This is the man I have been looking for in the ministry of Christ I have for more instructions and better growing in grace I gave thanks to God the almighty.
Absolutely impossible the 3rd clause of John 1.1 can be translated "and the Word was a god"? Really? Firstly let me quote someone who disagree with this Pastor and is no 'friend' of the Jehovah's Witnesses who produced the New Word Translation. Murray J. Harris: "According, from the point of view of grammar alone,[theos en ho logos]could be rendered "the Word was a god."-Jesus As God, 1992, pp.60. Though Harris rejects this translation on grounds *other than grammar* it can not be denied that there is nothing in the Greek grammar involved that rules out an indefinite rendering. So, something is wrong here for how then can Pastor Chuck Smith baldly assert that the 3rd clause is "absolutely impossible" to so translate? Either Murray is wrong or he is. There is no other option. I suspect, based on what Pastor Chuck Smith has preached in his video, he did not know Greek at all, he did not know the issues involved and had merely repeated this unscholarly stuff re John 1.1c which he had read somewhere and repeated here. I will reply as simply as I can because it does seem it would be best to in the circumstances, even though the Greek John uses is very simple. It has been made complicated because most common translations are produced by those who adhere to a man-made, post-NT doctrine. Also the justification of and the grounds for an indefinite rendering has been misrepresented. The following will at least alert this video's listeners to these issues which Pastor Chuck Smith seems to be totally ignorant of. The anarthrous predicate theos of John 1 1c is not definite for the following reasons. It is here, at John 1.1c, a 'what' word not a 'who' word. It is being used as a common noun rather than being specific(not ho theos). This is why some translate "the Word was divine." See the respective translations by Dr James Moffatt and Edgar Goodspeed as examples of translators who opted for this. This translation, though it can be disagreed with, as there existed a word meaning "divine", at least indicates that certain scholars are trying to show that John did not mean the logos "was God", that John was saying SOMETHING ELSE. John Mckenzie in his Bible Dictionary says John 1.1c "should rigorously be translated the Logos was a divine being" So how can you assert the NWT has proffered an "absolutely impossible" translation of John 1.1c? Mckenzie's is an indefinite translation as the NWT's is. As the English word "God" is a proper noun it is definite and so it is incorrect to translate the anarthrous theos *in this sentence construct* as if it is. See Harners 1975 article in the JBL. (Neither is the indefinite rendering polytheistic as a Jewish writer at this time, 1st century CE, such as John, could describe a being not ho theos but as theos and not denote polytheism if that theos is not a rival to or independent of the one true theos. John says who the one true God is at 17.3. The Father). John distinguishes the Word of 1.1c from ho theos, the god, "God" of 1.1b in terms of theos. The Translator's NT says this is significant and gives the theos of 1.1c adjectival qualities. It hence does not translate the third clause "was God" but "shared his nature". This is not strictly a translation but an interpretative one but it will show you that "was God" does not accurately say what John wrote in his third clause. The New American Bible Study Edition in a note to John 1.1c correctly says that the anarthrous theos here is one of predication not identification. The English proper noun "God" is one of identification. It is an erroneous translation. It does not distingiush the Word from the theos he was "with"(Greek pros). John wrote that the Word was with ho theos, the god, "God" and then to go on to translate theos of 1.1c as "God" hides this distinction John himself makes and in fact smacks of Sabellianism. So what options in translation are there? Translating it with a proper noun(specific) is, from the above wrong. It is inaccurate. But what is the difference between an adjectival(ie such as "divine")and an indefinite (" a god") translation really? What is the difference between "I am human" and "I am a human being"? If I have the qualities of the class "human" that would make me a member of the class human, a human. If I am a human I would have the qualities of the human class, be human. John was putting the Word or Logos in the class theos, a member of that class or category, not identifying him as ho theos("God"). The NWT is perfectly correct to translate theos indefinitely at John 1.1c. At Acts 28.4 we have the exact same sentence construct as we find at John 1.1c, φονεύς ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος and where all literal Bible translations translates the anarthrous predicate nominative indefinitely, "this man is *a* murderer". Is any one going to charge any Bible translation with mistranslating this wrongly by doing so? And so how is it John 1.1c's sentence be, according to Pastor Chuck Smith "absolutely impossible" to render how the NWT has? It is the definite translations of theos in 1.1c which are erroneous and why others have given interpretative translations instead. See New English Bible/Revised English Bible, Good New Bible as examples of this approach, an approach that acknowledges John did not write "was God" at this place. (But they still wish it to accord with the man made post-NT Trinity doctrine) Here is a little grammatical exercise for those who think Pastor Smith knew Greek. Substitute the word theos in John 1.1 by using anthropos instead which is the Greek word(in the nominative case of course) for "man". Then translate all three clauses. I am positive all would translate the predicate anthropos in the third clause indefinitely as "a man" not "Man". This video was produced by someone ignorant of even the basics of Greek grammar. But it will, sadly, tickle the ears of some who likewise are.
@@brucebarnard I referred you back to the video because I'd be repeating everything Chuck is teaching - you really should look into learning Greek so that you might study God's Word and show yourself approved. But discerning from your critique of this excellent teaching *and* your willfulness to be correct, instead of letting the Word of God correct you, it would be utterly exasperating if I engaged further. Let these comments stand and we'll let God be the final judge.
Elohim in Genesis is not a numerical plural but a plural of majesty. If Pastor Smith wishes for the first then he must have believed in and worshipped a number of "gods". That is polytheism is it not? But the triune being of Trinitarianism is not a three-*god* being but a three-*person* being! And if the Word he asserts is the "eternal self existing God" and according to him this God is a three-person being he ipso facto make the Word three-persons! Here is a syllogism based on what Pastor Smith has here preached. Premise 1. God is three-persons. Premise 2. The Word is God. Hence, Conclusion. The Word is three persons.
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Shalom from coeur d alene Idaho, praise God 🙌
Shalom to you from Tampa Bay, Florida.
Praise God! I thank God for Chuck Smith.
This is the man I have been looking for in the ministry of Christ I have for more instructions and better growing in grace I gave thanks to God the almighty.
Please see my comments on this video here.
Thank you JESUS!!!!!!!!!!’
Wonderful.. This is truly a treasure we have been searching for. To God be the Glory.
Please see my comments on this video.
Praise the Lord
Thank you.
You're welcome!
Absolutely impossible the 3rd clause of John 1.1 can be translated "and the Word was a god"? Really?
Firstly let me quote someone who disagree with this Pastor and is no 'friend' of the Jehovah's Witnesses who produced the New Word Translation.
Murray J. Harris:
"According, from the point of view of grammar alone,[theos en ho logos]could be rendered "the Word was a god."-Jesus As God, 1992, pp.60.
Though Harris rejects this translation on grounds *other than grammar* it can not be denied that there is nothing in the Greek grammar involved that rules out an indefinite rendering. So, something is wrong here for how then can Pastor Chuck Smith baldly assert that the 3rd clause is "absolutely impossible" to so translate? Either Murray is wrong or he is. There is no other option.
I suspect, based on what Pastor Chuck Smith has preached in his video, he did not know Greek at all, he did not know the issues involved and had merely repeated this unscholarly stuff re John 1.1c which he had read somewhere and repeated here. I will reply as simply as I can because it does seem it would be best to in the circumstances, even though the Greek John uses is very simple. It has been made complicated because most common translations are produced by those who adhere to a man-made, post-NT doctrine. Also the justification of and the grounds for an indefinite rendering has been misrepresented. The following will at least alert this video's listeners to these issues which Pastor Chuck Smith seems to be totally ignorant of.
The anarthrous predicate theos of John 1 1c is not definite for the following reasons. It is here, at John 1.1c, a 'what' word not a 'who' word. It is being used as a common noun rather than being specific(not ho theos). This is why some translate "the Word was divine." See the respective translations by Dr James Moffatt and Edgar Goodspeed as examples of translators who opted for this. This translation, though it can be disagreed with, as there existed a word meaning "divine", at least indicates that certain scholars are trying to show that John did not mean the logos "was God", that John was saying SOMETHING ELSE. John Mckenzie in his Bible Dictionary says John 1.1c "should rigorously be translated the Logos was a divine being" So how can you assert the NWT has proffered an "absolutely impossible" translation of John 1.1c? Mckenzie's is an indefinite translation as the NWT's is. As the English word "God" is a proper noun it is definite and so it is incorrect to translate the anarthrous theos *in this sentence construct* as if it is. See Harners 1975 article in the JBL. (Neither is the indefinite rendering polytheistic as a Jewish writer at this time, 1st century CE, such as John, could describe a being not ho theos but as theos and not denote polytheism if that theos is not a rival to or independent of the one true theos. John says who the one true God is at 17.3. The Father). John distinguishes the Word of 1.1c from ho theos, the god, "God" of 1.1b in terms of theos. The Translator's NT says this is significant and gives the theos of 1.1c adjectival qualities. It hence does not translate the third clause "was God" but "shared his nature". This is not strictly a translation but an interpretative one but it will show you that "was God" does not accurately say what John wrote in his third clause. The New American Bible Study Edition in a note to John 1.1c correctly says that the anarthrous theos here is one of predication not identification. The English proper noun "God" is one of identification. It is an erroneous translation. It does not distingiush the Word from the theos he was "with"(Greek pros). John wrote that the Word was with ho theos, the god, "God" and then to go on to translate theos of 1.1c as "God" hides this distinction John himself makes and in fact smacks of Sabellianism. So what options in translation are there? Translating it with a proper noun(specific) is, from the above wrong. It is inaccurate. But what is the difference between an adjectival(ie such as "divine")and an indefinite (" a god") translation really? What is the difference between "I am human" and "I am a human being"? If I have the qualities of the class "human" that would make me a member of the class human, a human. If I am a human I would have the qualities of the human class, be human. John was putting the Word or Logos in the class theos, a member of that class or category, not identifying him as ho theos("God"). The NWT is perfectly correct to translate theos indefinitely at John 1.1c.
At Acts 28.4 we have the exact same sentence construct as we find at John 1.1c, φονεύς ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος and where all literal Bible translations translates the anarthrous predicate nominative indefinitely, "this man is *a* murderer". Is any one going to charge any Bible translation with mistranslating this wrongly by doing so? And so how is it John 1.1c's sentence be, according to Pastor Chuck Smith "absolutely impossible" to render how the NWT has?
It is the definite translations of theos in 1.1c which are erroneous and why others have given interpretative translations instead. See New English Bible/Revised English Bible, Good New Bible as examples of this approach, an approach that acknowledges John did not write "was God" at this place. (But they still wish it to accord with the man made post-NT Trinity doctrine)
Here is a little grammatical exercise for those who think Pastor Smith knew Greek. Substitute the word theos in John 1.1 by using anthropos instead which is the Greek word(in the nominative case of course) for "man". Then translate all three clauses. I am positive all would translate the predicate anthropos in the third clause indefinitely as "a man" not "Man".
This video was produced by someone ignorant of even the basics of Greek grammar. But it will, sadly, tickle the ears of some who likewise are.
My mother tongue is Greek: Pastor Chuck's teaching is spot on.
@@gracefaithsaved Perhaps you can *show* how my comment is erroneous then?
@@brucebarnard
Certainly: Watch the teaching again to see your error.
@@gracefaithsaved I only saw his error as I have shown. Obviously you can not show how I have erred so you simply defer back to the video.
@@brucebarnard
I referred you back to the video because I'd be repeating everything Chuck is teaching - you really should look into learning Greek so that you might study God's Word and show yourself approved. But discerning from your critique of this excellent teaching *and* your willfulness to be correct, instead of letting the Word of God correct you, it would be utterly exasperating if I engaged further. Let these comments stand and we'll let God be the final judge.
Elohim in Genesis is not a numerical plural but a plural of majesty. If Pastor Smith wishes for the first then he must have believed in and worshipped a number of "gods". That is polytheism is it not? But the triune being of Trinitarianism is not a three-*god* being but a three-*person* being!
And if the Word he asserts is the "eternal self existing God" and according to him this God is a three-person being he ipso facto make the Word three-persons!
Here is a syllogism based on what Pastor Smith has here preached.
Premise 1. God is three-persons.
Premise 2. The Word is God.
Hence,
Conclusion. The Word is three persons.