Re: Trinity Q&A
Yes, the word for 'divine,' which is an adjective which can apply to God, angels, and certain men, is theios in NT Greek. And the word theos is a nominative case noun which means "a god" (or, when it has the definite article with it, ho theos, it means "God").
So, literally, the NT Greek at John 1:1c says "And the Word was a god." The translation "And the Word was divine" is certainly more accurate than "And the Word was God," but it is not entirely accurate and gives the possibility that the Word might be either God or a god (man or angel appointed by God to carry out His purpose).
--- In JWquestionsfirstname.lastname@example.org, rgwir <no_reply@...> wrote:
> Thank you for that very good explanation. Now I have another observation
> that I would enjoy hearing people's comments on.
> I understand that translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Shonfield and
> Edgar Goodspeed render John 1:1c as:"...and the Word was divine."
> I noticed that the original Greek words for "god" (qeovV¿½; Theos)
> and "divine" (qei'oV¿½; Theios) are very similar to me but not
> exactly the same. I care about accurately translating how the Bible was
> actually written. Even though the word "divine" appeals to me in
> alleviating the confusion that this scripture causes most people,
> accuracy should still not be sacrificed for the sake of comfort.
> --- In JWquestionsemail@example.com, "Solomon" Awohili@
> > Excellent. It shows again that text must be informed by context. Also,
> a little knowledge of the original cultural setting helps.
> > Thanks,
> > Solomon
> > --- In JWquestionsfirstname.lastname@example.org, teddy_trueblood
> no_reply@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It wasn't confusing when it was written.
> > >
> > > Most (if not all) recognized Bible scholars acknowledge that men and
> > > angels who have been entrusted with representing God are sometimes
> > > called "god" [elohim and theos] and "son of God" in Scripture! In
> > > these two terms are often used together or interchangeably in
> > > usages.
> > >
> > >
> > > Even the Trinitarian-produced NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985, also
> > > clearly recognizes the above truth:
> > >
> > > "In the language of the OT ... rulers and judges, as deputies of the
> > > heavenly King, could be given the honorific title 'god' ... or be
> > > 'son of God'." - footnote for Ps. 82:1.
> > >
> > > .................................
- They were obviously seeking ways to simply make Jesus look bad, they all hated him because of him being honest and outspoken.
7But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Mathew 3:7
33And when the demon was driven out, the man who had been mute spoke. The crowd was amazed and said, "Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel."
34But the Pharisees said, "It is by the prince of demons that he drives out demons."
2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
So we see that they used everything Jesus said to disprove him before the people somehow.
--- In JWquestionsemail@example.com, Steve Klemetti
> rgwir wrote:
> > John 5:18 says:
> > "For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill
> > Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling
> > God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."
> > What is this scripture saying?
> (John 5:14-18) . . .After these things Jesus found him in the temple and
> said to him: "See, you have become sound in health. Do not sin anymore,
> in order that something worse does not happen to you." 15 The man went
> away and told the Jews it was Jesus that made him sound in health. 16 So
> on this account the Jews went persecuting Jesus, because he was doing
> these things during Sabbath.
> Notice that here it said "on this account" meaning that because of the
> healing on the sabbath they persecuted him.
> 17 But he answered them: "My Father has kept working until now, and I
> keep working." 18 On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all
> the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but
> he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God. . ."
> Again, it says "on this account". He made the statement and they
> interpreted it. Their interpretation was that
> "calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God". but that was
> the interpretation of the Jews and it was incorrect.
> How can calling God one's own father make him equal to God/?