The Word was divine. .

Originally posted by RJHinds
Perhaps it is to distinguish between God the Father and God the Son. Since we know the God the Son is referred to as "THE WORD OF GOD" in the book of Revelation.

Why wasn't the holy spirit part of this 3 in 1 god chosen or picked or voluntered to come to earth as the Jesus part of this god did? Or why didn't the father part come himself? Guess it really wouldn't matter though as you say they are all equal.
And you know I stll haven't figured out why the holy spirit piece never was given a name. Any ideas yet?

Originally posted by galveston75
Why wasn't the holy spirit part of this 3 in 1 god chosen or picked or voluntered to come to earth as the Jesus part of this god did? Or why didn't the father part come himself? Guess it really wouldn't matter though as you say they are all equal.
And you know I stll haven't figured out why the holy spirit piece never was given a name. Any ideas yet?

I think He is the bashful type.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Perhaps it is to distinguish between God the Father and God the Son. Since we know the God the Son is referred to as "THE WORD OF GOD" in the book of Revelation.

you were partially correct the first time, although Moffat did not translate the verse because he believed that the 'theos', in the latter clause was an anarthrous singular indefinite predicate noun which signified not the person of God but a quality but because it actually is an anarthrous singular indefinite predicate noun which signifies not the personage of God but a quality. He was therefore under duress to translate the text accurately as divine.

This therefore begs the question, why do other translations fail to recognise the Greek idiom and inaccurately give the impression that it is the personage of God? why would they do that?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you were partially correct the first time, although Moffat did not translate the verse because he believed that the 'theos', in the latter clause was an anarthrous singular indefinite predicate noun which signified not the person of God but a quality but because it actually is an anarthrous singular indefinite predicate noun which signifies not the p ...[text shortened]... m and inaccurately give the impression that it is the personage of God? why would they do that?

They probably do that because that understood what John meant from other scripture that indicates that Jesus is God or they know the Greek better than Moffatt.

Originally posted by RJHinds
They probably do that because that understood what John meant from other scripture that indicates that Jesus is God or they know the Greek better than Moffatt.

Moffat was professor of Greek, what evidence do you have that these translators knew Greek better than a professor of Greek.

Are you denying that in the text, an anarthrous singular indefinite predicate noun is used which signifies not the personage of God but a quality? On what basis are you denying it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Moffat was professor of Greek, what evidence do you have that these translators knew Greek better than a professor of Greek.

Are you denying that in the text, an anarthrous singular indefinite predicate noun is used which signifies not the personage of God but a quality? On what basis are you denying it?

I am not denying that it could be and it might not be because there are exceptions in languages, even in the Greek. The point is that when in doubt, the context of the message should be considered. And the context indicates the Word was the Creator, which is God. So even if you wish to translate it divine, John is still talking about the creator God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not denying that it could be and it might not be because there are exceptions in languages, even in the Greek. The point is that when in doubt, the context of the message should be considered. And the context indicates the Word was the Creator, which is God. So even if you wish to translate it divine, John is still talking about the creator God.

sorry you have not answered either question, you were not asked about the context. here they are again,

Moffat was professor of Greek, what evidence do you have that these translators knew Greek better than a professor of Greek.

Are you denying that in the text, an anarthrous singular indefinite predicate noun is used which signifies not the personage of God but a quality? On what basis are you denying it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry you have not answered either question, you were not asked about the context. here they are again,

Moffat was professor of Greek, what evidence do you have that these translators knew Greek better than a professor of Greek.

Are you denying that in the text, an anarthrous singular indefinite predicate noun is used which signifies not the personage of God but a quality? On what basis are you denying it?

In the case of the Word was God, the Greek Theos means God and is the object of the sentence and can not be indefinite because there is only one true God, so it must be definite since we know from the context that this refers to the one true God. Theos is not a word indicating a quality, it just means God. And that is obviously what John meant to say to any person of at least moron status that bothers to use reason and logic.

Originally posted by RJHinds
In the case of the Word was God, the Greek Theos means God and is the object of the sentence and can not be indefinite because there is only one true God, so it must be definite since we know from the context that this refers to the one true God. Theos is not a word indicating a quality, it just means God. And that is obviously what John meant to say to any person of at least moron status that bothers to use reason and logic.

please answer the questions, you were not asked what theos means, you were not asked about the context, you were not asked what John meant, what you were actually asked was, and i repeat it for the third time,

Moffat was professor of Greek, what evidence do you have that these translators knew Greek better than a professor of Greek.

Are you denying that in the text, an anarthrous singular indefinite predicate noun is used which signifies not the personage of God but a quality? On what basis are you denying it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
please answer the questions, you were not asked what theos means, you were not asked about the context, you were not asked what John meant, what you were actually asked was, and i repeat it for the third time,

Moffat was professor of Greek, what evidence do you have that these translators knew Greek better than a professor of Greek.

Are you de ...[text shortened]... s used which signifies not the personage of God but a quality? On what basis are you denying it?

Apparently, you are below the moron level, for I just answered your question.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Apparently, you are below the moron level, for I just answered your question.

you answered neither,

where is your evidence that these translators new Greek better than Moffat a professor of Greek, and you have not made any comment on why theos is or is not in the clause at John 1:1 an indefinite predicate noun which signifies a quality, all you have actually done is to say that it means God, which is not what you were asked, you were not asked for a lexical definition, you were asked if its an indefinite predicate noun which signifies a quality and on what basis it is or is not an indefinite predicate noun which signifies a quality, stating that it generally means theos does not answer the actual question which you were asked.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you answered neither,

where is your evidence that these translators new Greek better than Moffat a professor of Greek, and you have not made any comment on why theos is or is not in the clause at John 1:1 an indefinite predicate noun which signifies a quality, all you have actually done is to say that it means God, which is not what you were aske ...[text shortened]... stating that it generally means theos does not answer the actual question which you were asked.

The subject and the predicate noun are essentially the same thing in grammar. In this case "Theos" is a definite predicate noun, not an indefinte predicate noun.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The subject and the predicate noun are essentially the same thing in grammar. In this case "Theos" is a definite predicate noun, not an indefinte predicate noun.

No they are not the same thing a predicate noun describes some quality about the subject and you are quite wrong, there is no definite article in the clause that we are interested in, it reads

Theós en ho Lógos, if there was a definite article it would read ho Theós en ho Lógos, but it doesn't, it actually reads, Theós en ho Lógos, which is indefinite

so i will ask you once again,

on what basis is it not an indefinite predicate noun which signifies a quality,

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No they are not the same thing a predicate noun describes some quality about the subject and you are quite wrong, there is no definite article in the clause that we are interested in, it reads

Theós en ho Lógos, if there was a definite article it would read ho Theós en ho Lógos, but it doesn't, it actually reads, Theós en ho Lógos, which is indefi ...[text shortened]... u once again,

on what basis is it not an indefinite predicate noun which signifies a quality,

As I said before there are exceptions to the rules. A definite predicate noun does not always have to have the definite article. In this case it is not necessary. One can say -- The state is Texas, for example. There is only one Texas that is a state, so it is a definte predicate noun. Get it?

Originally posted by RJHinds
As I said before there are exceptions to the rules. A definite predicate noun does not always have to have the definite article. In this case it is not necessary. One can say -- The state is Texas, for example. There is only one Texas that is a state, so it is a definte predicate noun. Get it?

no one is saying that it does, therefore you will now state why in this instance the absence of the article means that the noun is definite, after all John managed to include the article when he was talking of the word and of God when he stated 'in the beginning the word (ho logos) was with (the) God (ho theos)