logos was in the sphere of God rdquo - Lectura del evangelio de Juan 1 (alternate reading) (El Logos estaba en la esfera de Dios) by Xavier Leoacuten-Dufour ediciones Siacutegueme 59 Salamanca Spain 1989 ldquoand what God was the Word wasrdquo - Revised English Bible Oxford and Cambridge Presses

1997 ldquothe Word was divine rdquo - Los escritos originales de la comunidad del disciacutepulo ldquoamigordquo de (la Palabra era divina ) Jesuacutes El evangelio y las cartas de Juan 1997 by Seneacuten Vidal Garciacutea - University Professor of New Testament Valladolid Spain2000 ldquoand the Word was divine rdquo - 21st Century Version of the Christian Scriptures Mark H Miller

2001 ldquoand the Word was a powerful one rdquo - 2001 Translation ndash An American English Version

2002 ldquoand god was the Wordrdquo - Cuarto Evangelio Cartas de Juan Juan Joseacute Bartolomeacute Filologiacutea (y dios era la Palabra) Griega Madrid CCS DL2006 ldquoand the Verb was powerful rdquo - Versioacuten Israelita Nazarena (Holman Publishers Nasville TN) (y el Verbo era poderoso)

2007 ldquoand the Word was what God wasrdquo - The Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible NT parenthesis theirs

For additional sources click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings )

======================COMMENTS MADE BY SCHOLARS====================

185-254 CE ldquothe Word was a god rdquo - ( Origens Commentary on John Book I ch 42 - Bk II ch3) Adamantius died 254 CE1901 ldquoThe Logos was divine not the divine Being himselfrdquo - J Henry Thayer (died 1901) author of THAYERS GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NT ndash Chairman of NT Committee ASV1938 Divinity professor John Martin Creed DD - ldquo[T]he Prologue [John 11] is less explicit with the anarthrous [theoacutes without the article ho (the)] than it appears to be in Englishrdquo - The Divinity of Jesus Christ p 123 Cambridge 1962 Catholic theologian Karl Rahner ldquoIn none of these instances [of theoacutes such as Romans 95 John 11 118 2028 1 John 520 and Titus 213] is lsquotheoacutesrsquo used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as lsquoho theoacutesrsquo that is the Supreme Godrdquo - The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of England January 1962 1965 Jesuit John L Mackenzie SJ ldquoJn 11 should rigorously be translated lsquothe word was with the God [=the Father] and the word was a divine beingrsquordquo - DICTIONARY of the BIBLE 317 Brackets his 1970 ldquoNew American Biblerdquo - ldquoIn John 11 the Word is called lsquoGodrsquo but the original Greek term used here theos [God] is not the usual word for God ho theos [the God]rdquo- ldquoBiblical Terms Explainedrdquo 1977 C H Dodd ldquoIf a translation were a matter of substituting words a possible translation of θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος would be ldquoThe Word was a godrdquo As a word-for-word translation it cannot be

himself incarnated but the Son of him a God a Powerful Being Divine but always subordinate to the-one-true-God (Luke 132 35 John 114 316 1 Corinthians 1528 2 John 7) The submitted list showing alternate readings of John 11 indicate there are a good number of voices seeing not a mystery but a simpler truth

Concluding Remarks

Remember scholar William Barclay who once claimed the translation ldquothe Word was a godrsquo at John 11c was ldquogrammatically impossiblerdquo and later came to admit the Greek language did allow for such rendering Well Barclay also had this to say about the Greek structure of John 11

ldquoWhen the definite article is removed from a noun in Greek as in English the noun becomes the equivalent of an adjective Take the following example in English If I say lsquoJohn is the manrsquo I identify John with some particular man if I say lsquoJohn is manrsquo omitting the definite article I simply describe John as a man What that particular sentence of John says is that the Word was in the same class as God God is an adjective rather than a noun and the perfect translation is the New English Bible translation lsquoWhat God was the Word wasrsquo rdquo (op cit ldquoEver Yoursrdquo p 205) (Note The NEB translation of John 11c is preferred over the traditional rendering but is not ldquoperfectrdquo either because it is ambiguous not to mention that it is a paraphrase)

Accordingly we can interpret Barclays reasoning as following

Barclay John is the man = John is lsquoidentified with some particular manrsquo Barclay John is man = John is a man Jn 11c The Word was god = The Word was a god

Barclay concludes ldquoWhen John said [in traditional translations] the word was God he was not saying that Jesus was identical with God he was saying that Jesus was so perfectly the same as God in mind inheart in being that in him we perfectly see what God is likerdquo (The Gospel of John Vol 1 p 39) (Barclay himself translates John 11c ldquoand the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of Godrdquo)Truly Jesus is lsquothe reflection of Gods gloryrsquo (Hebrews 13)

Whether we prefer one particular rendering over another in John 11c (be it ldquoGodrdquo ldquodivinerdquo or ldquoa godrdquo) it is proper to note that due to human limitation it would be wise on our part to be reasonable and respectful of others who harbor a different understanding from ours There is no one on earth who knows it all Moreover Gods Word aptly said ldquoKind mercy wins over harsh judgment every timerdquo (James 213 TM) In the end only God and Christ as Divine ldquoJudgesrdquo have the faculty and authority needed to issue the final verdict

What then is the correct translation of John 11c

The traditional translation of this verse (lsquoAnd the Word was Godrsquo) is a good representation of the Latin Vulgate itself a translation rather than the Greek text and leads to great confusion as seen by the manycalling on this Scripture as a ldquoproofrdquo text in support of a doctrine that is generally accepted as post-biblical dogma Herein I will list some Bible translations which correctly convey what John said as it appears in the Greek Text

ldquothe Word was a divine being rdquo (La Bible du Centenaire Socieacuteteacute Biblique de Paris) ldquo a god was the Wordrdquo (The Sahidic Coptic Version c 200) ldquothe Word was a god rdquo (New World Translation)

ldquothe Word was god rdquo (Professor Charles Cutler Torrey)

ldquoGod of a sort was the Logosrdquo (Ernst Haenchen)

ldquogodlike sort was the Logosrdquo (Johannes Schneider)

ldquothe Logos was divine rdquo (James Moffatt)

ldquothe Word was divine rdquo (JMP Smith and E J Goodspeed)

ldquothe Word was divine rdquo (The Original New Testament by Hugh J Schonfield)

ldquowhat God was the Word wasrdquo (New English Bible acceptable paraphrase)

____________________________

After a careful analysis of John 11 one scholar arrived at this conclusion

ldquoThe preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar from literary context and from cultural environment supports this translation [ldquothe Word was a godrdquo] of which lsquothe Word was divinersquo would be a slightly more polished variant carrying the same basic meaningrdquo (Professor Jason BeDuhn op cit Truth in Translation p 132)

Thus the translation of ldquoa godrdquo as applied to Jesus (ldquothe Wordrdquo at John 11c) the Son of Godrdquo though controversial does no violence to Scripture and is fully in accord with it

======

ldquoWho can defeat the world Only the person who believes that Jesus is the Son of Godrdquo ndash 1 John 55 Good News Translation

- End -

__________________________________________

Addendum A glance at Acts 286

Following the statement above at Acts 284 (in main list 2nd example) by the islanders of Malta and after seeing that Paul did not swell up and die they quickly changed their minds and began saying according to the last clause of verse 6 that ldquohe was a god [theon]rdquo

Acts 286 literally reads

ἔλεγον αὐτὸν εἶναι θεόν ndash (Wescott-Hort Nestle-Aland UBS SBLGNT they were saying him to be god Greek Texts)

ἔλεγον θεὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ndash (ReceivedMajorityRobinson-Pierpont Greek Texts) they were saying god him to be

Notice that in the sample above theon (god) without the article in the first reading follows the verb to be whereas in the bottom reading theon (god) precedes the verb to be (Note This sample has one notable grammatical difference and some relevance with John 11c The word theon is the accusative form of theos (theos nominative case in John 11c) Because of case difference Acts 286 is not an exact syntactical parallel to John 11c However the case ending difference has no theological import Furthermore the Received Text Majority Text Robinson-Pierpont Greek Texts (used by the King James Version New King James Version Youngs Literal Translation the German Elberfelder the Dutch Statenvertaling the Spanish Reina-Valera and the Portuguese Almeida among others) show a sentence structure at Acts 286 similar to John 11 where a singular anarthrous predicate noun precedes the verb Now consider this How do most translators render these Greek readings into other languages Answer

ldquoand said That he was a Godrdquo (Geneva Bible 1560) ldquothey were saying he was a god [un dios]rdquo (Sagradas Escrituras 1569) ldquosaid that he was a godrdquo (King James Version 1602) ldquoand said that he was a godrdquo (John Wesley New Testament 1755) ldquothey were saying he was a god [un dios]rdquo (Nuevo Testamento Pablo Besson) ldquoand said that he was a god rdquo (The Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible NT) ldquo were saying a god him to be rdquo (The Complete BIBLICAL LIBRARY) ldquoand said that he a god was [en zeiden dat hij een god was]rdquo (Statenvertaling) ldquothey said he was a god [y dijeron que era un dios]rdquo (Reina-Valera Revisada 1960) ldquothey said a god him to berdquo (Jay P Green Interlinear New Testament) ldquothey were saying that he was a god [e diziam que era um deus]rdquo (Almeida Atualizada) ldquothey were saying he was some god [alguacuten dios]rdquo (Versioacuten Moderna) ldquosaid a god he wasrdquo (Interlinear NT Thomas Newberry) ldquoand said he was a god [und sagten er sei ein Gott]rdquo (Die Elberfelder Bibel 1905) ldquosaid he was a god rdquo (Youngs Literal Translation)

Now lets place the Greek reading from the Received Text right next to the Greek of John 11 elegon theon auton einai (A 286) || kai theos en ho logos (Jn 11c)they were saying god him to be || and god was the logos

This side by side comparison of John 11 and Acts 286 shows some similarity where ldquotheosrdquo ldquotheonrdquo precedes the verb to bewas Grammarians explain that when a singular predicate noun that lacks the

definite article (the) (such as ldquogodrdquo in John 11c and Acts 286 Received Text) and precedes the verb in a sentence it indicates a quality about the subject in discussion It is standard practice in English to insert the indefinite article (a) when anarthrous nouns precede the verb into the text to complete the sense (See Mark 649 1132 John 670 844 twice 848 917 1013 1033 126 1837 twice) In this case though there is no difference in meaning in context at Acts 286 whether ldquotheosrdquo precedes or follows the verb There is only a slight shift of emphasis between the two readings If we were to follow the pattern of Bible translations above we could translate Acts 286 and John 11c this way

Acts 286 ldquothey said he was a god rdquo || John 11 ldquothe logos was a god rdquo

(Compare with the following Greek TextsInterlinears THE EXPOSITORŚ GREEK TESTAMENT (Nicoll)THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ACCORDING TO THE MAJORITY TEXT (HodgesFarstad) The NKJV Greek-English Interlinear New Testament THE ENGLISHMANacuteS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (Newberry) THE APOSTOLIC BIBLE POLYGLOT INTERLINEAR GREEK-ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT (GR Berry)

As noted most translations appropriately add the indefinite article (a) at Acts 286 indicating the peopleat Malta were saying of Paul a human that ldquohe was a godrdquo Most translators may feel that it does not make sense to have the islanders saying that Paul was ldquoGodrdquo Would the reader leave out the indefinite article (a) in this scripture because the Greek text did not use one (Greek had only one article ho ldquotherdquo) However at John 11c most translations do not use the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) there to make Jesus ldquoa godrdquo which would make Jesus a subordinate divine being to God a thought which some Trinitarians consider ldquofrightfulrdquo Hence the strong theological objections for the rendering ldquoa godrdquo when applied to Jesus But grammatically speaking no reasonable objection can be made in translating John 11c as ldquoa godrdquo It is more of a ldquotheologicalrdquo issue than a technical one ___________________________________________________________________________________

Note 1 (About WTS quoting other sources)

In a WT letter to CARIS in response to a question related to their quote of Dana and Manteys Grammar they said

ldquoDana and Manty [sic] may have their personal views about the trinity but their work allows for the rendering found in The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 11rdquo []

rdquo But it must be borne in mind that in quoting a persons statement or presentation of the facts one doesnot have to agree with the interpretation put on those facts We in quoting the facts do not oblige ourselves to agree with the conclusions or interpretations presented by the authorities we quoted Similarly in quoting the lsquorulersquo set out by Dana and Manty [sic] we are not obliged to accept their interpretation of how this rule might bear on the trinity conceptrdquo

In another case when a reader asked Dr Jason BeDuhn if he was quoted fairly by the WTS (Watchtower Feb 1 1998 p 32) BeDuhn replied ldquoI wrote a letter to the WBTS thanking them for providing copies of the KIT free of charge to my class I did this as a gesture of appreciation I also took the opportunity to praise what I found to be the merits of the book The sections of my letter quoted in the Watchtower accurately reflect my views Naturally left out of the article were the few comments I made about individual passages I thought they should reconsider because I found their

translation weak I personally dont find any fault with them quoting the positive statements and leaving out the negative ones this is standard editorial practice and I do not think it to be deceptive [hellip] As for the use of [quoting] lsquoexpertsrsquo -- you will find that all denominations cite anyone who agrees with them and dismisses whoever disagreesrdquo [In a 1998 letter to Ginny Tosken])

______________________________________________

Heres a list of alternate readings to John 11c in contrast to the traditional reading

c 200 ldquoand a god was the Wordrdquo - The Sahidic Coptic Version (an early Egyptian text based on the Greek alphabet) Unlike common Greek Coptic has both the definite article and the indefinite article (a) The Coptic translators of the Greek text chose to employ the Coptic indefinite article in their translation of it This interpretation of the Greek text represents a very early understanding of John 11 free from later ecclesiastical decrees of the 4th and 5th centuries CE which were instrumental in establishing the Trinity doctrine Hence the Sahidic Coptic Version is a significant translation which cannot be ignored 1660 ldquoand the Word (Speech) was a god rdquo - Jeremias Felbinger DAS NEUE TESTAMENT (und di Rede___war ein Gott) (Note German nouns are commonly capitalized but in translation capitals may be dropped) 1694 ldquoand the Word was a god rdquo - Reijnier Rooleeuw MD The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ translated from the Greek 1822 ldquothe Word was a Godrdquo - Abner Kneeland The New Testament in Greek and English Phil 1829 ldquoand the Logos was a god rdquo ndash John Samuel Thompson The Monotessaron or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists Baltimore1864 ldquoan a god was the Wordrdquo - Benjamin Wilson The Emphatic Diaglott (Interlinear reading) ndash New York and London - ldquoand the LOGOS was with GOD and the LOGOS was Godrdquo - Right hand column reading Take note of size and capitalization of ldquoGODrdquo versus ldquoGodrdquo in this rendering here Some websites are misleading here Wilson did show a difference where the article ldquotherdquo was used and where it did not 1872 ldquoThe Word was god rdquo - The Translation of the New Testament Marc Jean Hugues Oltramare (La Parole eacutetait dieu) (Professor of New Testament Exegesis University of Geneva) 1879 ldquothe Word was a god rdquo - Louis Segond and H Oltramare La Sainte Bible Geneva and Paris (la Parole eacutetait un dieu) (In Segondrsquos individual version of 1910 he uses ldquoDieurdquo)

1885 ldquoan a God (ie a Divine Being is the Word) ndash Robert Young Youngs Concise Critical Bible Commentary (also author of Youngs Literal Translation of the Bible of 1862 which rendered John 11 as ldquoand the Word was Godrdquo However in his later commentary he explained it as above Grand Rapids MI Baker Book House

1896 ldquoand the Word was itself of divine being rdquo - Das Neue Testament by Curt Stage Leipzig (und das Wort war selbst goumlttlichen Wesens) Germany 1908 ldquothe Word was of divine essence rdquo - Marc J H Oltramare La Sainte Bible Geneva and Paris (et la Parole eacutetait dessence divine) 1911 ldquoand [a] God was the wordrdquo - George W Horner The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect Vol 3 (Oxford The Clarendon Press Brackets his) 1919 ldquoand god of a sort was the Wordrdquo - Ludwig Thimme Das Neue Testament Stuttgart Germany (und Gott von Art war das Wort)

19221934 ldquothe Logos was divine rdquo - James Moffatt DD DLitt New Translation of the Bible New York Evanston and London 1925 ldquoand the Logos was god rdquo - Hubert Pernot Pages choisies des Eacutevangiles mdash Paris France (et le Logos eacutetait dieu)

1928 ldquothe Word was a divine being rdquo - La Bible du Centenaire Socieacuteteacute Biblique de Paris (la Parole eacutetait un ecirctre divin) 1935 ldquoand the Word was divine rdquo - JMP Smith and E J Goodspeed The Bible-An American Translation Chicago 1947 ldquoand the Word was god rdquo - Professor Charles Cutler Torrey The Four Gospels-A New Translation (2nd edit 1st edit 1933 (Yale Univ) New York amp London 1950 ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo - New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures Brooklyn 1958 ldquoand the Word was a God rdquo - James L Tomanek The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed Pocatello Idaho USA1961 ldquoand what God was the Word wasrdquo - New English Bible New Testament (1970) Oxford and Cambridge amp New York1975 ldquoand a god (or of a divine kind ) was the Wordrdquo - Siegfried Schulz Das Evangelium nach und ein Gott (oder Gott von Art) war das Wort Johannes Das Neue Testament Deutsch Goumlttingen Germany 1978 ldquoand godlike sort was the Logosrdquo - Johannes Schneider Das Evangelium nach Johannes Berlin (und goumlttlicher Art war der Logos)

1979 ldquoand a god was the Logosrdquo - Juumlrgen Becker Das Evangelium nach Johannes Guumltersloh and (und ein Gott war der Logos) Wuumlrzburg Germany 1980 ldquoand god of a sort was the Logosrdquo - Ernst Haenchen Das Johannesevangelium Tuumlbingen Ger und Gott (von Art) war der Logos

1982 ldquoAnd a God was the Project [Loacutegos]rdquo- El Evangelio de Juan Anaacutelisis linguumliacutestico y comentario ldquoY un Dios era el proyectordquo exegeacutetico (alternate reading) by Juan Mateos and Juan Barreto Cristiandad Madrid p 54 Brackets mine1985 ldquoSo the Word was divinerdquo- The Original New Testament by Hugh J Schonfield Aberdeen Scotland

1989 ldquoThe Logos was in the sphere of God rdquo - Lectura del evangelio de Juan 1 (alternate reading) (El Logos estaba en la esfera de Dios) by Xavier Leoacuten-Dufour ediciones Siacutegueme 59 Salamanca Spain 1989 ldquoand what God was the Word wasrdquo - Revised English Bible Oxford and Cambridge Presses

1997 ldquothe Word was divine rdquo - Los escritos originales de la comunidad del disciacutepulo ldquoamigordquo de (la Palabra era divina ) Jesuacutes El evangelio y las cartas de Juan 1997 by Seneacuten Vidal Garciacutea - University Professor of New Testament Valladolid Spain2000 ldquoand the Word was divine rdquo - 21st Century Version of the Christian Scriptures Mark H Miller

2001 ldquoand the Word was a powerful one rdquo - 2001 Translation ndash An American English Version

2002 ldquoand god was the Wordrdquo - Cuarto Evangelio Cartas de Juan Juan Joseacute Bartolomeacute Filologiacutea (y dios era la Palabra) Griega Madrid CCS DL2006 ldquoand the Verb was powerful rdquo - Versioacuten Israelita Nazarena (Holman Publishers Nasville TN) (y el Verbo era poderoso)

2007 ldquoand the Word was what God wasrdquo - The Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible NT parenthesis theirs

For additional sources click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings )

======================COMMENTS MADE BY SCHOLARS====================

185-254 CE ldquothe Word was a god rdquo - ( Origens Commentary on John Book I ch 42 - Bk II ch3) Adamantius died 254 CE1901 ldquoThe Logos was divine not the divine Being himselfrdquo - J Henry Thayer (died 1901) author of THAYERS GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NT ndash Chairman of NT Committee ASV1938 Divinity professor John Martin Creed DD - ldquo[T]he Prologue [John 11] is less explicit with the anarthrous [theoacutes without the article ho (the)] than it appears to be in Englishrdquo - The Divinity of Jesus Christ p 123 Cambridge 1962 Catholic theologian Karl Rahner ldquoIn none of these instances [of theoacutes such as Romans 95 John 11 118 2028 1 John 520 and Titus 213] is lsquotheoacutesrsquo used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as lsquoho theoacutesrsquo that is the Supreme Godrdquo - The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of England January 1962 1965 Jesuit John L Mackenzie SJ ldquoJn 11 should rigorously be translated lsquothe word was with the God [=the Father] and the word was a divine beingrsquordquo - DICTIONARY of the BIBLE 317 Brackets his 1970 ldquoNew American Biblerdquo - ldquoIn John 11 the Word is called lsquoGodrsquo but the original Greek term used here theos [God] is not the usual word for God ho theos [the God]rdquo- ldquoBiblical Terms Explainedrdquo 1977 C H Dodd ldquoIf a translation were a matter of substituting words a possible translation of θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος would be ldquoThe Word was a godrdquo As a word-for-word translation it cannot be

ldquothe Word was a divine being rdquo (La Bible du Centenaire Socieacuteteacute Biblique de Paris) ldquo a god was the Wordrdquo (The Sahidic Coptic Version c 200) ldquothe Word was a god rdquo (New World Translation)

ldquothe Word was god rdquo (Professor Charles Cutler Torrey)

ldquoGod of a sort was the Logosrdquo (Ernst Haenchen)

ldquogodlike sort was the Logosrdquo (Johannes Schneider)

ldquothe Logos was divine rdquo (James Moffatt)

ldquothe Word was divine rdquo (JMP Smith and E J Goodspeed)

ldquothe Word was divine rdquo (The Original New Testament by Hugh J Schonfield)

ldquowhat God was the Word wasrdquo (New English Bible acceptable paraphrase)

____________________________

After a careful analysis of John 11 one scholar arrived at this conclusion

ldquoThe preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar from literary context and from cultural environment supports this translation [ldquothe Word was a godrdquo] of which lsquothe Word was divinersquo would be a slightly more polished variant carrying the same basic meaningrdquo (Professor Jason BeDuhn op cit Truth in Translation p 132)

Thus the translation of ldquoa godrdquo as applied to Jesus (ldquothe Wordrdquo at John 11c) the Son of Godrdquo though controversial does no violence to Scripture and is fully in accord with it

======

ldquoWho can defeat the world Only the person who believes that Jesus is the Son of Godrdquo ndash 1 John 55 Good News Translation

- End -

__________________________________________

Addendum A glance at Acts 286

Following the statement above at Acts 284 (in main list 2nd example) by the islanders of Malta and after seeing that Paul did not swell up and die they quickly changed their minds and began saying according to the last clause of verse 6 that ldquohe was a god [theon]rdquo

Acts 286 literally reads

ἔλεγον αὐτὸν εἶναι θεόν ndash (Wescott-Hort Nestle-Aland UBS SBLGNT they were saying him to be god Greek Texts)

ἔλεγον θεὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ndash (ReceivedMajorityRobinson-Pierpont Greek Texts) they were saying god him to be

Notice that in the sample above theon (god) without the article in the first reading follows the verb to be whereas in the bottom reading theon (god) precedes the verb to be (Note This sample has one notable grammatical difference and some relevance with John 11c The word theon is the accusative form of theos (theos nominative case in John 11c) Because of case difference Acts 286 is not an exact syntactical parallel to John 11c However the case ending difference has no theological import Furthermore the Received Text Majority Text Robinson-Pierpont Greek Texts (used by the King James Version New King James Version Youngs Literal Translation the German Elberfelder the Dutch Statenvertaling the Spanish Reina-Valera and the Portuguese Almeida among others) show a sentence structure at Acts 286 similar to John 11 where a singular anarthrous predicate noun precedes the verb Now consider this How do most translators render these Greek readings into other languages Answer

ldquoand said That he was a Godrdquo (Geneva Bible 1560) ldquothey were saying he was a god [un dios]rdquo (Sagradas Escrituras 1569) ldquosaid that he was a godrdquo (King James Version 1602) ldquoand said that he was a godrdquo (John Wesley New Testament 1755) ldquothey were saying he was a god [un dios]rdquo (Nuevo Testamento Pablo Besson) ldquoand said that he was a god rdquo (The Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible NT) ldquo were saying a god him to be rdquo (The Complete BIBLICAL LIBRARY) ldquoand said that he a god was [en zeiden dat hij een god was]rdquo (Statenvertaling) ldquothey said he was a god [y dijeron que era un dios]rdquo (Reina-Valera Revisada 1960) ldquothey said a god him to berdquo (Jay P Green Interlinear New Testament) ldquothey were saying that he was a god [e diziam que era um deus]rdquo (Almeida Atualizada) ldquothey were saying he was some god [alguacuten dios]rdquo (Versioacuten Moderna) ldquosaid a god he wasrdquo (Interlinear NT Thomas Newberry) ldquoand said he was a god [und sagten er sei ein Gott]rdquo (Die Elberfelder Bibel 1905) ldquosaid he was a god rdquo (Youngs Literal Translation)

Now lets place the Greek reading from the Received Text right next to the Greek of John 11 elegon theon auton einai (A 286) || kai theos en ho logos (Jn 11c)they were saying god him to be || and god was the logos

This side by side comparison of John 11 and Acts 286 shows some similarity where ldquotheosrdquo ldquotheonrdquo precedes the verb to bewas Grammarians explain that when a singular predicate noun that lacks the

definite article (the) (such as ldquogodrdquo in John 11c and Acts 286 Received Text) and precedes the verb in a sentence it indicates a quality about the subject in discussion It is standard practice in English to insert the indefinite article (a) when anarthrous nouns precede the verb into the text to complete the sense (See Mark 649 1132 John 670 844 twice 848 917 1013 1033 126 1837 twice) In this case though there is no difference in meaning in context at Acts 286 whether ldquotheosrdquo precedes or follows the verb There is only a slight shift of emphasis between the two readings If we were to follow the pattern of Bible translations above we could translate Acts 286 and John 11c this way

Acts 286 ldquothey said he was a god rdquo || John 11 ldquothe logos was a god rdquo

(Compare with the following Greek TextsInterlinears THE EXPOSITORŚ GREEK TESTAMENT (Nicoll)THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ACCORDING TO THE MAJORITY TEXT (HodgesFarstad) The NKJV Greek-English Interlinear New Testament THE ENGLISHMANacuteS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (Newberry) THE APOSTOLIC BIBLE POLYGLOT INTERLINEAR GREEK-ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT (GR Berry)

As noted most translations appropriately add the indefinite article (a) at Acts 286 indicating the peopleat Malta were saying of Paul a human that ldquohe was a godrdquo Most translators may feel that it does not make sense to have the islanders saying that Paul was ldquoGodrdquo Would the reader leave out the indefinite article (a) in this scripture because the Greek text did not use one (Greek had only one article ho ldquotherdquo) However at John 11c most translations do not use the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) there to make Jesus ldquoa godrdquo which would make Jesus a subordinate divine being to God a thought which some Trinitarians consider ldquofrightfulrdquo Hence the strong theological objections for the rendering ldquoa godrdquo when applied to Jesus But grammatically speaking no reasonable objection can be made in translating John 11c as ldquoa godrdquo It is more of a ldquotheologicalrdquo issue than a technical one ___________________________________________________________________________________

Note 1 (About WTS quoting other sources)

In a WT letter to CARIS in response to a question related to their quote of Dana and Manteys Grammar they said

ldquoDana and Manty [sic] may have their personal views about the trinity but their work allows for the rendering found in The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 11rdquo []

rdquo But it must be borne in mind that in quoting a persons statement or presentation of the facts one doesnot have to agree with the interpretation put on those facts We in quoting the facts do not oblige ourselves to agree with the conclusions or interpretations presented by the authorities we quoted Similarly in quoting the lsquorulersquo set out by Dana and Manty [sic] we are not obliged to accept their interpretation of how this rule might bear on the trinity conceptrdquo

In another case when a reader asked Dr Jason BeDuhn if he was quoted fairly by the WTS (Watchtower Feb 1 1998 p 32) BeDuhn replied ldquoI wrote a letter to the WBTS thanking them for providing copies of the KIT free of charge to my class I did this as a gesture of appreciation I also took the opportunity to praise what I found to be the merits of the book The sections of my letter quoted in the Watchtower accurately reflect my views Naturally left out of the article were the few comments I made about individual passages I thought they should reconsider because I found their

translation weak I personally dont find any fault with them quoting the positive statements and leaving out the negative ones this is standard editorial practice and I do not think it to be deceptive [hellip] As for the use of [quoting] lsquoexpertsrsquo -- you will find that all denominations cite anyone who agrees with them and dismisses whoever disagreesrdquo [In a 1998 letter to Ginny Tosken])

______________________________________________

Heres a list of alternate readings to John 11c in contrast to the traditional reading

c 200 ldquoand a god was the Wordrdquo - The Sahidic Coptic Version (an early Egyptian text based on the Greek alphabet) Unlike common Greek Coptic has both the definite article and the indefinite article (a) The Coptic translators of the Greek text chose to employ the Coptic indefinite article in their translation of it This interpretation of the Greek text represents a very early understanding of John 11 free from later ecclesiastical decrees of the 4th and 5th centuries CE which were instrumental in establishing the Trinity doctrine Hence the Sahidic Coptic Version is a significant translation which cannot be ignored 1660 ldquoand the Word (Speech) was a god rdquo - Jeremias Felbinger DAS NEUE TESTAMENT (und di Rede___war ein Gott) (Note German nouns are commonly capitalized but in translation capitals may be dropped) 1694 ldquoand the Word was a god rdquo - Reijnier Rooleeuw MD The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ translated from the Greek 1822 ldquothe Word was a Godrdquo - Abner Kneeland The New Testament in Greek and English Phil 1829 ldquoand the Logos was a god rdquo ndash John Samuel Thompson The Monotessaron or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists Baltimore1864 ldquoan a god was the Wordrdquo - Benjamin Wilson The Emphatic Diaglott (Interlinear reading) ndash New York and London - ldquoand the LOGOS was with GOD and the LOGOS was Godrdquo - Right hand column reading Take note of size and capitalization of ldquoGODrdquo versus ldquoGodrdquo in this rendering here Some websites are misleading here Wilson did show a difference where the article ldquotherdquo was used and where it did not 1872 ldquoThe Word was god rdquo - The Translation of the New Testament Marc Jean Hugues Oltramare (La Parole eacutetait dieu) (Professor of New Testament Exegesis University of Geneva) 1879 ldquothe Word was a god rdquo - Louis Segond and H Oltramare La Sainte Bible Geneva and Paris (la Parole eacutetait un dieu) (In Segondrsquos individual version of 1910 he uses ldquoDieurdquo)

1885 ldquoan a God (ie a Divine Being is the Word) ndash Robert Young Youngs Concise Critical Bible Commentary (also author of Youngs Literal Translation of the Bible of 1862 which rendered John 11 as ldquoand the Word was Godrdquo However in his later commentary he explained it as above Grand Rapids MI Baker Book House

1896 ldquoand the Word was itself of divine being rdquo - Das Neue Testament by Curt Stage Leipzig (und das Wort war selbst goumlttlichen Wesens) Germany 1908 ldquothe Word was of divine essence rdquo - Marc J H Oltramare La Sainte Bible Geneva and Paris (et la Parole eacutetait dessence divine) 1911 ldquoand [a] God was the wordrdquo - George W Horner The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect Vol 3 (Oxford The Clarendon Press Brackets his) 1919 ldquoand god of a sort was the Wordrdquo - Ludwig Thimme Das Neue Testament Stuttgart Germany (und Gott von Art war das Wort)

19221934 ldquothe Logos was divine rdquo - James Moffatt DD DLitt New Translation of the Bible New York Evanston and London 1925 ldquoand the Logos was god rdquo - Hubert Pernot Pages choisies des Eacutevangiles mdash Paris France (et le Logos eacutetait dieu)

1928 ldquothe Word was a divine being rdquo - La Bible du Centenaire Socieacuteteacute Biblique de Paris (la Parole eacutetait un ecirctre divin) 1935 ldquoand the Word was divine rdquo - JMP Smith and E J Goodspeed The Bible-An American Translation Chicago 1947 ldquoand the Word was god rdquo - Professor Charles Cutler Torrey The Four Gospels-A New Translation (2nd edit 1st edit 1933 (Yale Univ) New York amp London 1950 ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo - New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures Brooklyn 1958 ldquoand the Word was a God rdquo - James L Tomanek The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed Pocatello Idaho USA1961 ldquoand what God was the Word wasrdquo - New English Bible New Testament (1970) Oxford and Cambridge amp New York1975 ldquoand a god (or of a divine kind ) was the Wordrdquo - Siegfried Schulz Das Evangelium nach und ein Gott (oder Gott von Art) war das Wort Johannes Das Neue Testament Deutsch Goumlttingen Germany 1978 ldquoand godlike sort was the Logosrdquo - Johannes Schneider Das Evangelium nach Johannes Berlin (und goumlttlicher Art war der Logos)

1979 ldquoand a god was the Logosrdquo - Juumlrgen Becker Das Evangelium nach Johannes Guumltersloh and (und ein Gott war der Logos) Wuumlrzburg Germany 1980 ldquoand god of a sort was the Logosrdquo - Ernst Haenchen Das Johannesevangelium Tuumlbingen Ger und Gott (von Art) war der Logos

1982 ldquoAnd a God was the Project [Loacutegos]rdquo- El Evangelio de Juan Anaacutelisis linguumliacutestico y comentario ldquoY un Dios era el proyectordquo exegeacutetico (alternate reading) by Juan Mateos and Juan Barreto Cristiandad Madrid p 54 Brackets mine1985 ldquoSo the Word was divinerdquo- The Original New Testament by Hugh J Schonfield Aberdeen Scotland

1989 ldquoThe Logos was in the sphere of God rdquo - Lectura del evangelio de Juan 1 (alternate reading) (El Logos estaba en la esfera de Dios) by Xavier Leoacuten-Dufour ediciones Siacutegueme 59 Salamanca Spain 1989 ldquoand what God was the Word wasrdquo - Revised English Bible Oxford and Cambridge Presses

1997 ldquothe Word was divine rdquo - Los escritos originales de la comunidad del disciacutepulo ldquoamigordquo de (la Palabra era divina ) Jesuacutes El evangelio y las cartas de Juan 1997 by Seneacuten Vidal Garciacutea - University Professor of New Testament Valladolid Spain2000 ldquoand the Word was divine rdquo - 21st Century Version of the Christian Scriptures Mark H Miller

2001 ldquoand the Word was a powerful one rdquo - 2001 Translation ndash An American English Version

2002 ldquoand god was the Wordrdquo - Cuarto Evangelio Cartas de Juan Juan Joseacute Bartolomeacute Filologiacutea (y dios era la Palabra) Griega Madrid CCS DL2006 ldquoand the Verb was powerful rdquo - Versioacuten Israelita Nazarena (Holman Publishers Nasville TN) (y el Verbo era poderoso)

2007 ldquoand the Word was what God wasrdquo - The Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible NT parenthesis theirs

For additional sources click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings )

======================COMMENTS MADE BY SCHOLARS====================

185-254 CE ldquothe Word was a god rdquo - ( Origens Commentary on John Book I ch 42 - Bk II ch3) Adamantius died 254 CE1901 ldquoThe Logos was divine not the divine Being himselfrdquo - J Henry Thayer (died 1901) author of THAYERS GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NT ndash Chairman of NT Committee ASV1938 Divinity professor John Martin Creed DD - ldquo[T]he Prologue [John 11] is less explicit with the anarthrous [theoacutes without the article ho (the)] than it appears to be in Englishrdquo - The Divinity of Jesus Christ p 123 Cambridge 1962 Catholic theologian Karl Rahner ldquoIn none of these instances [of theoacutes such as Romans 95 John 11 118 2028 1 John 520 and Titus 213] is lsquotheoacutesrsquo used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as lsquoho theoacutesrsquo that is the Supreme Godrdquo - The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of England January 1962 1965 Jesuit John L Mackenzie SJ ldquoJn 11 should rigorously be translated lsquothe word was with the God [=the Father] and the word was a divine beingrsquordquo - DICTIONARY of the BIBLE 317 Brackets his 1970 ldquoNew American Biblerdquo - ldquoIn John 11 the Word is called lsquoGodrsquo but the original Greek term used here theos [God] is not the usual word for God ho theos [the God]rdquo- ldquoBiblical Terms Explainedrdquo 1977 C H Dodd ldquoIf a translation were a matter of substituting words a possible translation of θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος would be ldquoThe Word was a godrdquo As a word-for-word translation it cannot be

Following the statement above at Acts 284 (in main list 2nd example) by the islanders of Malta and after seeing that Paul did not swell up and die they quickly changed their minds and began saying according to the last clause of verse 6 that ldquohe was a god [theon]rdquo

Acts 286 literally reads

ἔλεγον αὐτὸν εἶναι θεόν ndash (Wescott-Hort Nestle-Aland UBS SBLGNT they were saying him to be god Greek Texts)

ἔλεγον θεὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ndash (ReceivedMajorityRobinson-Pierpont Greek Texts) they were saying god him to be

Notice that in the sample above theon (god) without the article in the first reading follows the verb to be whereas in the bottom reading theon (god) precedes the verb to be (Note This sample has one notable grammatical difference and some relevance with John 11c The word theon is the accusative form of theos (theos nominative case in John 11c) Because of case difference Acts 286 is not an exact syntactical parallel to John 11c However the case ending difference has no theological import Furthermore the Received Text Majority Text Robinson-Pierpont Greek Texts (used by the King James Version New King James Version Youngs Literal Translation the German Elberfelder the Dutch Statenvertaling the Spanish Reina-Valera and the Portuguese Almeida among others) show a sentence structure at Acts 286 similar to John 11 where a singular anarthrous predicate noun precedes the verb Now consider this How do most translators render these Greek readings into other languages Answer

ldquoand said That he was a Godrdquo (Geneva Bible 1560) ldquothey were saying he was a god [un dios]rdquo (Sagradas Escrituras 1569) ldquosaid that he was a godrdquo (King James Version 1602) ldquoand said that he was a godrdquo (John Wesley New Testament 1755) ldquothey were saying he was a god [un dios]rdquo (Nuevo Testamento Pablo Besson) ldquoand said that he was a god rdquo (The Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible NT) ldquo were saying a god him to be rdquo (The Complete BIBLICAL LIBRARY) ldquoand said that he a god was [en zeiden dat hij een god was]rdquo (Statenvertaling) ldquothey said he was a god [y dijeron que era un dios]rdquo (Reina-Valera Revisada 1960) ldquothey said a god him to berdquo (Jay P Green Interlinear New Testament) ldquothey were saying that he was a god [e diziam que era um deus]rdquo (Almeida Atualizada) ldquothey were saying he was some god [alguacuten dios]rdquo (Versioacuten Moderna) ldquosaid a god he wasrdquo (Interlinear NT Thomas Newberry) ldquoand said he was a god [und sagten er sei ein Gott]rdquo (Die Elberfelder Bibel 1905) ldquosaid he was a god rdquo (Youngs Literal Translation)

Now lets place the Greek reading from the Received Text right next to the Greek of John 11 elegon theon auton einai (A 286) || kai theos en ho logos (Jn 11c)they were saying god him to be || and god was the logos

This side by side comparison of John 11 and Acts 286 shows some similarity where ldquotheosrdquo ldquotheonrdquo precedes the verb to bewas Grammarians explain that when a singular predicate noun that lacks the

definite article (the) (such as ldquogodrdquo in John 11c and Acts 286 Received Text) and precedes the verb in a sentence it indicates a quality about the subject in discussion It is standard practice in English to insert the indefinite article (a) when anarthrous nouns precede the verb into the text to complete the sense (See Mark 649 1132 John 670 844 twice 848 917 1013 1033 126 1837 twice) In this case though there is no difference in meaning in context at Acts 286 whether ldquotheosrdquo precedes or follows the verb There is only a slight shift of emphasis between the two readings If we were to follow the pattern of Bible translations above we could translate Acts 286 and John 11c this way

Acts 286 ldquothey said he was a god rdquo || John 11 ldquothe logos was a god rdquo

(Compare with the following Greek TextsInterlinears THE EXPOSITORŚ GREEK TESTAMENT (Nicoll)THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ACCORDING TO THE MAJORITY TEXT (HodgesFarstad) The NKJV Greek-English Interlinear New Testament THE ENGLISHMANacuteS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (Newberry) THE APOSTOLIC BIBLE POLYGLOT INTERLINEAR GREEK-ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT (GR Berry)

As noted most translations appropriately add the indefinite article (a) at Acts 286 indicating the peopleat Malta were saying of Paul a human that ldquohe was a godrdquo Most translators may feel that it does not make sense to have the islanders saying that Paul was ldquoGodrdquo Would the reader leave out the indefinite article (a) in this scripture because the Greek text did not use one (Greek had only one article ho ldquotherdquo) However at John 11c most translations do not use the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) there to make Jesus ldquoa godrdquo which would make Jesus a subordinate divine being to God a thought which some Trinitarians consider ldquofrightfulrdquo Hence the strong theological objections for the rendering ldquoa godrdquo when applied to Jesus But grammatically speaking no reasonable objection can be made in translating John 11c as ldquoa godrdquo It is more of a ldquotheologicalrdquo issue than a technical one ___________________________________________________________________________________

Note 1 (About WTS quoting other sources)

In a WT letter to CARIS in response to a question related to their quote of Dana and Manteys Grammar they said

ldquoDana and Manty [sic] may have their personal views about the trinity but their work allows for the rendering found in The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 11rdquo []

rdquo But it must be borne in mind that in quoting a persons statement or presentation of the facts one doesnot have to agree with the interpretation put on those facts We in quoting the facts do not oblige ourselves to agree with the conclusions or interpretations presented by the authorities we quoted Similarly in quoting the lsquorulersquo set out by Dana and Manty [sic] we are not obliged to accept their interpretation of how this rule might bear on the trinity conceptrdquo

In another case when a reader asked Dr Jason BeDuhn if he was quoted fairly by the WTS (Watchtower Feb 1 1998 p 32) BeDuhn replied ldquoI wrote a letter to the WBTS thanking them for providing copies of the KIT free of charge to my class I did this as a gesture of appreciation I also took the opportunity to praise what I found to be the merits of the book The sections of my letter quoted in the Watchtower accurately reflect my views Naturally left out of the article were the few comments I made about individual passages I thought they should reconsider because I found their

translation weak I personally dont find any fault with them quoting the positive statements and leaving out the negative ones this is standard editorial practice and I do not think it to be deceptive [hellip] As for the use of [quoting] lsquoexpertsrsquo -- you will find that all denominations cite anyone who agrees with them and dismisses whoever disagreesrdquo [In a 1998 letter to Ginny Tosken])

______________________________________________

Heres a list of alternate readings to John 11c in contrast to the traditional reading

c 200 ldquoand a god was the Wordrdquo - The Sahidic Coptic Version (an early Egyptian text based on the Greek alphabet) Unlike common Greek Coptic has both the definite article and the indefinite article (a) The Coptic translators of the Greek text chose to employ the Coptic indefinite article in their translation of it This interpretation of the Greek text represents a very early understanding of John 11 free from later ecclesiastical decrees of the 4th and 5th centuries CE which were instrumental in establishing the Trinity doctrine Hence the Sahidic Coptic Version is a significant translation which cannot be ignored 1660 ldquoand the Word (Speech) was a god rdquo - Jeremias Felbinger DAS NEUE TESTAMENT (und di Rede___war ein Gott) (Note German nouns are commonly capitalized but in translation capitals may be dropped) 1694 ldquoand the Word was a god rdquo - Reijnier Rooleeuw MD The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ translated from the Greek 1822 ldquothe Word was a Godrdquo - Abner Kneeland The New Testament in Greek and English Phil 1829 ldquoand the Logos was a god rdquo ndash John Samuel Thompson The Monotessaron or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists Baltimore1864 ldquoan a god was the Wordrdquo - Benjamin Wilson The Emphatic Diaglott (Interlinear reading) ndash New York and London - ldquoand the LOGOS was with GOD and the LOGOS was Godrdquo - Right hand column reading Take note of size and capitalization of ldquoGODrdquo versus ldquoGodrdquo in this rendering here Some websites are misleading here Wilson did show a difference where the article ldquotherdquo was used and where it did not 1872 ldquoThe Word was god rdquo - The Translation of the New Testament Marc Jean Hugues Oltramare (La Parole eacutetait dieu) (Professor of New Testament Exegesis University of Geneva) 1879 ldquothe Word was a god rdquo - Louis Segond and H Oltramare La Sainte Bible Geneva and Paris (la Parole eacutetait un dieu) (In Segondrsquos individual version of 1910 he uses ldquoDieurdquo)

1885 ldquoan a God (ie a Divine Being is the Word) ndash Robert Young Youngs Concise Critical Bible Commentary (also author of Youngs Literal Translation of the Bible of 1862 which rendered John 11 as ldquoand the Word was Godrdquo However in his later commentary he explained it as above Grand Rapids MI Baker Book House

1896 ldquoand the Word was itself of divine being rdquo - Das Neue Testament by Curt Stage Leipzig (und das Wort war selbst goumlttlichen Wesens) Germany 1908 ldquothe Word was of divine essence rdquo - Marc J H Oltramare La Sainte Bible Geneva and Paris (et la Parole eacutetait dessence divine) 1911 ldquoand [a] God was the wordrdquo - George W Horner The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect Vol 3 (Oxford The Clarendon Press Brackets his) 1919 ldquoand god of a sort was the Wordrdquo - Ludwig Thimme Das Neue Testament Stuttgart Germany (und Gott von Art war das Wort)

19221934 ldquothe Logos was divine rdquo - James Moffatt DD DLitt New Translation of the Bible New York Evanston and London 1925 ldquoand the Logos was god rdquo - Hubert Pernot Pages choisies des Eacutevangiles mdash Paris France (et le Logos eacutetait dieu)

1928 ldquothe Word was a divine being rdquo - La Bible du Centenaire Socieacuteteacute Biblique de Paris (la Parole eacutetait un ecirctre divin) 1935 ldquoand the Word was divine rdquo - JMP Smith and E J Goodspeed The Bible-An American Translation Chicago 1947 ldquoand the Word was god rdquo - Professor Charles Cutler Torrey The Four Gospels-A New Translation (2nd edit 1st edit 1933 (Yale Univ) New York amp London 1950 ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo - New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures Brooklyn 1958 ldquoand the Word was a God rdquo - James L Tomanek The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed Pocatello Idaho USA1961 ldquoand what God was the Word wasrdquo - New English Bible New Testament (1970) Oxford and Cambridge amp New York1975 ldquoand a god (or of a divine kind ) was the Wordrdquo - Siegfried Schulz Das Evangelium nach und ein Gott (oder Gott von Art) war das Wort Johannes Das Neue Testament Deutsch Goumlttingen Germany 1978 ldquoand godlike sort was the Logosrdquo - Johannes Schneider Das Evangelium nach Johannes Berlin (und goumlttlicher Art war der Logos)

1979 ldquoand a god was the Logosrdquo - Juumlrgen Becker Das Evangelium nach Johannes Guumltersloh and (und ein Gott war der Logos) Wuumlrzburg Germany 1980 ldquoand god of a sort was the Logosrdquo - Ernst Haenchen Das Johannesevangelium Tuumlbingen Ger und Gott (von Art) war der Logos

1982 ldquoAnd a God was the Project [Loacutegos]rdquo- El Evangelio de Juan Anaacutelisis linguumliacutestico y comentario ldquoY un Dios era el proyectordquo exegeacutetico (alternate reading) by Juan Mateos and Juan Barreto Cristiandad Madrid p 54 Brackets mine1985 ldquoSo the Word was divinerdquo- The Original New Testament by Hugh J Schonfield Aberdeen Scotland

1989 ldquoThe Logos was in the sphere of God rdquo - Lectura del evangelio de Juan 1 (alternate reading) (El Logos estaba en la esfera de Dios) by Xavier Leoacuten-Dufour ediciones Siacutegueme 59 Salamanca Spain 1989 ldquoand what God was the Word wasrdquo - Revised English Bible Oxford and Cambridge Presses

1997 ldquothe Word was divine rdquo - Los escritos originales de la comunidad del disciacutepulo ldquoamigordquo de (la Palabra era divina ) Jesuacutes El evangelio y las cartas de Juan 1997 by Seneacuten Vidal Garciacutea - University Professor of New Testament Valladolid Spain2000 ldquoand the Word was divine rdquo - 21st Century Version of the Christian Scriptures Mark H Miller

2001 ldquoand the Word was a powerful one rdquo - 2001 Translation ndash An American English Version

2002 ldquoand god was the Wordrdquo - Cuarto Evangelio Cartas de Juan Juan Joseacute Bartolomeacute Filologiacutea (y dios era la Palabra) Griega Madrid CCS DL2006 ldquoand the Verb was powerful rdquo - Versioacuten Israelita Nazarena (Holman Publishers Nasville TN) (y el Verbo era poderoso)

2007 ldquoand the Word was what God wasrdquo - The Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible NT parenthesis theirs

For additional sources click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings )

======================COMMENTS MADE BY SCHOLARS====================

185-254 CE ldquothe Word was a god rdquo - ( Origens Commentary on John Book I ch 42 - Bk II ch3) Adamantius died 254 CE1901 ldquoThe Logos was divine not the divine Being himselfrdquo - J Henry Thayer (died 1901) author of THAYERS GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NT ndash Chairman of NT Committee ASV1938 Divinity professor John Martin Creed DD - ldquo[T]he Prologue [John 11] is less explicit with the anarthrous [theoacutes without the article ho (the)] than it appears to be in Englishrdquo - The Divinity of Jesus Christ p 123 Cambridge 1962 Catholic theologian Karl Rahner ldquoIn none of these instances [of theoacutes such as Romans 95 John 11 118 2028 1 John 520 and Titus 213] is lsquotheoacutesrsquo used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as lsquoho theoacutesrsquo that is the Supreme Godrdquo - The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of England January 1962 1965 Jesuit John L Mackenzie SJ ldquoJn 11 should rigorously be translated lsquothe word was with the God [=the Father] and the word was a divine beingrsquordquo - DICTIONARY of the BIBLE 317 Brackets his 1970 ldquoNew American Biblerdquo - ldquoIn John 11 the Word is called lsquoGodrsquo but the original Greek term used here theos [God] is not the usual word for God ho theos [the God]rdquo- ldquoBiblical Terms Explainedrdquo 1977 C H Dodd ldquoIf a translation were a matter of substituting words a possible translation of θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος would be ldquoThe Word was a godrdquo As a word-for-word translation it cannot be

definite article (the) (such as ldquogodrdquo in John 11c and Acts 286 Received Text) and precedes the verb in a sentence it indicates a quality about the subject in discussion It is standard practice in English to insert the indefinite article (a) when anarthrous nouns precede the verb into the text to complete the sense (See Mark 649 1132 John 670 844 twice 848 917 1013 1033 126 1837 twice) In this case though there is no difference in meaning in context at Acts 286 whether ldquotheosrdquo precedes or follows the verb There is only a slight shift of emphasis between the two readings If we were to follow the pattern of Bible translations above we could translate Acts 286 and John 11c this way

Acts 286 ldquothey said he was a god rdquo || John 11 ldquothe logos was a god rdquo

(Compare with the following Greek TextsInterlinears THE EXPOSITORŚ GREEK TESTAMENT (Nicoll)THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ACCORDING TO THE MAJORITY TEXT (HodgesFarstad) The NKJV Greek-English Interlinear New Testament THE ENGLISHMANacuteS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (Newberry) THE APOSTOLIC BIBLE POLYGLOT INTERLINEAR GREEK-ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT (GR Berry)

As noted most translations appropriately add the indefinite article (a) at Acts 286 indicating the peopleat Malta were saying of Paul a human that ldquohe was a godrdquo Most translators may feel that it does not make sense to have the islanders saying that Paul was ldquoGodrdquo Would the reader leave out the indefinite article (a) in this scripture because the Greek text did not use one (Greek had only one article ho ldquotherdquo) However at John 11c most translations do not use the indefinite article (ldquoardquo) there to make Jesus ldquoa godrdquo which would make Jesus a subordinate divine being to God a thought which some Trinitarians consider ldquofrightfulrdquo Hence the strong theological objections for the rendering ldquoa godrdquo when applied to Jesus But grammatically speaking no reasonable objection can be made in translating John 11c as ldquoa godrdquo It is more of a ldquotheologicalrdquo issue than a technical one ___________________________________________________________________________________

Note 1 (About WTS quoting other sources)

In a WT letter to CARIS in response to a question related to their quote of Dana and Manteys Grammar they said

ldquoDana and Manty [sic] may have their personal views about the trinity but their work allows for the rendering found in The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 11rdquo []

rdquo But it must be borne in mind that in quoting a persons statement or presentation of the facts one doesnot have to agree with the interpretation put on those facts We in quoting the facts do not oblige ourselves to agree with the conclusions or interpretations presented by the authorities we quoted Similarly in quoting the lsquorulersquo set out by Dana and Manty [sic] we are not obliged to accept their interpretation of how this rule might bear on the trinity conceptrdquo

In another case when a reader asked Dr Jason BeDuhn if he was quoted fairly by the WTS (Watchtower Feb 1 1998 p 32) BeDuhn replied ldquoI wrote a letter to the WBTS thanking them for providing copies of the KIT free of charge to my class I did this as a gesture of appreciation I also took the opportunity to praise what I found to be the merits of the book The sections of my letter quoted in the Watchtower accurately reflect my views Naturally left out of the article were the few comments I made about individual passages I thought they should reconsider because I found their

translation weak I personally dont find any fault with them quoting the positive statements and leaving out the negative ones this is standard editorial practice and I do not think it to be deceptive [hellip] As for the use of [quoting] lsquoexpertsrsquo -- you will find that all denominations cite anyone who agrees with them and dismisses whoever disagreesrdquo [In a 1998 letter to Ginny Tosken])

______________________________________________

Heres a list of alternate readings to John 11c in contrast to the traditional reading

c 200 ldquoand a god was the Wordrdquo - The Sahidic Coptic Version (an early Egyptian text based on the Greek alphabet) Unlike common Greek Coptic has both the definite article and the indefinite article (a) The Coptic translators of the Greek text chose to employ the Coptic indefinite article in their translation of it This interpretation of the Greek text represents a very early understanding of John 11 free from later ecclesiastical decrees of the 4th and 5th centuries CE which were instrumental in establishing the Trinity doctrine Hence the Sahidic Coptic Version is a significant translation which cannot be ignored 1660 ldquoand the Word (Speech) was a god rdquo - Jeremias Felbinger DAS NEUE TESTAMENT (und di Rede___war ein Gott) (Note German nouns are commonly capitalized but in translation capitals may be dropped) 1694 ldquoand the Word was a god rdquo - Reijnier Rooleeuw MD The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ translated from the Greek 1822 ldquothe Word was a Godrdquo - Abner Kneeland The New Testament in Greek and English Phil 1829 ldquoand the Logos was a god rdquo ndash John Samuel Thompson The Monotessaron or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists Baltimore1864 ldquoan a god was the Wordrdquo - Benjamin Wilson The Emphatic Diaglott (Interlinear reading) ndash New York and London - ldquoand the LOGOS was with GOD and the LOGOS was Godrdquo - Right hand column reading Take note of size and capitalization of ldquoGODrdquo versus ldquoGodrdquo in this rendering here Some websites are misleading here Wilson did show a difference where the article ldquotherdquo was used and where it did not 1872 ldquoThe Word was god rdquo - The Translation of the New Testament Marc Jean Hugues Oltramare (La Parole eacutetait dieu) (Professor of New Testament Exegesis University of Geneva) 1879 ldquothe Word was a god rdquo - Louis Segond and H Oltramare La Sainte Bible Geneva and Paris (la Parole eacutetait un dieu) (In Segondrsquos individual version of 1910 he uses ldquoDieurdquo)

1885 ldquoan a God (ie a Divine Being is the Word) ndash Robert Young Youngs Concise Critical Bible Commentary (also author of Youngs Literal Translation of the Bible of 1862 which rendered John 11 as ldquoand the Word was Godrdquo However in his later commentary he explained it as above Grand Rapids MI Baker Book House

1896 ldquoand the Word was itself of divine being rdquo - Das Neue Testament by Curt Stage Leipzig (und das Wort war selbst goumlttlichen Wesens) Germany 1908 ldquothe Word was of divine essence rdquo - Marc J H Oltramare La Sainte Bible Geneva and Paris (et la Parole eacutetait dessence divine) 1911 ldquoand [a] God was the wordrdquo - George W Horner The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect Vol 3 (Oxford The Clarendon Press Brackets his) 1919 ldquoand god of a sort was the Wordrdquo - Ludwig Thimme Das Neue Testament Stuttgart Germany (und Gott von Art war das Wort)

19221934 ldquothe Logos was divine rdquo - James Moffatt DD DLitt New Translation of the Bible New York Evanston and London 1925 ldquoand the Logos was god rdquo - Hubert Pernot Pages choisies des Eacutevangiles mdash Paris France (et le Logos eacutetait dieu)

1928 ldquothe Word was a divine being rdquo - La Bible du Centenaire Socieacuteteacute Biblique de Paris (la Parole eacutetait un ecirctre divin) 1935 ldquoand the Word was divine rdquo - JMP Smith and E J Goodspeed The Bible-An American Translation Chicago 1947 ldquoand the Word was god rdquo - Professor Charles Cutler Torrey The Four Gospels-A New Translation (2nd edit 1st edit 1933 (Yale Univ) New York amp London 1950 ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo - New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures Brooklyn 1958 ldquoand the Word was a God rdquo - James L Tomanek The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed Pocatello Idaho USA1961 ldquoand what God was the Word wasrdquo - New English Bible New Testament (1970) Oxford and Cambridge amp New York1975 ldquoand a god (or of a divine kind ) was the Wordrdquo - Siegfried Schulz Das Evangelium nach und ein Gott (oder Gott von Art) war das Wort Johannes Das Neue Testament Deutsch Goumlttingen Germany 1978 ldquoand godlike sort was the Logosrdquo - Johannes Schneider Das Evangelium nach Johannes Berlin (und goumlttlicher Art war der Logos)

1979 ldquoand a god was the Logosrdquo - Juumlrgen Becker Das Evangelium nach Johannes Guumltersloh and (und ein Gott war der Logos) Wuumlrzburg Germany 1980 ldquoand god of a sort was the Logosrdquo - Ernst Haenchen Das Johannesevangelium Tuumlbingen Ger und Gott (von Art) war der Logos

1982 ldquoAnd a God was the Project [Loacutegos]rdquo- El Evangelio de Juan Anaacutelisis linguumliacutestico y comentario ldquoY un Dios era el proyectordquo exegeacutetico (alternate reading) by Juan Mateos and Juan Barreto Cristiandad Madrid p 54 Brackets mine1985 ldquoSo the Word was divinerdquo- The Original New Testament by Hugh J Schonfield Aberdeen Scotland

1989 ldquoThe Logos was in the sphere of God rdquo - Lectura del evangelio de Juan 1 (alternate reading) (El Logos estaba en la esfera de Dios) by Xavier Leoacuten-Dufour ediciones Siacutegueme 59 Salamanca Spain 1989 ldquoand what God was the Word wasrdquo - Revised English Bible Oxford and Cambridge Presses

1997 ldquothe Word was divine rdquo - Los escritos originales de la comunidad del disciacutepulo ldquoamigordquo de (la Palabra era divina ) Jesuacutes El evangelio y las cartas de Juan 1997 by Seneacuten Vidal Garciacutea - University Professor of New Testament Valladolid Spain2000 ldquoand the Word was divine rdquo - 21st Century Version of the Christian Scriptures Mark H Miller

2001 ldquoand the Word was a powerful one rdquo - 2001 Translation ndash An American English Version

2002 ldquoand god was the Wordrdquo - Cuarto Evangelio Cartas de Juan Juan Joseacute Bartolomeacute Filologiacutea (y dios era la Palabra) Griega Madrid CCS DL2006 ldquoand the Verb was powerful rdquo - Versioacuten Israelita Nazarena (Holman Publishers Nasville TN) (y el Verbo era poderoso)

2007 ldquoand the Word was what God wasrdquo - The Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible NT parenthesis theirs

For additional sources click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings )

======================COMMENTS MADE BY SCHOLARS====================

185-254 CE ldquothe Word was a god rdquo - ( Origens Commentary on John Book I ch 42 - Bk II ch3) Adamantius died 254 CE1901 ldquoThe Logos was divine not the divine Being himselfrdquo - J Henry Thayer (died 1901) author of THAYERS GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NT ndash Chairman of NT Committee ASV1938 Divinity professor John Martin Creed DD - ldquo[T]he Prologue [John 11] is less explicit with the anarthrous [theoacutes without the article ho (the)] than it appears to be in Englishrdquo - The Divinity of Jesus Christ p 123 Cambridge 1962 Catholic theologian Karl Rahner ldquoIn none of these instances [of theoacutes such as Romans 95 John 11 118 2028 1 John 520 and Titus 213] is lsquotheoacutesrsquo used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as lsquoho theoacutesrsquo that is the Supreme Godrdquo - The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of England January 1962 1965 Jesuit John L Mackenzie SJ ldquoJn 11 should rigorously be translated lsquothe word was with the God [=the Father] and the word was a divine beingrsquordquo - DICTIONARY of the BIBLE 317 Brackets his 1970 ldquoNew American Biblerdquo - ldquoIn John 11 the Word is called lsquoGodrsquo but the original Greek term used here theos [God] is not the usual word for God ho theos [the God]rdquo- ldquoBiblical Terms Explainedrdquo 1977 C H Dodd ldquoIf a translation were a matter of substituting words a possible translation of θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος would be ldquoThe Word was a godrdquo As a word-for-word translation it cannot be

translation weak I personally dont find any fault with them quoting the positive statements and leaving out the negative ones this is standard editorial practice and I do not think it to be deceptive [hellip] As for the use of [quoting] lsquoexpertsrsquo -- you will find that all denominations cite anyone who agrees with them and dismisses whoever disagreesrdquo [In a 1998 letter to Ginny Tosken])

______________________________________________

Heres a list of alternate readings to John 11c in contrast to the traditional reading

c 200 ldquoand a god was the Wordrdquo - The Sahidic Coptic Version (an early Egyptian text based on the Greek alphabet) Unlike common Greek Coptic has both the definite article and the indefinite article (a) The Coptic translators of the Greek text chose to employ the Coptic indefinite article in their translation of it This interpretation of the Greek text represents a very early understanding of John 11 free from later ecclesiastical decrees of the 4th and 5th centuries CE which were instrumental in establishing the Trinity doctrine Hence the Sahidic Coptic Version is a significant translation which cannot be ignored 1660 ldquoand the Word (Speech) was a god rdquo - Jeremias Felbinger DAS NEUE TESTAMENT (und di Rede___war ein Gott) (Note German nouns are commonly capitalized but in translation capitals may be dropped) 1694 ldquoand the Word was a god rdquo - Reijnier Rooleeuw MD The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ translated from the Greek 1822 ldquothe Word was a Godrdquo - Abner Kneeland The New Testament in Greek and English Phil 1829 ldquoand the Logos was a god rdquo ndash John Samuel Thompson The Monotessaron or The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists Baltimore1864 ldquoan a god was the Wordrdquo - Benjamin Wilson The Emphatic Diaglott (Interlinear reading) ndash New York and London - ldquoand the LOGOS was with GOD and the LOGOS was Godrdquo - Right hand column reading Take note of size and capitalization of ldquoGODrdquo versus ldquoGodrdquo in this rendering here Some websites are misleading here Wilson did show a difference where the article ldquotherdquo was used and where it did not 1872 ldquoThe Word was god rdquo - The Translation of the New Testament Marc Jean Hugues Oltramare (La Parole eacutetait dieu) (Professor of New Testament Exegesis University of Geneva) 1879 ldquothe Word was a god rdquo - Louis Segond and H Oltramare La Sainte Bible Geneva and Paris (la Parole eacutetait un dieu) (In Segondrsquos individual version of 1910 he uses ldquoDieurdquo)

1885 ldquoan a God (ie a Divine Being is the Word) ndash Robert Young Youngs Concise Critical Bible Commentary (also author of Youngs Literal Translation of the Bible of 1862 which rendered John 11 as ldquoand the Word was Godrdquo However in his later commentary he explained it as above Grand Rapids MI Baker Book House

1896 ldquoand the Word was itself of divine being rdquo - Das Neue Testament by Curt Stage Leipzig (und das Wort war selbst goumlttlichen Wesens) Germany 1908 ldquothe Word was of divine essence rdquo - Marc J H Oltramare La Sainte Bible Geneva and Paris (et la Parole eacutetait dessence divine) 1911 ldquoand [a] God was the wordrdquo - George W Horner The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect Vol 3 (Oxford The Clarendon Press Brackets his) 1919 ldquoand god of a sort was the Wordrdquo - Ludwig Thimme Das Neue Testament Stuttgart Germany (und Gott von Art war das Wort)

19221934 ldquothe Logos was divine rdquo - James Moffatt DD DLitt New Translation of the Bible New York Evanston and London 1925 ldquoand the Logos was god rdquo - Hubert Pernot Pages choisies des Eacutevangiles mdash Paris France (et le Logos eacutetait dieu)

1928 ldquothe Word was a divine being rdquo - La Bible du Centenaire Socieacuteteacute Biblique de Paris (la Parole eacutetait un ecirctre divin) 1935 ldquoand the Word was divine rdquo - JMP Smith and E J Goodspeed The Bible-An American Translation Chicago 1947 ldquoand the Word was god rdquo - Professor Charles Cutler Torrey The Four Gospels-A New Translation (2nd edit 1st edit 1933 (Yale Univ) New York amp London 1950 ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo - New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures Brooklyn 1958 ldquoand the Word was a God rdquo - James L Tomanek The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed Pocatello Idaho USA1961 ldquoand what God was the Word wasrdquo - New English Bible New Testament (1970) Oxford and Cambridge amp New York1975 ldquoand a god (or of a divine kind ) was the Wordrdquo - Siegfried Schulz Das Evangelium nach und ein Gott (oder Gott von Art) war das Wort Johannes Das Neue Testament Deutsch Goumlttingen Germany 1978 ldquoand godlike sort was the Logosrdquo - Johannes Schneider Das Evangelium nach Johannes Berlin (und goumlttlicher Art war der Logos)

1979 ldquoand a god was the Logosrdquo - Juumlrgen Becker Das Evangelium nach Johannes Guumltersloh and (und ein Gott war der Logos) Wuumlrzburg Germany 1980 ldquoand god of a sort was the Logosrdquo - Ernst Haenchen Das Johannesevangelium Tuumlbingen Ger und Gott (von Art) war der Logos

1982 ldquoAnd a God was the Project [Loacutegos]rdquo- El Evangelio de Juan Anaacutelisis linguumliacutestico y comentario ldquoY un Dios era el proyectordquo exegeacutetico (alternate reading) by Juan Mateos and Juan Barreto Cristiandad Madrid p 54 Brackets mine1985 ldquoSo the Word was divinerdquo- The Original New Testament by Hugh J Schonfield Aberdeen Scotland

1989 ldquoThe Logos was in the sphere of God rdquo - Lectura del evangelio de Juan 1 (alternate reading) (El Logos estaba en la esfera de Dios) by Xavier Leoacuten-Dufour ediciones Siacutegueme 59 Salamanca Spain 1989 ldquoand what God was the Word wasrdquo - Revised English Bible Oxford and Cambridge Presses

1997 ldquothe Word was divine rdquo - Los escritos originales de la comunidad del disciacutepulo ldquoamigordquo de (la Palabra era divina ) Jesuacutes El evangelio y las cartas de Juan 1997 by Seneacuten Vidal Garciacutea - University Professor of New Testament Valladolid Spain2000 ldquoand the Word was divine rdquo - 21st Century Version of the Christian Scriptures Mark H Miller

2001 ldquoand the Word was a powerful one rdquo - 2001 Translation ndash An American English Version

2002 ldquoand god was the Wordrdquo - Cuarto Evangelio Cartas de Juan Juan Joseacute Bartolomeacute Filologiacutea (y dios era la Palabra) Griega Madrid CCS DL2006 ldquoand the Verb was powerful rdquo - Versioacuten Israelita Nazarena (Holman Publishers Nasville TN) (y el Verbo era poderoso)

2007 ldquoand the Word was what God wasrdquo - The Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible NT parenthesis theirs

For additional sources click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings )

======================COMMENTS MADE BY SCHOLARS====================

185-254 CE ldquothe Word was a god rdquo - ( Origens Commentary on John Book I ch 42 - Bk II ch3) Adamantius died 254 CE1901 ldquoThe Logos was divine not the divine Being himselfrdquo - J Henry Thayer (died 1901) author of THAYERS GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NT ndash Chairman of NT Committee ASV1938 Divinity professor John Martin Creed DD - ldquo[T]he Prologue [John 11] is less explicit with the anarthrous [theoacutes without the article ho (the)] than it appears to be in Englishrdquo - The Divinity of Jesus Christ p 123 Cambridge 1962 Catholic theologian Karl Rahner ldquoIn none of these instances [of theoacutes such as Romans 95 John 11 118 2028 1 John 520 and Titus 213] is lsquotheoacutesrsquo used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as lsquoho theoacutesrsquo that is the Supreme Godrdquo - The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of England January 1962 1965 Jesuit John L Mackenzie SJ ldquoJn 11 should rigorously be translated lsquothe word was with the God [=the Father] and the word was a divine beingrsquordquo - DICTIONARY of the BIBLE 317 Brackets his 1970 ldquoNew American Biblerdquo - ldquoIn John 11 the Word is called lsquoGodrsquo but the original Greek term used here theos [God] is not the usual word for God ho theos [the God]rdquo- ldquoBiblical Terms Explainedrdquo 1977 C H Dodd ldquoIf a translation were a matter of substituting words a possible translation of θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος would be ldquoThe Word was a godrdquo As a word-for-word translation it cannot be

1896 ldquoand the Word was itself of divine being rdquo - Das Neue Testament by Curt Stage Leipzig (und das Wort war selbst goumlttlichen Wesens) Germany 1908 ldquothe Word was of divine essence rdquo - Marc J H Oltramare La Sainte Bible Geneva and Paris (et la Parole eacutetait dessence divine) 1911 ldquoand [a] God was the wordrdquo - George W Horner The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect Vol 3 (Oxford The Clarendon Press Brackets his) 1919 ldquoand god of a sort was the Wordrdquo - Ludwig Thimme Das Neue Testament Stuttgart Germany (und Gott von Art war das Wort)

19221934 ldquothe Logos was divine rdquo - James Moffatt DD DLitt New Translation of the Bible New York Evanston and London 1925 ldquoand the Logos was god rdquo - Hubert Pernot Pages choisies des Eacutevangiles mdash Paris France (et le Logos eacutetait dieu)

1928 ldquothe Word was a divine being rdquo - La Bible du Centenaire Socieacuteteacute Biblique de Paris (la Parole eacutetait un ecirctre divin) 1935 ldquoand the Word was divine rdquo - JMP Smith and E J Goodspeed The Bible-An American Translation Chicago 1947 ldquoand the Word was god rdquo - Professor Charles Cutler Torrey The Four Gospels-A New Translation (2nd edit 1st edit 1933 (Yale Univ) New York amp London 1950 ldquoand the Word was a godrdquo - New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures Brooklyn 1958 ldquoand the Word was a God rdquo - James L Tomanek The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed Pocatello Idaho USA1961 ldquoand what God was the Word wasrdquo - New English Bible New Testament (1970) Oxford and Cambridge amp New York1975 ldquoand a god (or of a divine kind ) was the Wordrdquo - Siegfried Schulz Das Evangelium nach und ein Gott (oder Gott von Art) war das Wort Johannes Das Neue Testament Deutsch Goumlttingen Germany 1978 ldquoand godlike sort was the Logosrdquo - Johannes Schneider Das Evangelium nach Johannes Berlin (und goumlttlicher Art war der Logos)

1979 ldquoand a god was the Logosrdquo - Juumlrgen Becker Das Evangelium nach Johannes Guumltersloh and (und ein Gott war der Logos) Wuumlrzburg Germany 1980 ldquoand god of a sort was the Logosrdquo - Ernst Haenchen Das Johannesevangelium Tuumlbingen Ger und Gott (von Art) war der Logos

1982 ldquoAnd a God was the Project [Loacutegos]rdquo- El Evangelio de Juan Anaacutelisis linguumliacutestico y comentario ldquoY un Dios era el proyectordquo exegeacutetico (alternate reading) by Juan Mateos and Juan Barreto Cristiandad Madrid p 54 Brackets mine1985 ldquoSo the Word was divinerdquo- The Original New Testament by Hugh J Schonfield Aberdeen Scotland

1989 ldquoThe Logos was in the sphere of God rdquo - Lectura del evangelio de Juan 1 (alternate reading) (El Logos estaba en la esfera de Dios) by Xavier Leoacuten-Dufour ediciones Siacutegueme 59 Salamanca Spain 1989 ldquoand what God was the Word wasrdquo - Revised English Bible Oxford and Cambridge Presses

1997 ldquothe Word was divine rdquo - Los escritos originales de la comunidad del disciacutepulo ldquoamigordquo de (la Palabra era divina ) Jesuacutes El evangelio y las cartas de Juan 1997 by Seneacuten Vidal Garciacutea - University Professor of New Testament Valladolid Spain2000 ldquoand the Word was divine rdquo - 21st Century Version of the Christian Scriptures Mark H Miller

2001 ldquoand the Word was a powerful one rdquo - 2001 Translation ndash An American English Version

2002 ldquoand god was the Wordrdquo - Cuarto Evangelio Cartas de Juan Juan Joseacute Bartolomeacute Filologiacutea (y dios era la Palabra) Griega Madrid CCS DL2006 ldquoand the Verb was powerful rdquo - Versioacuten Israelita Nazarena (Holman Publishers Nasville TN) (y el Verbo era poderoso)

2007 ldquoand the Word was what God wasrdquo - The Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible NT parenthesis theirs

For additional sources click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings )

======================COMMENTS MADE BY SCHOLARS====================

185-254 CE ldquothe Word was a god rdquo - ( Origens Commentary on John Book I ch 42 - Bk II ch3) Adamantius died 254 CE1901 ldquoThe Logos was divine not the divine Being himselfrdquo - J Henry Thayer (died 1901) author of THAYERS GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NT ndash Chairman of NT Committee ASV1938 Divinity professor John Martin Creed DD - ldquo[T]he Prologue [John 11] is less explicit with the anarthrous [theoacutes without the article ho (the)] than it appears to be in Englishrdquo - The Divinity of Jesus Christ p 123 Cambridge 1962 Catholic theologian Karl Rahner ldquoIn none of these instances [of theoacutes such as Romans 95 John 11 118 2028 1 John 520 and Titus 213] is lsquotheoacutesrsquo used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as lsquoho theoacutesrsquo that is the Supreme Godrdquo - The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of England January 1962 1965 Jesuit John L Mackenzie SJ ldquoJn 11 should rigorously be translated lsquothe word was with the God [=the Father] and the word was a divine beingrsquordquo - DICTIONARY of the BIBLE 317 Brackets his 1970 ldquoNew American Biblerdquo - ldquoIn John 11 the Word is called lsquoGodrsquo but the original Greek term used here theos [God] is not the usual word for God ho theos [the God]rdquo- ldquoBiblical Terms Explainedrdquo 1977 C H Dodd ldquoIf a translation were a matter of substituting words a possible translation of θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος would be ldquoThe Word was a godrdquo As a word-for-word translation it cannot be

1989 ldquoThe Logos was in the sphere of God rdquo - Lectura del evangelio de Juan 1 (alternate reading) (El Logos estaba en la esfera de Dios) by Xavier Leoacuten-Dufour ediciones Siacutegueme 59 Salamanca Spain 1989 ldquoand what God was the Word wasrdquo - Revised English Bible Oxford and Cambridge Presses

1997 ldquothe Word was divine rdquo - Los escritos originales de la comunidad del disciacutepulo ldquoamigordquo de (la Palabra era divina ) Jesuacutes El evangelio y las cartas de Juan 1997 by Seneacuten Vidal Garciacutea - University Professor of New Testament Valladolid Spain2000 ldquoand the Word was divine rdquo - 21st Century Version of the Christian Scriptures Mark H Miller

2001 ldquoand the Word was a powerful one rdquo - 2001 Translation ndash An American English Version

2002 ldquoand god was the Wordrdquo - Cuarto Evangelio Cartas de Juan Juan Joseacute Bartolomeacute Filologiacutea (y dios era la Palabra) Griega Madrid CCS DL2006 ldquoand the Verb was powerful rdquo - Versioacuten Israelita Nazarena (Holman Publishers Nasville TN) (y el Verbo era poderoso)

2007 ldquoand the Word was what God wasrdquo - The Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible NT parenthesis theirs

For additional sources click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings )

======================COMMENTS MADE BY SCHOLARS====================

185-254 CE ldquothe Word was a god rdquo - ( Origens Commentary on John Book I ch 42 - Bk II ch3) Adamantius died 254 CE1901 ldquoThe Logos was divine not the divine Being himselfrdquo - J Henry Thayer (died 1901) author of THAYERS GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NT ndash Chairman of NT Committee ASV1938 Divinity professor John Martin Creed DD - ldquo[T]he Prologue [John 11] is less explicit with the anarthrous [theoacutes without the article ho (the)] than it appears to be in Englishrdquo - The Divinity of Jesus Christ p 123 Cambridge 1962 Catholic theologian Karl Rahner ldquoIn none of these instances [of theoacutes such as Romans 95 John 11 118 2028 1 John 520 and Titus 213] is lsquotheoacutesrsquo used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as lsquoho theoacutesrsquo that is the Supreme Godrdquo - The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of England January 1962 1965 Jesuit John L Mackenzie SJ ldquoJn 11 should rigorously be translated lsquothe word was with the God [=the Father] and the word was a divine beingrsquordquo - DICTIONARY of the BIBLE 317 Brackets his 1970 ldquoNew American Biblerdquo - ldquoIn John 11 the Word is called lsquoGodrsquo but the original Greek term used here theos [God] is not the usual word for God ho theos [the God]rdquo- ldquoBiblical Terms Explainedrdquo 1977 C H Dodd ldquoIf a translation were a matter of substituting words a possible translation of θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος would be ldquoThe Word was a godrdquo As a word-for-word translation it cannot be

faultedrdquo (Director of the New English Bible project Note Dodd believes such rendering although valid in translation runs counter with Johannine and Christian thought as a whole Thus his preference for the ambiguous rendering ldquowhat God was the Word wasrdquo)

1984 ldquoand divine (of the category divinity) was the Logosrdquo - Ernst Haenchen Das Johannesevangelium Ein Kommentar John 1 translated by Robert W Funk p 108

1992 Murray J Harris ldquoAccordingly from the point of view of grammar alone θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος [theos en ho logos] could be rendered ldquothe Word was a godrdquo (Page 60) ldquoFrom this brief survey of proposed renderings of John 11c I conclude that the most common translation (ldquothe Word was Godrdquo) remains the most adequate although it requires that lsquoGodrsquo be carefully defined or qualified Harners paraphrastic translation lsquothe Word had the same nature as Godrsquo or the paraphrase lsquothe Word was identical with God the Father in naturersquo most accurately represents the evangelists intended meaningrdquo (Page 70) (Note Harris believes ldquothe theological context viz Johns monotheism makes this rendering [ldquoa godrdquo] of 11c impossiblerdquo (Jesus As God ndash The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus Page 60)

For other sources click here httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings )

_______________________________________________

For further reading check the links below (For Spanish see below)

For a discussion of Acts 2028 Whose blood

httpwwwscribdcomdoc231244155Acts-20-28-Whose-blood

For Colossians 116 (ldquoall other thingsrdquo)

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209607822Colossians-1-16-Is-the-translation-all-other-things-appropriate

For a briefer consideration of John 11 but with additional samples (18 pages) click

httpwwwscribdcomdoc50330864John-1-1-List-of-Alternate-Readings

For a consideration of the Trinity subject click

httpwwwscribdcomdoc160286056Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense

For John 858

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35318309The-correct-translation-of-John-8-58-List-of-alternate-readings-to-I-am

For John 173 (lsquoknowledgersquo)

httpwwwscribdcomdoc57772552John-17-3-E28098Taking-in-knowledge-of-E28099-God-and-Jesus

Did the NW translators know Greek click the following link

httpwwwscribdcomdoc48234022Did-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Greek

For Exodus 225

httpwwwscribdcomdoc38676458Exodus-2-25-And-God-took-notice-Does-God-care-about-us

For John 114 (ldquogracerdquo)

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35002730John-1-14-Jesus-full-of-grace

For 1 Timothy 316

httpwwwscribdcomdoc76927834Was-God-manifested-in-the-flesh-1-Timothy-3-16

Translation Differences between Bible versions

httpwwwscribdcomdoc59484457Translation-Differences-Questions-and-Answers

Para una consideracioacuten de otros temas por el mismo autor vea los siguientes enlaces

Para Juan 11 (ldquoun diosrdquo) vea el siguiente enlace

httpwwwscribdcomdoc35899788Traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-1-1-Lista-de-lecturas-alternativas

Para Juan 858 (ldquoyo soyrdquo ldquoyo he sidordquo)

httpwwwscribdcomdoc36126649La-traduccion-correcta-de-Juan-8-58-Lista-de-lecturas-alternas-a-yo-soy

ldquoiquestAcaso tiene sentido la Trinidadrdquo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc173779117C2BFAcaso-tiene-sentido-la-Trinidad

iquestSabiacutea griego el Comiteacute de la Traduccioacuten del Nuevo Mundo

httpwwwscribdcomdoc51623596C2BFSabia-griego-el-Comite-de-la-Traduccion-del-Nuevo-Mundo

Para Colosenses 116 ldquotodas las otras cosasrdquo vea

httpwwwscribdcomdoc209601066Colosenses-1-16-C2BFEs-la-traduccion-E2809Ctodas-las-otras-cosasE2809D-apropiada

Para Juan 173 (lsquoadquirir conocimientorsquo)

httpwwwscribdcomdoc74629981Juan-17-3-E28098Adquiriendo-conocimientoE28099-de-Dios-y-Jesucristo

Para 1 Timoteo 316

httpwwwscribdcomdoc77336247C2BFFue-Dios-manifestado-en-carne-1-Timoteo-3-16

(To submit comments suggestions or corrections lesriv000gmailcom )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Final Note This document was written using the free open LibreOffice Writer using Croscore Tinos Font Main Font Size 12 ndash originally in the odt (Open Document Text) format--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following is a snapshot of William Barclays private letter to David Burnett where he admits ( 1) what he had publicly denied earlier ldquoYou could translate so far as the Greek goes lsquothe Word was a Godrsquo rdquo Notwithstanding his theology does not allow for such interpretation