What's missing from your Bible?

[chilehed]

Roman Catholic Bibles have several more books in the Old Testament than Protestant Bibles. These books are referred to as the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books. The word apocrypha means “hidden,” while the word deuterocanonical means “second canon.” The Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals were written primarily in the time between the Old and New Testaments. The books of the Apocrypha include 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees, as well as additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. Not all of these books are included in Catholic Bibles.

The nation of Israel treated the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books with respect, but never accepted them as true books of the Hebrew Bible. The early Christian church debated the status of the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals, but few early Christians believed they belonged in the canon of Scripture. The New Testament quotes from the Old Testament hundreds of times, but nowhere quotes or alludes to any of the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books. Further, there are many proven errors and contradictions in the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals. Here are a few websites that demonstrate these errors:
The apocrypha contradicts Scripture
What About the Apocrypha
Errors in the Apocrypha

The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books teach many things that are not true and are not historically accurate. While many Catholics accepted the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals previously, the Roman Catholic Church officially added the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals to their Bible at the Council of Trent in the mid 1500s A.D., primarily in response to the Protestant Reformation. The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals support some of the things that the Roman Catholic Church believes and practices which are not in agreement with the Bible. Examples are praying for the dead, petitioning “saints” in Heaven for their prayers, worshiping angels, and “alms giving” atoning for sins. Some of what the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals say is true and correct. However, due to the historical and theological errors, the books must be viewed as fallible historical and religious documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God. What are the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books? | GotQuestions.org

I've heard this nonsense a thousand times. I actually used to believe it.

The 73 books of the Bible were recognized as such from no later than the 4th Century until the time of the Protestant schism, and the Bible still has 73 books. All yammering to the contrary by self proclaimed experts is just absurd noise.

 

[BPPLEE]

I've heard this nonsense a thousand times. I actually used to believe it.

The 73 books of the Bible were recognized as such from no later than the 4th Century until the time of the Protestant schism, and the Bible still has 73 books. All yammering to the contrary by self proclaimed experts is just absurd noise.

Okay . Thanks for your post

 

[BPPLEE]

I've heard this nonsense a thousand times. I actually used to believe it.

The 73 books of the Bible were recognized as such from no later than the 4th Century until the time of the Protestant schism, and the Bible still has 73 books. All yammering to the contrary by self proclaimed experts is just absurd noise.

The Bible: 66 books vs 73 and Why (the "Apocrypha" Explained) - Berean Patriot

The Catholic bible has 73 books, the Protestant only 66. Why is that? Were those 7 books removed by the Protestants, or added by the Catholics? Most importantly, do they belong in the Bible? We’ll take a look at that today. For starters, let’s all get on the same page. The following list is the...

www.bereanpatriot.com

 

[BPPLEE]

That's an interesting read, and highlights just one such passage that is worthy of consideration for:

"Is it scripture or no?"

Another passage worthy of consideration is the ending of Mark's gospel. I think this is actually more susceptible to scrutiny.

The Missing End of Mark's Gospel | BibleProject™

I wonder what the OP thinks about certain portions of scripture that Erasmus said were added by himself and mistakeningly incorporated into the Textus Receptus such as the longer version of Romans 8:1 KJV “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” This is only one such bit of scripture that Erasmus was recorded as saying was only a note he scribbled down as he was compiling the TR and it was added into the text.

The Comma Johanneum is a blatant addition that Erasmus admitted was only added due to pressure he faced from the church at the time to include more references to the Trinity.

So while it’s good to discuss issues facing biblical manuscripts, I think it’s only fair if we examine them all, not just the one side. Especially if we are going to say the newer versions “remove verses”. Because the real question is: were the removals ever part of the original in the first place?

The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8: Added or Removed? - Berean Patriot

Of all the passages in the Bible, few have caused as much controversy as 1 John 5:7-8. There is a clause present in the KJV and a few other translations that most modern bibles don't include. This clause is so controversial, it even has it's own name: the "Johannine Comma". The question is this...

www.bereanpatriot.com

 

[ARBITER01]

I think westcott and hort did a great job at searching out and publishing the earliest texts possible, but this also created 2 different types of bibles in the process, and in many respects, it appeared that those early texts had some pruning of sections going on at times. I know that such a statement like that goes against the grain for some, but a lot of those so-called "later" additions sure do seem to fit very nicely at times when you place them back in.

I think GOD provided several ways to preserve His word through translations, and if we really want a more correct bible, it requires that we make one that is eclectic. Bibles prior to the Revised Version of westcott and hort were actually eclectic texts from the Greek, and some of them have lasted a considerable amount of time in use.

 

[JohnW87]

I am NOT a King James only person and in fact I use a number of different versions of the bible, which I broadly speaking tend to regard as reasonably reliable and trustworthy. I am not particularly sure that I would necessarily say that there is any such thing as a perfect translation of the bible. There are times when I like to read the same portion of scripture from more than one translation and it is sometimes quite surprising what differences you find by comparing one version against another.

Versions of the bible prior to the King James version translate 2 Thessalonians 2:3 differently to the King James version and as far as I can tell also differently to every other version translated since the King James as well.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come , except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of pedition be revealed,
(2 Thessalonians 2:3 King James Version).

Let no man deceive you by any means: for the day of Christ shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that sinful man be disclosed, the son I say of perdition;
(2 Thessalonians 2:3 Geneva Bible of 1557)

Let no man deceive you by any means: for the day of the Lord cometh not, except there come a departing first, and that sinful man be opened, the son of pedition;
(2 thessalonians 2:3 Matthew bible of 1537)

I only have these two earler new testaments, so I can not quote you any of the other earlier versions, but I read elsewhere that all previous protestant bibles before the King James have this same wording. From what I have read it is suggested that the original greek for the word "departing" is not the same greek word for "falling away".

It is also suggested that the greek word for "departing" implies a spacial departure, but I have no way of being able to check this for myself, so I don't know how true this is! I would be interested to hear anything further about this, which other forum members are able offer!

Departing and falling away mean the same thing. There is no difference

 

[JohnW87]

The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8: Added or Removed? - Berean Patriot

Of all the passages in the Bible, few have caused as much controversy as 1 John 5:7-8. There is a clause present in the KJV and a few other translations that most modern bibles don't include. This clause is so controversial, it even has it's own name: the "Johannine Comma". The question is this...

www.bereanpatriot.com

Sounds like a lot of Jesuitical rumors. 1 John 5:7 is in many versions and fathers older than B or X

 

[JohnW87]

I'm honestly not sure why so many Prostant Christian's fight so hard to keep their new versions which are based on Catholic text. Each new version is like a new release of the Douay Rheims and not many will research or care for the things on the topic. They would rather just believe the foundation of their faith (the word) is just ok or a good translation. It's a sad time we live in

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm honestly not sure why so many Prostant Christian's fight so hard to keep their new versions which are based on Catholic text. Each new version is like a new release of the Douay Rheims and not many will research or care for the things on the topic. They would rather just believe the foundation of their faith (the word) is just ok or a good translation. It's a sad time we live in

Most Catholic and Protestant Bible translations have historically been based on what are called "The Majority Texts". And both Catholic and Protestant translations have made use, as many more (and older) manuscripts have been uncovered and studied, of these as well.

Lutherans have made use of a number of translations over the centuries. The earliest translation we made use of was Luther's German translation. When Lutheran immigrants came to English-speaking countries they initially kept their church services in the languages of their homeland, and that meant keeping their German, Swedish, Norwegian (etc) Bibles. As Lutheran communities came to adopt English, such as in the United States, they adopted English-language Bibles as well.

We have a history of adopting Bible translations for liturgical use based on a desire for faithful biblical scholarship and theological clarity. So most Lutheran bodies today either use the NRSV or the ESV. Both of these are revisions of the earlier RSV, itself a revision of the ASV, a revision of the RV, which was the 19th century attempt at revising and updating the language of the 18th century revisions of the KJV. The KJV itself undergoing many revisions between its initial publication in 1611 until being updated and standardized in the 1700's in two forms, the Oxford edition and the Cambridge edition. With the Cambridge revision of 1769 being the common text of the KJV still popular today.

It is worth remembering that the KJV itself was a revision and update to earlier translations, as an attempt to unite the chief factions of the English Church at the time: the Puritans who relied on the Geneva translation who were hardline Calvinists who wanted to "purify" the Church of England by making it more Reformed; and the institutionalists who used the official and authorized translation of the English Bible, the Bishop's Bible. As such the committee of translators came from both factions. And the translation was intended to update and replace the Bishop's Bible, but also help serve as a bridge to the Puritans. Of course, the Puritans rejected the new Bible, and kept their Geneva Bible. But the KJV did become the official translation for liturgical use in the Church of England, and it remains the official translation owned by Royal Prerogative and perpetual copyright by the British Crown.

In the 18th and 19th centuris, due to the large number of Anglicans in the American Colonies, who after winning their independence became known instead as Episcopalians, retained the official Bible of the English Church, the KJV. Though throughout the century there were attempts at updating the KJV, one example being by Daniel Webster who, along with being responsible for major American English spelling reform through his Webster's Dictionary of American English, also wanted an American English-language Bible. Though his translation was never as popular as his dictionary.

In the late 1800's American Bible publishers stopped publishing the KJV with Deuterocanonicals, almost certainly as a cost-saving measure and because of intense anti-Catholic sentiment among American Protestants in that time; as anti-Catholic xenophobia directed against Catholic immigrants was at some of its highest, especially against the Irish, Italians, and even Catholic Germans.

Using updated critical texts, such as the Nestle-Aland, isn't problematic. The goal of critical texts and translations of Scripture should be to produce as faithfully as possible a reading that is as close to the original as we can get. While we're never going to be able to reproduce the original autographs, academic scholarship does provide the necessary tools to critically examine and compare our diverse manuscript traditions, and produce Bibles that are faithful.

The KJV is never the standard of biblical fidelity. The KJV is simply one example of a long chain of Bible translations. There were translations before it, and translations after it. What makes the KJV noteworthy isn't that it is somehow more authoritative, but its rich influence on the English language.

There is no denying that the KJV was an important Bible translation and is a masterpiece of the English language. But there are plenty of better translations from a purely objective and academic perspective. And the Church should always be concerned with textual fidelity rather than blind devotion to tradition. Tradition isn't bad, but tradition must always be evaulated and critically analyzed to ensure that we are confessing, believing, and practicing the once-and-for-all faith delivered to the saints. The holy catholic faith of Christ's apostles as it has been believed since the beginning, and is continued to be confessed by Bible-believing and Creed-affirming followers of Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Andrewn]

So most Lutheran bodies today either use the NRSV or the ESV.

I've been using the Evangelical Heritage Version, which is a Lutheran translation.

 

[JohnW87]

Most Catholic and Protestant Bible translations have historically been based on what are called "The Majority Texts". And both Catholic and Protestant translations have made use, as many more (and older) manuscripts have been uncovered and studied, of these as well.

Lutherans have made use of a number of translations over the centuries. The earliest translation we made use of was Luther's German translation. When Lutheran immigrants came to English-speaking countries they initially kept their church services in the languages of their homeland, and that meant keeping their German, Swedish, Norwegian (etc) Bibles. As Lutheran communities came to adopt English, such as in the United States, they adopted English-language Bibles as well.

We have a history of adopting Bible translations for liturgical use based on a desire for faithful biblical scholarship and theological clarity. So most Lutheran bodies today either use the NRSV or the ESV. Both of these are revisions of the earlier RSV, itself a revision of the ASV, a revision of the RV, which was the 19th century attempt at revising and updating the language of the 18th century revisions of the KJV. The KJV itself undergoing many revisions between its initial publication in 1611 until being updated and standardized in the 1700's in two forms, the Oxford edition and the Cambridge edition. With the Cambridge revision of 1769 being the common text of the KJV still popular today.

It is worth remembering that the KJV itself was a revision and update to earlier translations, as an attempt to unite the chief factions of the English Church at the time: the Puritans who relied on the Geneva translation who were hardline Calvinists who wanted to "purify" the Church of England by making it more Reformed; and the institutionalists who used the official and authorized translation of the English Bible, the Bishop's Bible. As such the committee of translators came from both factions. And the translation was intended to update and replace the Bishop's Bible, but also help serve as a bridge to the Puritans. Of course, the Puritans rejected the new Bible, and kept their Geneva Bible. But the KJV did become the official translation for liturgical use in the Church of England, and it remains the official translation owned by Royal Prerogative and perpetual copyright by the British Crown.

In the 18th and 19th centuris, due to the large number of Anglicans in the American Colonies, who after winning their independence became known instead as Episcopalians, retained the official Bible of the English Church, the KJV. Though throughout the century there were attempts at updating the KJV, one example being by Daniel Webster who, along with being responsible for major American English spelling reform through his Webster's Dictionary of American English, also wanted an American English-language Bible. Though his translation was never as popular as his dictionary.

In the late 1800's American Bible publishers stopped publishing the KJV with Deuterocanonicals, almost certainly as a cost-saving measure and because of intense anti-Catholic sentiment among American Protestants in that time; as anti-Catholic xenophobia directed against Catholic immigrants was at some of its highest, especially against the Irish, Italians, and even Catholic Germans.

Using updated critical texts, such as the Nestle-Aland, isn't problematic. The goal of critical texts and translations of Scripture should be to produce as faithfully as possible a reading that is as close to the original as we can get. While we're never going to be able to reproduce the original autographs, academic scholarship does provide the necessary tools to critically examine and compare our diverse manuscript traditions, and produce Bibles that are faithful.

The KJV is never the standard of biblical fidelity. The KJV is simply one example of a long chain of Bible translations. There were translations before it, and translations after it. What makes the KJV noteworthy isn't that it is somehow more authoritative, but its rich influence on the English language.

There is no denying that the KJV was an important Bible translation and is a masterpiece of the English language. But there are plenty of better translations from a purely objective and academic perspective. And the Church should always be concerned with textual fidelity rather than blind devotion to tradition. Tradition isn't bad, but tradition must always be evaulated and critically analyzed to ensure that we are confessing, believing, and practicing the once-and-for-all faith delivered to the saints. The holy catholic faith of Christ's apostles as it has been believed since the beginning, and is continued to be confessed by Bible-believing and Creed-affirming followers of Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

Catholic texts have never been Majority text which are Byzatine based. Catholic texts come from Alexandria not Antioch. The KJV was never changed each edition was a check for spelling and grammatical errors

 

[ViaCrucis]

Catholic texts have never been Majority text which are Byzatine based. Catholic texts come from Alexandria not Antioch. The KJV was never changed each edition was a check for spelling and grammatical errors

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it isn't correct. Just about the only Greek texts available to scholars in Western Europe were of the Byzantine text type, these are the texts which Erasmus of Rotterdam used to produce his critical Greek text.

While the Douay-Rheims was based on the Vulgate, rather than any Greek text. The Greek texts which Erasmus worked with were largely in agreement with the Vulgate. And Erasmus' critical text was published with the Latin as well, and his work was influenced by the Latin of the Vulgate; which is why Erasmus retained the Comma Johanneum in his later editions of his Greek text--because the Greek manuscript witness was rather poor, but the Latin witness fairly strong.

Once Alexandrian-type texts began to be uncovered and studied, we see both Protestant and Catholic scholars utilizing them.

This isn't a Protestant/Catholic thing. Protestants and Catholics only had Byzantine texts to work with in the 16th and 17th centuries, these were texts brought to Western Europe by Greek Christians who were fleeing the Ottomans after the Ottomans took control of Constantinople in the 15th century.. That is why they are "Byzantine" texts.

Please don't tell me you believe the baloney about Alexandria being "bad" and Antioch being "good" that some KJV-onlyists try to argue.

It was the Alexandrian bishop, St. Athanasius, who was one of the greatest defenders of the Trinity. So much so that he faced exile multiple times for defying the emperor when Arianism was in favor.

The heresy of Arius, who though a presbyter from Egypt, was something he learned from Lucian of Antioch. It was a heresy from Antioch, that Alexandrian bishops rejected and instead argued and defended the doctrine of the Trinity and the full Deity of Christ.

It was also, Paul of Samosata, a third century bishop of Antioch who was ultimately removed, that taught a form of Adoptionism, known as Paulianism.

And it was, again, an Alexandrian churchman, St. Cyril of Alexandria, who was the chief defender of Christ's full Deity and humanity against the heresy of Nestorius, who was bishop of Constantinople (aka Byzantium).

So if anyone has fed you lies about Alexandria being a bastion of heresy and Antioch a bastion of orthodoxy, they have deeply misled you. There have been fantastic theologians from both Antioch and Alexandria, there have been heretics from both Syria and Egypt. But Alexandria was frequently, when other parts of the East were being inundated with heretical teachings, that remained resolute and steadfast in defense of Christian orthodoxy: playing vital roles in defending the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, and the Hypostatic Union. And there remains today a resolute and steadfast community of Christians who have endured centuries of persecution and being treated as second-class citizens under Arab Muslim rule in their own native Egypt: The Copts.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[LW97Nils]

Originally, the Apocrypha was in the King James Bible.

 

[Chaleb]

Let me show you how to get rid of a junk "bible".

Its easy.

Use 2 verses.

One.......

1 Timothy 3 16. If your bible says..>"he was manifested"......instead of "God was manifested"...then your bible is now on the short list to be put away. as your bible is trying to teach against the Deity of Christ by rejecting ... John 1.... John 1:10, and Colossians 1:16, among others.

2..

John 4:24...... If your bible says...>"God is Spirit"......then that is the 2nd Warning and the end of the story.

See, God is The Holy Spirit........ The Devil is the Un-holy Spirit.......there is the "spirit of the world that is Anti-Christ'.....and animals have a spirit.

So, if your bible does not say that "God is A Spirit"... then your book, does not make the distinction between God's Holy Spirit and all these other "spirits".

Therefore, those 2 verses have to be correct or your book is not what you need to be studying.

 

[BPPLEE]

Let me show you how to get rid of a junk "bible".

Its easy.

Use 2 verses.

One.......

1 Timothy 3 16. If your bible says..>"he was manifested"......instead of "God was manifested"...then your bible is now on the short list to be put away. as your bible is trying to teach against the Deity of Christ by rejecting ... John 1.... John 1:10, and Colossians 1:16, among others.

2..

John 4:24...... If your bible says...>"God is Spirit"......then that is the 2nd Warning and the end of the story.

See, God is The Holy Spirit........ The Devil is the Un-holy Spirit.......there is the "spirit of the world that is Anti-Christ'.....and animals have a spirit.

So, if your bible does not say that "God is A Spirit"... then your book, does not make the distinction between God's Holy Spirit and all these other "spirits".

Therefore, those 2 verses have to be correct or your book is not what you need to be studying.

Interesting. Thanks for posting

 

[Chaleb]

Interesting. Thanks for posting

Thanks for reading.


One of the realities of Spirituality is that the Devil is real.
He's real.
He's read the bible, he knows the verses, but he's a legalist, as he has no born again sprituality that allows him to discern the verses.

The Devil's Gospel is "the gospel of water and works"., as His gospel tries to take Grace away from the Cross and replace it with "here is what i have to DO" to be saved or stay saved.
See that?

Grace says..."here is what my SON did for you, as a GIFT, so that by this blood and death and Cross, i will take you back".


The Devil, has created a lot of bible translations...... ... There is just enough in them to make them seem Legit, but when you look at the core, the spirituality, the GIFT of Salvaiton......and the way they slant the meaning of Paul's Doctrine into.....works.. and effort, vs Grace and "the Gift of Salvation"..

Also, the Devil woulld want to despise Jesus using a "new" bible as that is the ultimate blasphemy. So, he has his deceived translate a "new" bible that denies Christ's Deity, and often these bibles remove the word "LORD" and replace it with "One".
"The One" is a new age term for prophet or spiritual guide.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Let me show you how to get rid of a junk "bible".

Its easy.

Use 2 verses.

One.......

1 Timothy 3 16. If your bible says..>"he was manifested"......instead of "God was manifested"...then your bible is now on the short list to be put away. as your bible is trying to teach against the Deity of Christ by rejecting ... John 1.... John 1:10, and Colossians 1:16, among others.

2..

John 4:24...... If your bible says...>"God is Spirit"......then that is the 2nd Warning and the end of the story.

See, God is The Holy Spirit........ The Devil is the Un-holy Spirit.......there is the "spirit of the world that is Anti-Christ'.....and animals have a spirit.

So, if your bible does not say that "God is A Spirit"... then your book, does not make the distinction between God's Holy Spirit and all these other "spirits".

Therefore, those 2 verses have to be correct or your book is not what you need to be studying.

All wrong.

Some manuscripts of 1 Timothy 3:16 read ὃς and some read Θεὸς. It's literally the difference between two letters, theta and epsilon. Christ's Deity isn't based upon the singular witness of 1 Timothy 3:16, but rather is the collective witness of Scripture and the apostolic confession of faith right down from the beginning.

The comments on John 4:24 are even more warped.

The Greek reads πνεῦμα ὁ θεός.

Literally, without modifying to fit English grammar, that would look like "spirit the god". Now, because in English we can do away with the definite article in certain cases, ho theos "the god" is simply turned into "God". To make sense in English we also need to add the copula, "is", which isn't present in the Greek but Greek can often forego the copula where it is required in English.

Taking all of that into consideration, that gives us "God is spirit".

At this point it is a matter of both interpretation and preference. Specifically what does πνεῦμα (pneuma) serve here in the text? Is this a reference to an aspect of God's nature, in other words does the use of spirit here serve to indicate God's immateriality? Or is this a reference to the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit?

As for the meaning of John 4:24, that is, the proper interpretation; I'm not going to get into that here as I want to focus on mechanics of the text rather than the meaning of the text. However, no serious student of Scripture is going to be able to read John 4:24--in any translation--and come away thinking Jesus is referring to "an evil spirit", that's ludicrous.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Chaleb]

All wrong.

I would not be the person who is willing to Face God, after i spent a lot of time being a Bible Corrector.

Im a Bible BELIEVER.
I love the word of God.
I never correct it, i just share it and teach it.

What i have noticed about these types, ViaCrucis, is that rarely do they read or speak Koine Greek.
But they read a Translator's Translation in their Greek Lexicon, and pretend they are now a Greek Authority.

Have you ever met one of these religious Fakers, ViaCruia?
Avoid them.

Here is what i teach my students.

Never EVER sit in authority above the word of God, the Bible.
No one is qualiified for that position....least of all a person who can't even read GREEK TEXTS.

 

[BPPLEE]

All wrong.

Some manuscripts of 1 Timothy 3:16 read ὃς and some read Θεὸς. It's literally the difference between two letters, theta and epsilon. Christ's Deity isn't based upon the singular witness of 1 Timothy 3:16, but rather is the collective witness of Scripture and the apostolic confession of faith right down from the beginning.

The comments on John 4:24 are even more warped.

The Greek reads πνεῦμα ὁ θεός.

Literally, without modifying to fit English grammar, that would look like "spirit the god". Now, because in English we can do away with the definite article in certain cases, ho theos "the god" is simply turned into "God". To make sense in English we also need to add the copula, "is", which isn't present in the Greek but Greek can often forego the copula where it is required in English.

Taking all of that into consideration, that gives us "God is spirit".

At this point it is a matter of both interpretation and preference. Specifically what does πνεῦμα (pneuma) serve here in the text? Is this a reference to an aspect of God's nature, in other words does the use of spirit here serve to indicate God's immateriality? Or is this a reference to the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit?

As for the meaning of John 4:24, that is, the proper interpretation; I'm not going to get into that here as I want to focus on mechanics of the text rather than the meaning of the text. However, no serious student of Scripture is going to be able to read John 4:24--in any translation--and come away thinking Jesus is referring to "an evil spirit", that's ludicrous.

-CryptoLutheran

I have been debating with a Jehovah’s Witness on another forum and she constantly claims ho theos refers to Jesus in John 1 and Jesus is not God, and that the use of ho theos shows that he is not theos God.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I have been debating with a Jehovah’s Witness on another forum and she constantly claims ho theos refers to Jesus in John 1 and Jesus is not God, and that the use of ho theos shows that he is not theos God.

That's because Jehovah's Witnesses have a nearly intentionally bad understanding of Greek grammar. Though I suspect you meant to say that "theos" without the definite article; as JW's will argue that in John 1:1 Jesus is "theos" whereas Jehovah is "ho theos". The claim they are trying to make is that Jesus is "a god" rather than "the God". It's a bad argument, and there are people far more adept at Greek who can explain why far better than I can. But the short of it is that the grammar of John 1:1 doesn't require the definite article in this instance.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God.

The JW claim is that the second use of theos as in kai theos hen ho logos should be translated with the indefinite article since the Greek doesn't contain the definite article in relation to God "theos" vs "ho theos".

The problem with this is that it's simply wrong. As I said, there are people far better at explaining precisely why; but simply put here, there are plenty of times where the Greek lacks the definite article but it's obviously referring to God, aka "Jehovah". We don't then say that YHWH is "a god" simply because of a lack of the definite article in those cases.

We see examples of this right here in the first chapter of John, for example John 1:18

θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο
No one has ever seen God, the only-begotten Son, who is at the Father's side, has made Him known.

There's simply no way to argue, in this case, that theon "God" here refers to anyone else other than the Father, the context could not be any more clear; yet there's no definite article.

So the lack of a definite article does not mean an implied indefinite article, we don't translation John 1:18 as "no one has ever seen a god" because that's ridiculous.

But as I suggested in the beginning of my post, JW's have a nearly intentional bad understanding of Greek, I say "nearly intentional" because while most are simply being hoodwinked by what their teachers tell them--but I can't imagine those teachers, if they bother with even a little bit of Greek, wouldn't know any better and thus at some level it has to be intentional.

I will also reiterate that there are far better people than myself to go into more detail on these things.

Anti-Trinitarians consistently have to rely on bad arguments to make their case; because the doctrine of the Trinity is so very clearly expressed in the Church's historical understanding, reception, and engagement with Scripture and what the Christian Church has consistently been teaching from the beginning. While a mature articulation of Trinitarian theology may be "late", all the foundational building blocks are present from the beginning. The doctrine of the Trinity is the inevitable conclusion of taking what we read in Scripture and what the Apostles taught seriously. Every doctrinal alternative fails catastrophically.

-CryptoLutheran