Understanding JOHN 1:1 - THEOS or THEON? David WOOD Acts17Apologetics and Anthony ROGERS

Is there are difference between the Greek Theos and Theon used in John 1:1?

[richardmccurley]

Actually what it literally says there is - : "And the word was with THE (tov / ton) God." Seems you both left that out for some reason.

[lukkash]

There’s sth like DECLENSION in Latin and Greek language which causes that nouns (not only) change their endings.

[H.T.forever]

Agree with most of what is said in this video ...

However, I disagree with Andrew's claim that the grammar of the final clause (or "Jn. 1:1c") is really anything "special."

Since in John's Gospel alone pre-verbal predicate nominative nouns are relatively common.

**And whats's more, much to the disdain of Trinitarians of course, The predicates are almost always indefinite too.Especially for count nouns like the Greek "theos" (g/God).

For instance ....

. 1:1c - " ... was a god" (NWT)

Jn. 4:19 - "... are a prophet"
Jn. 6:70 - " ... is a devil"
Jn. 8:34 - " ... is a slave"
Jn. 8:44 - " ... was a murderer"
Jn. 8:44 - "... is a liar"
Jn. 8:48 - "... are a Samaritan"
Jn. 9:8 - " ... was a beggar"
Jn. 9:17 - " ... is a prophet"
Jn. 9:24 - " ... is a sinner"
Jn. 9:25 - " ... is a sinner"
Jn. 10.1 - " ... is a thief"
Jn. 10:13 - " ... is a hired hand"
Jn. 12:6 - " ... was a thief"
Jn. 18:35 - " ... am not a Jew"
Jn. 18:37 - " ... are a King"
Jn. 18:37 - " ... am a King"

[randallwittman]

The Greek theon in “the word was toward the god, ” is in the accusative case ending and has the definite article (Gr. ho; English the) preceding it. It is correctly translated, “the Word was with God” in English.

However, the 3rd clause in the verse contains theos in the nominative, singular form without an article: “and god was the word.” As controversial as it may sound to trinitarians, it is correctly translated as “and a god was the Word.” A minimal literal (“formal equivalence”) translation would rearrange the word order to match the proper English expression: “And the Word was a god.”

This is consistent with other occurrences in the Greek. For example, the following are instances where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article (“a”) to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns. Examples are taken from the King James Version, New International Version, Revised Standard Version, and Today’s English Version:

Mark 6:49: “a spirit” or “a ghost”
Mark 11:32: “a prophet” or “a real prophet”
John 4:19: “a prophet”
John 6:70: “a devil” or “an informer”
John 8:44: “a murderer”
John 8:44: “a liar”
John 8:48: “a Samaritan”
John 9:17: “a prophet”
John 9:24: “a sinner”
John 10:1: “a thief”
John 10:13: “an hireling” or “a hired man”
John 10:33: “a man” or “a mere man”
John 12:6: “a thief”
John 18:35: “a Jew”
John 18:37: “a king”
If you study these occurrences in many translations, you will note that most translators consistently apply these translation rules, except when it comes to John 1:1c. Why the exception here? Bias.

Bias has shaped most of these translations much more than has accurate attention to the wording of the Bible. The NW translation (New World Translation) of John 1:1 is superior to that of the other eight translations we are comparing. . . .it breaks with the KJV tradition followed by all the others, and it does so in the right direction by paying attention to how Greek grammar and syntax actually work. No translation of John 1:1 that I can imagine is going to be perfectly clear and obvious in its meaning. John is subtle, and we do him no service by reducing his subtlety to crude simplicities. All that we can ask is that a translation be an accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation. Only the NW achieves that, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader. The other translations cut off the exploration of the verse’s meaning before it has even begun. — Truth in Translation – Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, Jason David BeDuhn, page 218 (ebook)

Is There Scholarly Work that Shows How These Nouns Should Be Translated From the Greek?

Philip B. Harner: In his article, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1” (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973):

“anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb may function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject, and this qualitative significance may be more important than the question whether the predicate noun itself should be regarded as definite or indefinite.” (page 75)
“with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite.” (page 85)
“In John 1:1, I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite. . . .Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’ This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.” (page 87)
What About the Other Occurrences of ‘Theos?’

Some insist that the New World Translation is inconsistent here because theos without the article in John 1 is not translated the same way in other locations. For example, some will claim that if the NWT was truly consistent and applied the grammatical rule of inserting the indefinite article “a” where the definite article (English “the”) was not present in Greek, we would have the following:

There came a man who was sent as a representative of [a] God (theou); his name was John. — John 1:6

However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become [a] God’s (theou) children. — John 1:12

And they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from [a] God (theou). — John 1:13

And others.

What they fail to note is that not only are the Greek constructs different in these other verses, but these other uses are genitive (theou), not nominative (theos). The genitive form of the noun, in this case theou, does not require the article (Gr. “ho;” English “the”) to be definite, whereas the nominative form normally does.

In Koiné Greek, the nominative case ending usually indicates the subject of a sentence. It is normally preceded by the definite article. However, in John 1:1c, this nominative form (theos) is not preceded by the article. That being the case, the noun becomes “primarily qualitative in meaning, ” as explained by Bible scholar, Philip B. Harner, in his article posted above

[arubinarenas]

dont trouble yourself. God is Spirit john 4:24, Luke24:39 no flesh and bones
Exodus 33:20

[tongakhan]

John used two distinct Greek forms for god in John 1:1. Obviously to show that he was talking about two separate gods.
'The Word was WITH God' (hon theon).
'and the Word WAS a god' (theos).

'And the Word WAS God' translation doesn't even make any sense. Jesus WAS God while WITH God. Now he has ceased to be
John clearly testified further down:

John 1:34 And I have seen it, and I have given witness that this one is the SON OF GOD.”


Obviously John had no intention even of hinting that Jesus was God in verse 1.
But showed that Jesus was a mighty being while WITH God.
Jesus gave that up to become a human (Philippians 2:7). He no longer was an angel while on earth. That is how they managed to kill him.
Neither God nor angels can be killed by humans.

[jahtruthdefender]

Both these gave such a word salad to explain the simplicity of both themes and Theon. It was unbelievable listening to them. However, as they are *trinitarians* I fully understand the gymnastics they displayed as below destroys the trinity doctrine they profess

“and the word was God” is a qualitative phrase. It is describing something about the word and not that Jesus is being identified as God. Jesus has qualities of God not that he is God.

[edwardwhiteside]

Theon and Theos is God. Son and Father WORD LOGOS = GOD

[yasaaley]

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” [John1:1, KJV]. This verse can only be meaningful to us humans if the first "God" in the sentence has a different meaning or usage than the second "God" in the sentence. If they are exactly the same then perhaps John was writing this for the consumption of angels.

[slaveforchrist]

THEOS is used for God in Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint that was written in the 3rd century B.C. So yes, Theos and Theon means God. It's just the sentence order and grammatical case.