John 1:1 according to the Messianic Faith

Daniel Gregg

Messianic, House of Yisra'el
Mar 12, 2009
475
28
Visit site
✟15,835.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
John

Chapter 1

IN the beginning had been the Word. And the Word has been at the side of the Almĭghty. And Almĭghty, the Word has been. 1:2 This one has been in the beginning at the side of the Almĭghty. 3 Everything by him came to be, and without him has become not even one thing, which has been made to be existing.

Then again Yăhwɛh was seen in Shıloh, because Yăhwɛh had been revealed unto Samuel in Shıloh in the Word of Yăhwɛh (1Sam. 3:21). The Word is a metaphor meaning “expression” or visible representation of Yăhwɛh. As word expresses thought, so Mĕssiah expresses the Făther. The Word here is a person, namely the Almĭghty Sŏn who appeared as the Mĕssenger of Yăhwɛh (מַלְאַךְ יַהוֶה) unto Samuel.
______________________
An accurate translation must render the word θεὸς as an adjective, “And Almĭghty, the Word has been.” The Word is Almĭghty, i.e. has the attributes of the Almĭghty, but is not the same person as the Făther who is “the Almĭghty” in the second clause of the verse.


This is the true Messianic Faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: visionary

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
John

Chapter 1

IN the beginning had been the Word. And the Word has been at the side of the Almĭghty. And Almĭghty, the Word has been. 1:2 This one has been in the beginning at the side of the Almĭghty. 3 Everything by him came to be, and without him has become not even one thing, which has been made to be existing.

Then again Yăhwɛh was seen in Shıloh, because Yăhwɛh had been revealed unto Samuel in Shıloh in the Word of Yăhwɛh (1Sam. 3:21). The Word is a metaphor meaning “expression” or visible representation of Yăhwɛh. As word expresses thought, so Mĕssiah expresses the Făther. The Word here is a person, namely the Almĭghty Sŏn who appeared as the Mĕssenger of Yăhwɛh (מַלְאַךְ יַהוֶה) unto Samuel.
______________________
An accurate translation must render the word θεὸς as an adjective, “And Almĭghty, the Word has been.” The Word is Almĭghty, i.e. has the attributes of the Almĭghty, but is not the same person as the Făther who is “the Almĭghty” in the second clause of the verse.


This is the true Messianic Faith.
The "true Messianic Faith" does not read the Son into texts. You are reading him into John 1:1-3 as well as 1Sam.3:21. Therefore, your doctrine is based on assumption. You also add words like "Almighty" into the text that are probably not there (I say "probably" because I have no idea what the underlying text of this strange translation is). Do you actually have access to a text that has παντοκρατωρ (Almighty) in John 1:1-2?
 
Upvote 0

Yeshua HaDerekh

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
May 9, 2013
11,459
3,771
Eretz
✟317,462.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (of) God, and God was the Word.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (of) God, and God was the Word.
Yes, that is the Greek text and it doesn't have "Almighty" in it.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
In case you all are unaware of this; Most translations that preceded the KJV render John 1:3-4 differently. Tyndale's translation (1534), for example, reads;

"All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men."​

John Rogers, using the pseudonym "Thomas Matthew," uses "it" in John 1:3-4.

The Great Bible followed in 1539 and was a revision of Matthew's Bible. The first edition was prepared by Miles Coverdale. For some reason Coverdale decided "it" was more correct than "him" which appeared in his 1535 version based on the Latin Vulgate and left John 1:3-4 as it was in Matthew's translation, "it" instead of "him.". The Great Bible was the first authorized English version and was ordered to be placed in every church.

Under Queen Mary the printing of the English Bible ended and its use in the churches was forbidden. This gave rise to a version completed in Geneva. The Geneva Bible of 1560 was the first Bible to have numbered verses, each set off as a separate paragraph. This Bible became the "household Bible of the English-speaking nations." It held that position for about 75 years. It was Shakespeare's Bible and that of the Puritans who settled New England. Once again, the translation of John 1:3-4 follows Tyndale's example, "it" instead of "him."

Queen Elizabeth eventually reinstated the order that a copy of the Bible be placed in every church and she encouraged its reading. Since there were not enough copies of the Great Bible, the bishops themselves made a new revision known as the Bishop's Bible. It was published in 1568. It was used mostly by the clergy, not being very popular with the common people. It, too, renders John 1:3-4 using "it," not "him."

In 1582, the Roman Catholic version of the New Testament was completed and known as the Rheims New Testament. It was the result of a battle between Papists and Protestants, the former believing the Latin Vulgate to be the standard upon which all translations should be made. It was the work of Roman Catholic scholars based on the Latin. They chose to render John 1:3-4 using "him" as did the previous versions based on the Vulgate.

From that point on, all future versions, beginning with the King James version of 1611, used "him" instead of "it" in their translation of John 1:3-4.

Tyndale and others did not read the Son into the text. The "logos" of John 1:1 was not a person, but a thing (the Father's spoken words, thoughts, etc). Father Yahweh spoke creation into existence.

"All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made."
This understanding agrees perfectly with passages such as Gen.1:3,6,9,11,14,20, and 24, all of which begin, "And Elohim said." Yahweh spoke and it was done. Psalm 33:6,9 says;

"By the word of Yahweh were the heavens made; and all the host by the breath of his mouth. . . For He spoke and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast."
Not only did Yahweh speak creation into existence, but He also spoke His Son Yeshua into existence;

"And the word (Yahweh's spoken word) was made flesh" (Jn.1:14).​
 
  • Like
Reactions: nothead
Upvote 0

Lulav

Y'shua is His Name
Aug 24, 2007
34,141
7,243
✟494,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
John

Chapter 1

IN the beginning had been the Word. And the Word has been at the side of the Almĭghty. And Almĭghty, the Word has been. 1:2 This one has been in the beginning at the side of the Almĭghty. 3 Everything by him came to be, and without him has become not even one thing, which has been made to be existing.

Then again Yăhwɛh was seen in Shıloh, because Yăhwɛh had been revealed unto Samuel in Shıloh in the Word of Yăhwɛh (1Sam. 3:21). The Word is a metaphor meaning “expression” or visible representation of Yăhwɛh. As word expresses thought, so Mĕssiah expresses the Făther. The Word here is a person, namely the Almĭghty Sŏn who appeared as the Mĕssenger of Yăhwɛh (מַלְאַךְ יַהוֶה) unto Samuel.
______________________
An accurate translation must render the word θεὸς as an adjective, “And Almĭghty, the Word has been.” The Word is Almĭghty, i.e. has the attributes of the Almĭghty, but is not the same person as the Făther who is “the Almĭghty” in the second clause of the verse.


This is the true Messianic Faith.

What translation are you using please? I've never seen a translation like this or one that uses breves, any explanation for that?

Yăhwɛh
Almĭghty
Sŏn
Mĕssenger

:scratch:



It actually looks more like an interpretation than translation.
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,841
1,019
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟112,127.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
John

Chapter 1

IN the beginning had been the Word. And the Word has been at the side of the Almĭghty. And Almĭghty, the Word has been. 1:2 This one has been in the beginning at the side of the Almĭghty. 3 Everything by him came to be, and without him has become not even one thing, which has been made to be existing.

Then again Yăhwɛh was seen in Shıloh, because Yăhwɛh had been revealed unto Samuel in Shıloh in the Word of Yăhwɛh (1Sam. 3:21). The Word is a metaphor meaning “expression” or visible representation of Yăhwɛh. As word expresses thought, so Mĕssiah expresses the Făther. The Word here is a person, namely the Almĭghty Sŏn who appeared as the Mĕssenger of Yăhwɛh (מַלְאַךְ יַהוֶה) unto Samuel.
______________________
An accurate translation must render the word θεὸς as an adjective, “And Almĭghty, the Word has been.” The Word is Almĭghty, i.e. has the attributes of the Almĭghty, but is not the same person as the Făther who is “the Almĭghty” in the second clause of the verse.


This is the true Messianic Faith.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (of) God, and God was the Word.

Cool, we all get to offer up our own translations?

1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
2 ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον

In the beginning was the Memra, and the Memra was with ha-Elohim, and the Memra was Elohim: the same was in the beginning with ha-Elohim.


Exodus 3:2-6 (From the MT)
2 And [the] Malak of YHWH appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

3 And Moshe said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
4 And when YHWH saw that he turned aside to see, Elohim called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moshe, Moshe, and he said, Here am I.

5 And he said, Draw not nigh: put off your shoes from off your feet, for the place whereon you stand is holy ground.
6 Moreover he said, I [am] Elohey [of] your father, Elohey Abraham, Elohey Yitschak, and Elohey Yaakob: and Moshe hid his face because he feared to look toward ha-Elohim.


Exodus 3:11 LXX
11 και ειπεν μωυσης προς τον θεον [MT=ha-Elohim] τις ειμι οτι πορευσομαι προς φαραω βασιλεα αιγυπτου και οτι εξαξω τους υιους ισραηλ εκ γης αιγυπτου


Exodus 3:13 LXX
13 και ειπεν μωυσης προς τον θεον [MT=ha-Elohim] ιδου εγω ελευσομαι προς τους υιους ισραηλ και ερω προς αυτους ο θεος των πατερων υμων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας ερωτησουσιν με τι ονομα αυτω τι ερω προς αυτους


I do not claim to be an expert in Hebrew but I do know that in Hebrew personal pronouns, (proper names), do not tolerate the definite article. This means, (imho of course), that Elohim without the article might be used as a name, (as in the opening Genesis creation account), but ha-Elohim is not a personal pronoun or proper name. And, as may be seen from other passages, elohim can even sometimes refer to malakim-messengers-angelous-angels. In addition to this never have I seen anyone ever address the fact that Kurios, (the replacement word/title in the Septuagint for the Tetragrammaton), is found nowhere in John 1:1-2.
.
.
 
  • Like
Reactions: visionary
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I do not claim to be an expert in Hebrew but I do know that in Hebrew personal pronouns, (proper names), do not tolerate the definite article. This means, (imho of course), that Elohim without the article might be used as a name, (as in the opening Genesis creation account), but ha-Elohim is not a personal pronoun or proper name. And, as may be seen from other passages, elohim can even sometimes refer to malakim-messengers-angelous-angels. In addition to this never have I seen anyone ever address the fact that Kurios, (the replacement word/title in the Septuagint for the Tetragrammaton), is found nowhere in John 1:1-2.
In your mind, what is the significance of the last sentence?

Also, check out http://www.truthofyah.net/studies/wordwasgod.html for the correct understanding of John 1:1c.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,841
1,019
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟112,127.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
In your mind, what is the significance of the last sentence?

Also, check out http://www.truthofyah.net/studies/wordwasgod.html for the correct understanding of John 1:1c.

The last sentence? Do you mean John 1:1c or John 1:2? (I quoted both and 1:2 is therefore the last sentence I quoted from that passage). As for the link I disagree with much of what is said, (it's a long story), but for one, the understanding of Revelation 19:13 is incorrect, (Yeshua explains this in his doctrine, even in the same Gospel we now call John, which I will attempt to address below), and for two, it is a mistake imo to deny the fact that Yeshua himself personifies the Son, the Word, in his own doctrine; and that is because Moshe and the Prophets and the Writings do also. Pretending that the Word is not personified only closes the eyes to what is really going on. As for what I just said that I would attempt to address: if one simply follows the lead of nearly all Bible translators, in capitalizing Logos, the remainder of the Gospel of John sets the record straight for exactly whom it is that Yeshua says is the Memra-Logos, (and it cannot be the man himself by his own statements).

John 5:22
22. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment unto the Son:

John 5:31
31. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

John 8:15
15. You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one.

John 8:50
50. And I seek not mine own glory: there is one Seeker and Judge.

John 12:47-48
47. And if anyone hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, contrariwise so that the world may be delivered.
48. Him rejecting me, and receiving not my words, has one that judges him: the Logos that I have spoken, that one shall judge him in the last day.

John 14:24
24. Him not loving me, keeps not my words: and the Logos-Word which you hear is not of me, [mine own] but-contrariwise, [it is of] the Sender of me, the Father.

Revelation 19:11-13
11 And I saw the heavens opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he does judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written that no one knew but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Logos-Word of Elohim.


1) The Father judges no one, (John 5:22).
2) The man Yeshua judges no one, (John 8:15, John 12:47).
3) The Memra-Logos is the Seeker and the Judge, (John 8:50, Revelation 19:11-13).
4) The Memra-Logos descended from the heavens in the somatiko-corporeal form of a Dove.
5) Testimony is Spirit. :angel:
.
.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Gregg

Messianic, House of Yisra'el
Mar 12, 2009
475
28
Visit site
✟15,835.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
The "true Messianic Faith" does not read the Son into texts. You are reading him into John 1:1-3 as well as 1Sam.3:21. Therefore, your doctrine is based on assumption. You also add words like "Almighty" into the text that are probably not there (I say "probably" because I have no idea what the underlying text of this strange translation is). Do you actually have access to a text that has παντοκρατωρ (Almighty) in John 1:1-2?

You opposition to Messiah's Deity means you are not arguing a Messianic position, but one against it. You have to convince me you can be convinced by reason for me to engage your points.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Daniel Gregg

Messianic, House of Yisra'el
Mar 12, 2009
475
28
Visit site
✟15,835.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
What translation are you using please? I've never seen a translation like this or one that uses breves, any explanation for that?


Thank you for asking. I translate straight from the Greek myself. The breve is an equivalent to the nomina sacra used in the early Greek Papyri to indicate divine names and titles, like spelling God G-d without the vowel = Elohim.

nomina_sacra.jpg


Since a nomina sacra stands were THEOS would ordinarily be in Greek, the indication of the early Papyri is that Elohim אלהים is to be understood. Elohim is an intensitive plural in Hebrew based on the noun Eloah meaning powerful one with a connotation of deity. The plural makes the word superlative, "most" or "all" hence Almighty. That is as exact as you can get in English for the meaning of Elohim. The breve is simply to indicate which words are marked in the Greek text as nomina Sacra, i.e. as deity and also Hebrew/Aramaic titles or names for YHWH.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So now ask yourself, "Am I reading the Son into the text of John 1:1-4?" Of course, the answer would be yes since neither "Yeshua", nor "Son", nor "Messiah" is in the text. You must read the Son into the logos. That being the case, prayerfully study the issue from that angle.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The last sentence? Do you mean John 1:1c or John 1:2? (I quoted both and 1:2 is therefore the last sentence I quoted from that passage).
This was your last sentence; "In addition to this never have I seen anyone ever address the fact that Kurios, (the replacement word/title in the Septuagint for the Tetragrammaton), is found nowhere in John 1:1-2."

As for the link I disagree with much of what is said, (it's a long story), but for one, the understanding of Revelation 19:13 is incorrect, (Yeshua explains this in his doctrine, even in the same Gospel we now call John, which I will attempt to address below), and for two, it is a mistake imo to deny the fact that Yeshua himself personifies the Son, the Word, in his own doctrine;
The only thing the article said about Rev 19:13 is that it calls Yeshua "the Word of Elohim" to which you agreed when you wrote, "and his name is called The Logos-Word of Elohim."

John 12:47-48
47. And if anyone hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, contrariwise so that the world may be delivered.
48. Him rejecting me, and receiving not my words, has one that judges him: the Logos that I have spoken, that one shall judge him in the last day.

John 14:24
24. Him not loving me, keeps not my words: and the Logos-Word which you hear is not of me, [mine own] but-contrariwise, [it is of] the Sender of me, the Father.
In both of these passages, the "logos" is simply the words spoken by Yeshua. There is no justification to make this refer to a being called the "Logos". Yeshua's words will be our judge. He said, "Love one another." if we fail to do that, his words will be a witness and judge against us. Yet, his words are not his own, but the Father's just as they were the Father's in John 1:1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nothead
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You opposition to Messiah's Deity means you are not arguing a Messianic position, but one against it. You have to convince me you can be convinced by reason for me to engage your points.

You opposition to Messiah's Deity means you are not arguing a Messianic position, but one against it. You have to convince me you can be convinced by reason for me to engage your points.
I don't argue the position of any denomination. I argue the position of Scripture. You consider my points unreasonable, yet you do not explain why. So be it.
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,841
1,019
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟112,127.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
This was your last sentence; "In addition to this never have I seen anyone ever address the fact that Kurios, (the replacement word/title in the Septuagint for the Tetragrammaton), is found nowhere in John 1:1-2."

Ah, I see, thanks for being more specific. The fact that the replacement word for the Tetragrammaton, (Kurios), is not found anywhere in John 1:1-2 essentially takes the Name of the Father "off the table" in a certain manner of speaking. With a correct understanding of the usage of the various forms of Theos, (beginning with the Septuagint as the example), there is no possible way to equate anything said therein with the Father.

The only thing the article said about Rev 19:13 is that it calls Yeshua "the Word of Elohim" to which you agreed when you wrote, "and his name is called The Logos-Word of Elohim."

I did not agree with that statement then and I still do not agree with it now. You are assuming that the man Yeshua is the Logos-Word when I just showed you by his own Testimony that he does not claim to be the Logos-Word.

In both of these passages, the "logos" is simply the words spoken by Yeshua. There is no justification to make this refer to a being called the "Logos". Yeshua's words will be our judge. He said, "Love one another." if we fail to do that, his words will be a witness and judge against us. Yet, his words are not his own, but the Father's just as they were the Father's in John 1:1.

The Testimony of Yeshua is Spirit, (and life, John 6:62-63), but one must first believe his Testimony before the same will begin to understand the allegorical and supernal. And I do have justification for personifying the Word, as previously stated; from Torah of Moshe, the Prophets, and the Writings:

Genesis 15:1
1 After these things came Dabar YHWH unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am your shield, and your exceeding great reward.

.
.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Ah, I see, thanks for being more specific. The fact that the replacement word for the Tetragrammaton, (Kurios), is not found anywhere in John 1:1-2 essentially takes the Name of the Father "off the table" in a certain manner of speaking. With a correct understanding of the usage of the various forms of Theos, (beginning with the Septuagint as the example), there is no possible way to equate anything said therein with the Father.



I did not agree with that statement then and I still do not agree with it now. You are assuming that the man Yeshua is the Logos-Word when I just showed you by his own Testimony that he does not claim to be the Logos-Word.
OK, you lost me. You seem to imply the Father was not the "Theos" of John 1:1-2 and that the Son was not the "Logos". Who is the Theos in John 1:1-2? Is the "Logos" the Holy Spirit? Are you saying Rev 19:11-13 is not talking about Yeshua?

And I do have justification for personifying the Word, as previously stated; from Torah of Moshe, the Prophets, and the Writings:

Genesis 15:1
1 After these things came Dabar YHWH unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am your shield, and your exceeding great reward.
Are you saying the "Dabar" is a living being whose name is YHWH?
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,841
1,019
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟112,127.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Since a nomina sacra stands were THEOS would ordinarily be in Greek, the indication of the early Papyri is that Elohim אלהים is to be understood. Elohim is an intensitive plural in Hebrew based on the noun Eloah meaning powerful one with a connotation of deity. The plural makes the word superlative, "most" or "all" hence Almighty. That is as exact as you can get in English for the meaning of Elohim. The breve is simply to indicate which words are marked in the Greek text as nomina Sacra, i.e. as deity and also Hebrew/Aramaic titles or names for YHWH.

This brings up another critical point: if Elohim is an intensive plural in Hebrew, (and a "compound unity" as some also claim), then should we not view the various forms of Theos in the same way even though the forms may not be plural, (for example theoi)? If we do not do this then we have essentially an utter failure to communicate the Hebrew into the Greek by those who rendered the Septuagint. Yet we see that right from the beginning Theos is surely employed in the exact same manner as if it was the word Elohim:

Genesis 1:26 LXX Septuagint (Old Greek)
26 και ειπεν ο θεος ποιησωμεν ανθρωπον κατ εικονα ημετεραν και καθ ομοιωσιν και αρχετωσαν των ιχθυων της θαλασσης και των πετεινων του ουρανου και των κτηνων και πασης της γης και παντων των ερπετων των ερποντων επι της γης


This to me seems almost as if the translators are exclaiming: "Look, take heed! We are using Theos as an intensive plural in the place of Elohim!" Therefore what does this mean when we come to the Apostolic writings? No doubt they follow the lead of the Septuagint; for if not then we have an utter failure to communicate what was originally written in the Hebrew. It matters not how the Greek is used in its own language by its own people in its own times because the Greek language herein has been "borrowed from" and adjustments to it made accordingly so as to properly render the Hebrew text into another language and keep as much of the Hebrew idiom intact as possible. Theos therefore must be understood as an intensive plural, if one is going to say that Elohim is an intensive plural, even though Theos may not be so in the customary Greek language of that time. And, again, if not then we have an utter failure to communicate and a complete disconnect.
.
.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,841
1,019
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟112,127.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
OK, you lost me. You seem to imply the Father was not the "Theos" of John 1:1-2 and that the Son was not the "Logos". Who is the Theos in John 1:1-2? Is the "Logos" the Holy Spirit? Are you saying Rev 19:11-13 is not talking about Yeshua?

Are you saying the "Dabar" is a living being whose name is YHWH?

The Name of the Father is the Tetragrammaton, (replaced with Kurios in the LXX). The Son is the Seeker and the Judge; and the Father has committed all judgement unto the Son. The Father judges no one. The man Yeshua judges no one. The Son is Elohim and all things were made through him: the same was in the beginning with the Elohim, (ton Theon).

1) YHWH Elohim (not mentioned in Genesis 1 or John 1:1-2)
2) Elohim (Theos)
3) ha-Elohim (ton Theon)

In the beginning was the Logos-Memra, and the Logos-Memra was with ha-Elohim, and the Logos-Memra was Elohim: the same was in the beginning with ha-Elohim.
.
.
PS ~ I read "dabar YHWH" no differently than "malak YHWH" or "meshiah YHWH".


Dabar YHWH = "word [of] YHWH"
Malak YHWH = "messenger-angel [of] YHWH"
Meshiah YHWH = "meshiah [of] YHWH"
.
.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0