In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [TON THEON], and the Word was God [THEOS]. The same was in the beginning with God [TON THEON]. -- John 1:1,2, World English - transliterations from the Westcott & Hort Interlinear.
Paul lets us know that there is only one who is the source of all, and thus that there is only one who is "God" (with a capital "G" -- the Supreme Being -- 1 Corinthians 8:6). Peter lets us know that it is the one Supreme Being who made Jesus to be both Lord and Christ (anointed one - Acts 2:36). The prophetic words of the Messiah in Isaiah 61:1 let us know that it is Jehovah who anointed and sent Jesus. Jesus makes clear that Jehovah, who sent him, is his God and Father, the only true God (Supreme Being). In effect, Jesus denies that he is God -- the Supreme Being -- by his words in John 17:1,3.
John 1:1 is the only scripture that we can definitely agree that the Greek or Hebrew word for "god/God" in the Bible is applied to Jesus. There may be very few other scriptures, but we cannot be sure of the others. At any rate, it should be apparent that in John 1:1, or any other scripture where "God/god" is thought to apply to Jesus, it is not being used in the sense of the Supreme Being, but rather in the sense of might, strength, power (the basic Hebrew meaning of the Hebrew word for "God/god". In effect, the Biblical Hebraic usage of the word for "God/god" does not exactly match the English usage of "God/god".
The King James Version (KJV) shows Biblical Heraic usage for the word "god" by rendering the Hebrew word for "God/god" in different ways: The Hebrew word for God/god is rendered as "mighty" in the following verses: Genesis 23:6; Exodus 9:28; Psalms 50:1; 82:1; 89:6; Ezekiel 31:11. The KJV renders the Hebrew word God/god as "power" in the following verses: Genesis 31:29; Proverbs 3:27; Micah 2:1. The KJV renders the Hebrew word for God/god as "might" in Deuteronomy 28:32. The KJV renders it as "strong" in Ezekiel 32:21. This is only a sampling of the Hebraic usage as shown in the Bible; nevertheless, it demonstrates that the Hebrew meaning for God/god can be used of men, without meaning that they are the Supreme Being or that they are false gods. As meaning the Supreme Being, it only applies to the God and Father of Jesus, since only the God of Jesus is the source of all might. (1 Corinthians 8:6) Therefore, what is presented above shows that the Hebrew word for God/god does not exactly correspond to the English usage of the word God/god, else the KJV could have rendered Genesis 31:29 as "It is in the god of my hand." As it is, however, English and most other Romance languages do not make use of the word "god" in this manner.
Consequently, due to the common modern concept of God/god, whenever it is applied to others than the Supreme Being or of false gods, it would be best to render it as the KJV as presented earlier (and all other translations I have examined in many of the scriptures) with some form of might, power, etc. Jesus words recorded in John 10:34-36 show that the meaning is being brought over into the Greek word often transliterated as THEOS, for Jesus was not saying the sons of the Most High are the Supreme Being, nor was he saying that they are false gods.
Applying the Hebraic usage in John 1:1 would give us the English, "the Word was mighty", not the Word was God (as meaning, "Supreme Being"). This would correspond with the way the King James Version translates the Hebrew word for "God/god" in Psalm 82:1 ("mighty"). The ONLY reason for not doing so with THEOS as applied to the Logos in John 1:1 is due to man's preconceived notion that Jesus is the Supreme Being, and the further assumption that Jesus is one of three persons of the Supreme Being. This being so, any usage of John 1:1 as an alleged proof of a triune God (which concept is no where ever once presented in the entire Bible) is circular, that is, because we believe that Jesus is the Supreme Being, we believe that THEOS applied to the Logos in John 1:1 means that he is the Supreme Being, thus because of what we believe, John 1:1 is proof that Jesus is the Supreme Being.
Again, 1 Corinthians 8:6 shows that there is only one person who is the source of all, which certainly includes the source of all might, power, and strength.
Nevertheless, to get trinity into John 1:1, the trinitarian has to assume and read into the verse several things:
(1) That Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is more than one person; (2) that Jesus is a person of God; (3) that two persons of the trinity-god are being spoken of here, and (4) that God whom the Logos was with is their alleged "first person" of the trinity, and (5) that THEOS applied to the Logos is their alleged "second person" of the trinity. Then, (6) they have to add to these assumptions that these two alleged persons of their trinity are both the same one true God, and not two Gods (as it actually reads in most translations). Rather than assuming and adding such to the scriptures, it is best to simply let the scriptures have their own say, applying spiritual revelation with spiritual revealing. -- 1 Corinthians 2:10,13.
The word THEOS is being applied to the LOGOS in John 1:1, but this does not mean that John was saying that Jesus was the only true God with whom the LOGOS was, as it should be apparent since twice John states that the LOGOS was with God. Jesus declares that the One with whom he was before the world was made was the only true God (John 17:1,3,5); thus, the scriptures make it plain that John is not saying that the Logos was the only true God with whom the Logos was. Paul distinguishes Jesus from being the "one God" of whom are all in 1 Corinthians 8:6. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who spoke through the prophets of old, is presented as only one person and distinguished from his Son in Hebrews 1:1,2. Isaiah 61:1,2 and Micah 5:4 present Jehovah as the ELOHIM (God) of the Messiah. The default scriptural reasoning should be that Jesus is not Jehovah, his God. Therefore, the term THEOS as applied to the Logos should be applied with the general meaning of the Hebraic words for deity/divinity (forms of EL, ELOHIM), that is, of strength, power, or might.
While most translations render "kai theos een ho logos" as "the Word was God," Moffat renders this phrase as "the Word was divine." Julius Mantey declares that the phrase means "the Word was deity." We should have no objection to rendering theos as divine or deity, if one applies the terms divine and deity with the general meaning of strength, might, power, rather than as Supreme Being -- the Might of the Universe. James Parkinson, in his footnote of the American Revised Version Improved and Corrected, suggests "mighty was the Word." This would be the better rendering, or a rendering such as "the Word was mighty," both of which would distinguish the Word from the only true God whom the Logos was with. This would be in agreement with the rest of the scriptures, where the words for deity / divinity are applied to persons (and even things) who are not Jehovah in a general sense of might, power or strength.
The best point to begin with to show this usage is with John 10:34,35, where Jesus quotes/references Psalms 82:1,6, where both forms of the Hebrew word EL and ELOHIM are applied to the sons of the Most High, the sons to whom the Logos came (as Jesus explained). In John 10:34,35, the word ELOHIM is rendered as THEOI, a plural form of THEOS. According to the King James Version, God [ELOHIM] standeth in the congregation of the mighty [EL]. (Psalm 82:1) In reference to the sons of the Most High, the KJV renders the term EL as "the mighty." I believe that the KJV is correct in this rendering. Applying this scriptural principle to THEOS in John 1:1, we would likewise have "the Logos was mighty", or the "the Logos was a mighty one". Jesus, before he became flesh with the earthly glory of a sinless man that is a little lower than the angels (Psalm 8:5; 1 Corinthians 15:39-41; Hebrews 2:9; 10:5), as indeed a mighty spirit being when he was with his God in the beginning of the world of mankind. -- John 17:1,3,5.
Of course, Psalm 82:1 is not the only place that the KJV renders forms of the words EL (Strong's Hebrew #410) and ELOHIM (Strong's Hebrew #430) with terms showing mightiness or strength. Here are a few scriptures: Genesis 23:6 (mighty); Genesis 30:8 (mighty); Genesis 31:29 (power); Deuteronomy 28:32 (might); 1 Samuel 14:15 (great); Nehemiah 5:5 (power); Psalm 8:5 (angels); Psalm 36:6 (great); Proverbs 3:27 (power); Psalm 29:1 (mighty); Ezekiel 32:21 (strong); Jonah 3:3 (exceeding). The point is the King James translators, in all these verses, did not render the word for deity/divinity [EL] as "God" or as "god", but with terms of might, strength, great, power and might.
All of the spirit beings, by "nature" of the superior might given to them by the Almighty are scripturally designated as el or elohim, and thus can be spoken of as divine -- mighty -- in being. -- Psalm 8:5 (compare Hebrews 2:9; also Psalm 50:1 and 96:4 could be speaking of angels as elohim); 45:6,7; Isaiah 9:6,7; John 1:1,2; Acts 2:33; 5:31; Ephesians 1:20,22; Philippians 2:9-11; Hebrews 1:2-4,8; 1 Peter 1:21; 3:22.
Likewise, the firstborn creature (Colossians 1:15), who existed before all the creation that was created by means of him (Colossians 1:17), can certainly also have the term theos applied to him without meaning that he is the only true God who sent him. Indeed, before he became a man, he "was" a mighty spirit being, having a heavenly glory that he did not possess while he was a human. -- John 17:5; 1 Corinthians 15:40.
By Ronald R. Day, Sr.
**********
We now know that the correct reading for God's name is Yehovah. We blogged about how we know, though there is a few other things we've seen since which further support that reading:
ReplyDeletehttp://stanley-loper.blogspot.com/2017/03/i-am-lord-that-is-my-name.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteActually, unless one is several thousand years old, and with a good memory, we can only come up with theories about how the Holy Name was originally pronounced. There are many theories out there, and in their own setting, they each sound plausible. However plausible a theory may appear, however, it could or could not actually represent the original sounding.
DeleteIn Bible times, Hebrew names did change in pronunciation in other languages, as they were adapted to the sound patterns common to each language. Since ancient Hebrew had not written vowels, what we today call "transliteration" was not possible. The Hebrew sounds had to to be adapted to sounds available in other languages.
The Bible does not speak of one "correct" pronunciation of the Holy Name or any other Hebrew name applicable to all languages (which, in reality, would be difficult to apply, since not all languages have the same sound patterns). For instance, the beginning "Y" in some dialects is pronounced similar to the "J" sound in the French "Jacques."
Such a demand for one "correct" pronunciation comes from man, not from God.
http://nameofyah.blogspot.com/p/on-this-site.html