-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Recently Published NT Translation
- Thread starter Jerome
- Start date
3) David did not capitalize "god." Apparently David provided several pages of footnotes to support this choice.
I would like to see his reasoning, but I would guess it because there is no article before "θεὸς". The very argument the Watch Tower Society uses. Not to mention the old heresy of Arianism. This is unconvincing. If a lower case god was in view, or "a god", the sentence would read Και ό λόγος ην θεος.
Of course it does not. It reads καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Note the location of Θεός. The emphatic positioning of "God" at the beginning shows Jesus' equality with God (The Father) from earlier in John 1:1. It could be paraphrased somthing like, "What the Father(God) was, Jesus(Word) was."
However, if the Watch Tower, Arians and assuming Hart has produced a similar argument, had the article that demand before θεος, it would destroy the Christian concept of the Trinity. To say somthing like και ό(article) λόγος ην ό(article) θεος would also be saying that Jesus is the Father. The lack of the article keeps us from confusing Jesus with the Father.
Long story Short, the word order in the Greek calls for the capital "G" God. The lack of article is against "Oneness". Issue with Hart's John 1:1 causes me great concern. At least he didn't say "a god", but "god" can certainly allow one to see it as just "a god".
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
There is NO reputable and recognized greek scholar that would translate jesus as being a god, as the intent of John here was to show Jesus as being very God, bu yet not the Father Himself, not for Him being a lessor god!
So you claim the ESV/NIV,CSB are all no good.
Nope, I snipped the text from on line review articles, and none I have found included the footnotes.
Sheer nonsense, Jesus is God Almighty.
Yes, Hart's translation butchers the verse, but note he does translate "apo" correctly (as from) rather than as the agenda driven mistranslation found in the ESV.
I was unable to follow your argument from Greek grammar, but I agree, Hart's translation of John 1:1 is wrong in the opinion of a great many scholars, such as Dr. Dan Wallace.
Scripture teaches there is no other god than Yahweh. Therefore to say some entity is "a god" or "god" uncaptialized (indicating not Yahweh) is tantamount to saying the entity is not God.
I *wouldn't say he butchers it. He does have support from the likes of G.K. Beale and Robert H. Mounce on this verse. He is following Greek syntax is sense of word separation from the preposition. Απο is closer to the slain lamb then it is to "book", "names" or the verb "written". I prefer a word order similar to NASB & ESV, but I can't say he butchered it. He made a decision there that was compatible Greek grammar ...as far as word order goes. One must make a judgement call as to what word the preposition is linking the prepositional phrase to.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Because of Rev 17:8, the difficulty must be resolved in favor of written from the foundation. See NET footnote.
Also need to look at the entire NT itself, as there is ample proof the election of God being based upon God choosing and dtermining that based upon His own Will.Period.
You tell me.
No, he doesn't! He is a conservative Eastern Orthodox scholar. This gets back to Martin Marprelate in post #2 quoting from the OP article: "unless you can read the original languages, you should avoid making public pronouncements about which translation is best."
His typographical conventions are explained at length in the notes:
"The truth is that, in Greek...the Ianguage of the GospeI's proIogue is nowhere near so Iucid and unequivocaI as the [English] transIations make it seem."
"my point is not that there is anything amiss in the theoIogy of Nicaea, or that the originaI Greek text caIIs it into question, but only that standard [EngIish] transIations make it impossibIe for readers who know neither Greek nor the history of Iate antique metaphysics and theoIogy to understand either what the originaI text says or what it does not say. Not that there is any perfectIy satisfactory way of representing the text's obscurities in EngIish, since we do not distinguish between articuIar and inarticuIar forms in the same way; rather, we have to reIy on orthography and typography"
"how I deaI with the distinction in my transIation of the GospeI's proIogue, and I beIieve one must empIoy some such device: it seems to me that the withhoIding of the fuII reveIation of Christ as ho theos, God in the fuIIest sense, until the ApostIe Thomas confesses him as such in the Iight of Easter, must be seen as an intentionaI authorial tactic. Some other scholars have chosen to render the inarticuIar form of theos as 'a divine being,' but this seems wrong to me on two counts: first, if that were aII the evangelist were saying, he could have used the perfectIy serviceable Greek word theios; and, second, the text of the GospeI cIearIy means to assert some kind of continuity of identity between God the Father and his Son the Logos, not mereIy some sort of association between 'God proper' and 'a god'."
Thanks for posting his notes Jerome.
I disagree with Hart's conclusion. The use of θεος shows the qualitave equivalence of the Son and the Father. An equative statment as well. Namely being Jesus and the Father are one being. I think "God" is superior to "god" here. Reading the little "g" to me implies Jesus is lesser in worth and value than the Father. If not a separate "god" all together. The use of the predicate nominative is the perfect way to express the equative and qualitve equivalncy in nature(being), yet sperate persons of Jesus and the Father.
I honestly have a hard time seeing how Hart can say the above and still see "god" as better than "God".
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk