Expert: Brenton Hepburn - 6/16/2006

Question
It appears  to me in your response that you have actually not even read my response in its entirety replied to anything new (than my request from Simons email which you did not answer either) nor answered any of my actual questions and copied and changed a few words off a formalised response used also to reply to Simon's email, my question is not to do with in any way how you answered.

It is two fold John 20:28 and where you base "all modern schollars" who you seem to have suggested as a result of their understanding consequently  warrant the NWT position. Where are you basing this?

People can argue till the cows come home on what you have written because it is not the fundamental issue. I can use the same argument to show that an addition of the word a in the greek does not change the meaning, only in the English. Because the translation is determined beforehand by what you're theological belief is to start with (you yourself said "the context warrants it" the context of what?! what you already believe John means), it also follows your belief on rules of the Greek language of structure. So I want to determine where you are basing "all modern scholars" and how you deal with John's monothiestic background to which only one out of 6 anarthrous use of theos in John 1 determine that somehow 1 is translated to mean "a God" At the very least the exclusive insistence seems odd to me?

my actual email is photographyat vanuatu.com.vu

Answer
Hello Michael,

Thank you for your reply and your next question.

I appologise if the way I answered you seemed incomplete, but, as you are aware, this site limits the amount of words one can use at one time. I had not forgoten your question on John 20:28 but was leaving it for another post so that I could deal with one part of your querry only.

My first reply has a direct bearing on the yhis part of your question....

_______________________

and how you deal with John's monothiestic background to which only one out of 6 anarthrous use of theos in John 1 determine that somehow 1 is translated to mean "a God" At the very least the exclusive insistence seems odd to me?
________________________


Colwells rule ahs to be considered in determoning when to put the indefinate article into a sentance. Yesy we agree that John had a monothiestic background and his writtings demonstate that.  The wordsing of John 1:1 of saying Jesus was "a god" does not change that when we consider that way the word :god" was used by the Hebrews.  The Hebrew word for God basicaly means :a mighty one" and ot was used in the Bioble in relatrion to false gods that are worshiped, it is applied rightly to men as well as angels. But there is only one true God that is to be worshiped.  Calling Jesus "a god" does not put him in the class of the True God that the Hebrews and Jesus worshiped.


It might seem odd to you that there 6 anarthrous uses of theos in John 1 where the NWT does not put the indefinate article in front of them but chooses to do so for i:1c.  The reason is that those 6 instances the contstuction is different to John 1:1c.  In verses 1c Colwells rule applies and in the other instances it does not. That is what I was demonstrating to you by the two example I used of Verse 6 and 18.  I also demonstrated how colwells rules is applied without bias in seberal other instances in the book of John when the construction is the same as John1:1c.  In John 1:1c the word theos in questions is an anarthrous predicate in the nominative case calling attention to the subject of the verse wich is the logos.  It is not telling us identity but describing a quality, just as the word builder descibed the quality of class that the apprentice belongs to.  In the other instance in Jihnthe anarthrous theos is not a predicate and is not describibg a quality.

The illustration of the builder and the aprentice is to show that when the same type of nouns are used, with the same syntax, and grammar, but in a non theological setting, how the predictae nature of the builder that is the apprentice is easily understood.

The word god is not a proper name but descibes what class the individual is just as builder, carpemter, king etc does.  A person can be a king but when we are tralking about a particular   king of a given country the title can be associated with the name of that king.  There are many gods but only one true God that is deserving of our religous worship, or devotion, for whom we serve.

Before I answer you on John 20:28, can you please elaberate on what you are asking or meaning by the following

_____________________________

It is two fold John 20:28 and where you base "all modern schollars" who you seem to have suggested as a result of their understanding consequently  warrant the NWT position. Where are you basing this?

_____________________________

Brenton