JOHN 1:1C : Divine? A God? Or God?
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
" Nang pasimula ay ang Salita, at ang Diyos ay kasama ng Salita, at ang Salita ay Diyos." (Jn. 1:1) Personal Translation
In English versions, ang verse na ito reads respectfully :
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (KJV)
" In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine." (The Bible : An American Translation [Dr. Edgar J. Godspeed])
" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (NWT ; Copyright Watchtower Bible and Tract Society Of Pennsylvania)
Ang verse na ito ay in dispute between different groups on the way of how its should be understood. like for example ay sa most Trinitarian na English Bibles (most of our English bibles is should say) ay trinatranslate ang phrase na καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος as "and the Word was God" which can be problematic for some reasons at sa ilang groups with Arian views kagaya ng Jehovah's Witnesses (JW) with their Bible translation, the New World Translation (NWT) at sa ilang groups na may Unitarian views kagaya ng Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) that cherrypick bible translations to prove their views.
Mapapansin natin na sa Trinitarian Bibles ay nakalagay ang "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NIV, etc.) Dahil dito ay medyo nalilito ang ilang mga member whether kung ang Word (Jesus Christ) ay the same as the "God" (Father) sa pangalawang sentence, na nagreresult sa misunderstanding na magkaparehong person ang God (Father) at ang Word (Jesus) na kung saan ay nagreresulta na sa Modalism (i.e Oneness) at also ay minsan nagreresult na ang Father at ang Son ay magkaparehong being, na nagreresulta sa Trinitarianism. most ng mga naniniwala sa Consubstantialinity like ng mga Trinitarians at Modalist ay trinatranslate ito in this manner.
Sa Jehovah's witnesses naman ay trinatranslate ito as "the Word was a god" (NWT) with a small capital "g" na kung saan ay naiisue dahil binababa daw ang Divinity ni Jesus Christ. other members and other people however ay hindi open when it comes to this, but ang only issue I see here ay ang kanilang editorialization ng word na "God" as a lower case "g". and as for sa Iglesia Ni Cristo na pinili ang translation ni Dr. Edgar J. Godspeed at ni Prof. James Moffat dahil it says "the Word was Divine". we know however ang ugali ng mga INC kapag sa Bible translation, they will choose bibles na iba't iba at pipiliin ang verse in a particular translation na pabor sa kanila. any other translation na hindi pabor ay considered na mistranslated even though wala pang napatunayan through Hermanautics and lalo na sa exegesis—but they failed in John 1:1 however on how is it understood in Greek at sa usage ng word na "Divine". we can see here na may faults ang mga groups na ito and here's why.
First, we should note na ang Greek dito ay understood way more different kaysa sa English. at sa John 1:1 ay ginamit ni John ang noun form na Θεός (Theos) for God in a nominative singular. ang word na ito sa third clause ng John 1:1 shows na iba ito sa Θεόν (Theon) sa pangalawang clause na kung saan ay nasa accusative case. Ibig sabihin ay ang Θεόν ay ang direct object samantalang and Θεός ay isang indirect object.
At sa John 1:1 ay ang word dito translated as "God" (in the majority of bibles) ay understood as isang predicate, i.e para ilarawan ang isang bagay o isang person. e g kapag nagsasalita ako patungkol sa God (Θεός) ay hindi lang basta basta na sasabihin ko na Θεός pero instead ay gagamit ako ng definite article which is ό (ho). pero kapag wala siyang article ay ang Θεός ay isang predicate na kung saan ay ginagamit ito para magdescribe. dito ay pinapakita gustong ilarawan ni John ang nature ng Word by using Θεός as a predicate na kung saan ay clearly pinopoint out ni John na ang Word (si Jesus Christ) ay isang Divine being i.e God in nature but at the same time ay hindi siya ang same being or person sa τον Θεόν (ton Theon - i.e the Father) as Trinitarians and Modalist would say. we can see here also na mali ang ang pagkakaunderstood ng mga INC sa wording na "Divine" sa translation ni Dr. Edgar J. Godspeed at kay Prof. James Moffat—dahil ang rendering na "Divine" ay acceptable kapag ito ay inaapply to someone who is truly God in nature (see Daniel B. Wallace : Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics). Kaya ang translation na "the Word was Divine" is acceptable at maging ang "the Word was a God" (normative Greek grammar) at ang proper sentence structure na "what God was, the Word was" (REB/NEB).
sinabi ni Philip Harner :
John could have worded this in five ways:
A. ο λογος ην ο θεος
B. θεος ην ο λογος
C. ο λογος θεος ην
D. ο λογος ην θεος
E. ο λογος ην θειος
A (ο λογος ην ο θεος), "would mean that logos and theos are equivalent and interchangeable"
D: "would probably mean that the logos was a god or divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos, but as a distinct being from ho theos"
"John evidently wished to say something about the logos that was other than A and more than D and E" (Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns : Mark 15:39 and John 1:1 : pg. 77-85)
Sinabi sa Journal of Biblical Literature :
“But the English language is not as versatile at this point as Greek, and we can avoid misunderstanding the English phrase only if we are aware of the particular force of the Greek expression that it represents.” (Journal of Biblical Literature : March 1973)
"John evidently wished to say that the logos [“word”] was no less than theos, just as ho theos (by implication) had the nature of theos.” (ibid. Footnote)
That is how the phrase in John 1:1 is understood and translated. it does not show Consubstantialinity, it does not show either na hindi God si Jesus Christ by nature.
Like and support our Facebook page : fb.com/ldswarriors2000
Visit our blog : ldswarriors2000.blogspot.com
