Days of Creation: Seven Days or Seven Thousand Years?

C McC Mc Posts: 4,050

First of all, can one prove that God is Creator?

  1. How long did it took God to create the World? Was it 24-hour periods or one thousand years for each day?
  2. What is the Hebrew word for "day" and its original meaning?
  3. Was the creation done by some "evolutionary process" or as revealed in Scripture? That is:
    1. Creation Narrative (Gen. 1:1 to 2:4a)
    2. Creation of Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:4b-25)

This study of theology (God as Creator and Savior) calls for sober minds and accurate reading of the Word (Bible). Share with me. CM

«1

Comments

  • @C Mc First of all, can one prove that God is Creator?

    Thankful for books "God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe" & "Cold-Case Christianity" by J. Warner Wallace. God's Crime Scene description:

    There are four ways to die, and only one of them requires an intruder. Suicides, accidental, and natural deaths can occur without any evidence from outside the room. But murders typically involve suspects external to the crime scene. If there’s evidence of an outside intruder, homicide detectives have to prepare for a chase. Intruders turn death scenes into crime scenes.

    Join J. Warner Wallace, former atheist, seasoned cold-case detective, and popular national speaker as he tackles his most important case... with you on the jury!

    With the expertise of a cold-case detective, J. Warner examines eight critical pieces of evidence in the “crime scene” of the universe to determine if they point to a Divine Intruder. If you have ever wondered if something (or someone) outside the natural realm created the universe and everything in it, this is the case for you.

    One creation idea is biological male & female. If reproductive organs in parents do not work, then no children (argues against evolution).


    @C Mc 2. What is the Hebrew word for "" and its original meaning?

    יוֹם yom (day) has different contextual meanings when used twice in Genesis 1:5 (LEB) And God called the light יוֹם Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first יוֹם day.


    Keep Smiling 😊

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 3,552

    Was it a thousand years or a 24-hour period? CM

    from where do 1000 years appear in the picture ?? perhaps from ideas which take statements out of context? or is it just a number picked haphazardly ?

  • C McC Mc Posts: 4,050


    A religious group (not naming at this point) said each day of creation is a thousand years. Just noting what was created on each day would prove senseless. CM

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,394

    @C Mc posted:

    A religious group (not naming at this point) said each day of creation is a thousand years. Just noting what was created on each day would prove senseless. CM

    I assume, but can't claim to know, that those who propose 1,000 year creation "days" often rely verses such as Psalm 90.4 and 2 Peter 3.8.

    In my view, the Genesis 1 creation story is a faith account, not a science narrative, that declares God's creative genius via ancient images and ways of thinking (c.f. the Enuma Elisha Babylonian epic). Hence, the specific time frame by which the writer intends for days to be defined in the Genesis 1 story is something of a moot point. What matters most in the story is WHO created, not how creation unfolded.

  • C McC Mc Posts: 4,050

    Bill,

    Can science prove or must prove creation? Are you trying say that the creation account is a myth, equivalent to "the Enuma Elisha Babylonian epic"? A day could, possibly, be a thousand years?

    Are you, also saying, you can prove God? Who is the Creator in name and in character? Let the Bible speak. CM

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,394

    @C Mc posted:

    Can science prove or must prove creation?

    In its purest forms, science doesn't "prove" things; it proposes testable explanations for how the world/universe - a.ka. creation - works. Thanks to the efforts of our science-minded over the centuries and millennia, today we have strong and widely accepted understanding of the origins of the universe, and how galaxies, stars, and planets - including the earth - formed. Still, that understanding of our origins is subject to amendment, even replacement. Such are the vagaries of scientific discovery.


    Are you trying say that the creation account is a myth, equivalent to "the Enuma Elisha Babylonian epic"? A day could, possibly, be a thousand years?

    At a technical level, yes, the Genesis creation account is a "myth," BUT NOT a "myth" in the sense of a made-up entertainment. As an excellent Wikipedia article puts it:

    A creation myth (or cosmogonic myth) is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it. While in popular usage the term myth often refers to false or fanciful stories, members of cultures often ascribe varying degrees of truth to their creation myths. In the society in which it is told, a creation myth is usually regarded as conveying profound truths – metaphorically, symbolically, historically, or literally. They are commonly, although not always, considered cosmogonical myths – that is, they describe the ordering of the cosmos from a state of chaos or amorphousness. [FOR A DISCUSSION SPECIFIC TO THE MYTHOLOGICAL ASPECT OF THE GENESIS ACCOUNT, SEE HERE.]


    Are you, also saying, you can prove God? Who is the Creator in name and in character? Let the Bible speak.

    I don't know what you mean by proving God. Please explain. I'm also uncertain as to the meaning of your second question. Are you asking who the Genesis account identifies as creator? If that's your question, then the answer is of course God.

    My point about the creation stories in Genesis (there are two of them) is that the writers aren't scientists, and present a faith-based, not a scientific, description of creation whose core truth is that however creation came into being, God is responsible.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 3,552

    Thanks to the efforts of our science-minded over the centuries and millennia, today we have strong and widely accepted understanding of the origins of the universe, and how galaxies, stars, and planets - including the earth - formed.

    "widely accepted understanding" ?? Since "science doesn't prove...", I would conclude that we may have "widely accepted assumptions/hypothesis" which is perhaps widely claimed to be "[true] understanding" (=>"proof") ....

    I would claim that science is most likely about as far away from truth on subjects of universe, galaxies, stars and planets as scientists before have been with their hypothesis and assumptions .....

    Perhaps folks in the early days of humanity with the world views they had were as close or closer to truth revealed by the Creator than the scientists in modern days with their ideas based on differing assumptions ?

  • reformedreformed Posts: 3,132

    No science cannot prove origins, nor can it study the actual origin because it cannot be reproduced and observed.

  • Challenge for science is explaining flagellum of a single cell bacteria, which is irreducibly complex (does not work without all 40+ protein parts being correctly in place).

    Science can repeatedly examine flagellum, which includes construction sequence. Without God being an intelligent designer, science cannot explain how flagellum could happen. Without flagellum, bacteria lacks movement ability for food gathering, ...

    Keep Smiling 😊

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    The Book of Genesis opens with the Earth existing, alto waste.

    The "Days" proceeding to take place, and as you noted:

    Gen 2:4- These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in THE DAY that Jehovah God made earth and heaven. - ASV

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 3,552

    @theMadJW wrote:

    The Book of Genesis opens with the Earth existing, alto waste.

    The "Days" proceeding to take place, ...

    I read the book opens with "In the beginning God created heavens and earth"... was the earth already existing before God created it ?

    Also, it seems from Isa 45:18, that God did not create it in vain ("tohu va bohu"), contrary to what we then read in Gen 1:2.

    Isa 45:18 (KJV)

    For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens;

         God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it,

         He created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited:

         I am the LORD; and there is none else.

    Should the translations of Gen 1:2 perhaps read more accurately, "And the earth became without form, and void; ..." ?

    ... and as you noted:

    Gen 2:4- These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in THE DAY that Jehovah God made earth and heaven. - ASV

    Is this verse speaking about only one literal day, or using the term in the sense of "time, season, period of time"? Does Gen 2:4ff recapitulate the time already spoken of in Gen 1:1-2:3?

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    You read to much with your imagination, Wolfgang (I LOVE that name).

    It states the formless condition it was in,

    And then how God changed that in stages.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 3,552

    You read to much with your imagination, Wolfgang (I LOVE that name).

    I only observed the context topic of this thread about "days (of creation)" and your capitalization of the singular "THE DAY" ... thus my request for clarification

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    You don't understand, or do?

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 3,552

    Look, @theMadJW, dont't play this game of playing stupid with me ... I will consider you to be what you display yourself as

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    I asked a simple question.

    Who knows what concepts another believes unless you get to KNOW him.

    No need to get insulting; even tho I enjoy it!

  • BroRandoBroRando Posts: 75

    Was the Earth Created in Six Days?


    No! The Earth was not created in Six Days. The scriptures plainly point out that the earth existed prior to the Six Creative Days on the earth. WE read, "Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters." (Genesis 1:2)

    The Earth wasn't the first thing created in our Solar System, but rather, the Last thing created in our Solar System. Scientific carbon dating, dates our Earth to be about 4.5 Billion Years Old, which is relatively young to the rocks found on the earth from terrestrial sources that have been dated to be about 15 Billion Years Old.

    However, the Bible speaks about a Creation prior to the Genesis 1:1 account. "He is the image of the invisible God, the Firstborn of All Creation;  because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. " (Colossians 1:15-17)

    "These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God" (Rev 3:14) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God." The Word is the Beginning of Creation. See how nicely John 1:1 fits?

    "Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago. From ancient times I was installed, From the start, from times earlier than the earth.  When there were no deep waters, I was brought forth, When there were no springs overflowing with water." (Proverbs 8:22-24)

    "Then I was beside him as a master worker. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time;  I rejoiced over his habitable earth, And I was especially fond of the sons of men." (Proverbs 8:30-31)

    "For the one finding me will find life, And he receives approval from Jehovah.  But the one who ignores me harms himself, And those who hate me love death.” (Proverbs 8:35-36)

    "However, to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the Wisdom of God." (1 Corinthians 1:24) Jesus is 'the Christ, the son of the living God.' (Matthew 16:16)

    Read more...

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    Hmmm!

    Actual scriptures don't matter to him.....

  • BroRandoBroRando Posts: 75

    "These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God" (Rev 3:14) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God." The Word is the Beginning of Creation. See how nicely John 1:1 fits?

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 3,552

    The Word is the Beginning of Creation. See how nicely John 1:1 fits?

    really? how do you understand the term "WORD"? Is "WORD" one of several "gods" (cp. your quoted translation "Word was a god")? Then you claim "Word" is part of the creation ... so "a god" is a created thing or person?

    Your idea is by no means fitting and seems a rather incorrect interpretation of John 1:1 ....

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    See what I mean....

  • BroRandoBroRando Posts: 75

     No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him. (John 1:18)

    Berean Literal Bible

    No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known.


    NASB 1995

    No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.


    NASB 1977

    No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

    Literal Standard Version

    No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God who is on the bosom of the Father—He has expounded [Him].

  • @BroRando In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God." The Word is the Beginning of Creation. See how nicely John 1:1 fits?

    Please explain "the Word was a god." translation. Koine Greek language has definite article (the), but does not have an indefinite article (a, an).

    Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. (John 1:1 Society of Biblical Literature Greek New Testament)

    In beginning was being The Word, and The Word was being with The God, and God was being The Word (John 1:1 my literal translation)

    Verb ἦν is imperfect: continuous action in past time (was being). My Koine Greek grammatical understanding is The Word quality was being God. All God includes The Word plus more. New World Translation (NWT) expresses an unsubstantiated Arianism variant of John 1:1 Greek text.

    Chapter 6 of 'Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar', 3rd Edition by William D. Mounce begins with:

    Exegetical Insight

    The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case—the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject.

    As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,


    καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

    and God was the Word.


    We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article?

    In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.

    To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:


    καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός

    “and the Word was the God”

    (i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)


    καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός

    “and the Word was a god”

    (Arianism)


    καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

    “and the Word was God”

    (Orthodoxy).


    Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Daniel B. Wallace


     William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar, ed. Verlyn D. Verbrugge, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 27–28.

    'Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: NT Exegetical Syntax' by Daniel B Wallace includes:

    6. Application of Colwell’s Construction to John 1:1

    John 1:1 states: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. In the last part of the verse, the clause καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1c), θεός is the PN (Predicate Nominative). It is anarthrous and comes before the verb. Therefore, it fits Colwell’s construction, though it might not fit the rule (for the rule states that definiteness is determined or indicated by the context, not by the grammar). Whether it is indefinite, qualitative, or definite is the issue at hand.

    a. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Indefinite?

    If θεός were indefinite, we would translate it “a god” (as is done in the New World Translation [NWT]). If so, the theological implication would be some form of polytheism, perhaps suggesting that the Word was merely a secondary god in a pantheon of deities.

    The grammatical argument that the PN here is indefinite is weak. Often, those who argue for such a view (in particular, the translators of the NWT) do so on the sole basis that the term is anarthrous. Yet they are inconsistent, as R. H. Countess pointed out:

    In the New Testament there are 282 occurrences of the anarthrous θεός. At sixteen places NWT has either a god, god, gods, or godly. Sixteen out of 282 means that the translators were faithful to their translation principle only six percent of the time.…

    The first section of John-1:1–18—furnishes a lucid example of NWT arbitrary dogmatism. Θεός occurs eight times-verses 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 18—and has the article only twice-verses 1, 2. Yet NWT six times translated “God,” once “a god,” and once “the god.”

    If we expand the discussion to other anarthrous terms in the Johannine Prologue, we notice other inconsistencies in the NWT: It is interesting that the New World Translation renders θεός as “a god” on the simplistic grounds that it lacks the article. This is surely an insufficient basis. Following the “anarthrous = indefinite” principle would mean that ἀρχῇ should be “a beginning” (1:1, 2), ζωὴ should be “a life” (1:4), παρὰ θεοῦ should be “from a god” (1:6), Ἰωάννης should be “a John” (1:6), θεόν should be “a god” (1:18), etc. Yet none of these other anarthrous nouns is rendered with an indefinite article. One can only suspect strong theological bias in such a translation.

    According to Dixon’s study, if θεός were indefinite in John 1:1, it would be the only anarthrous pre-verbal PN in John’s Gospel to be so. Although we have argued that this is somewhat overstated, the general point is valid: The indefinite notion is the most poorly attested for anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives. Thus, grammatically such a meaning is improbable. Also, the context suggests that such is not likely, for the Word already existed in the beginning. Thus, contextually and grammatically, it is highly improbable that the Logos could be “a god” according to John. Finally, the evangelist’s own theology militates against this view, for there is an exalted Christology in the Fourth Gospel, to the point that Jesus Christ is identified as God (cf. 5:23; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28, etc.).

    b. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Definite?

    Grammarians and exegetes since Colwell have taken θεός as definite in John 1:1c. However, their basis has usually been a misunderstanding of Colwell’s rule. They have understood the rule to say that an anarthrous pre-verbal PN will usually be definite (rather than the converse). But Colwell’s rule states that a PN which is probably definite as determined from the context which precedes a verb will usually be anarthrous. If we check the rule to see if it applies here, we would say that the previous mention of θεός (in 1:1b) is articular. Therefore, if the same person being referred to there is called θεός in 1:1c, then in both places it is definite. Although certainly possible grammatically (though not nearly as likely as qualitative), the evidence is not very compelling. The vast majority of definite anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are monadic, in genitive constructions, or are proper names, none of which is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a definite θεός in John 1:1c.

    Further, calling θεός in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed the verb it would have had the article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition with λόγος (i.e., “the Word” = “God” and “God” = “the Word”). The problem of this argument is that the θεός in 1:1b is the Father. Thus to say that the θεός in 1:1c is the same person is to say that “the Word was the Father.” This, as the older grammarians and exegetes pointed out, is embryonic Sabellianism or modalism. The Fourth Gospel is about the least likely place to find modalism in the NT.

    c. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Qualitative?

    The most likely candidate for θεός is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word’s deity, which was already present in the beginning (ἐν ἀρχῇ … θεὸς ἦν [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later (σὰρξ ἐγένετο [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two statements mirrors each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity. But θεός was his nature from eternity (hence, εἰμί is used), while σάρξ was added at the incarnation (hence, γίνομαι is used).

    Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus “divine” could be misleading in an English translation. The idea of a qualitative θεός here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.


     Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 266–269.


    Keep Smiling 😊

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    Think anyone will take the time to read THAT?

  • BroRandoBroRando Posts: 75
    edited May 29

    Please explain "the Word was a god." translation. Koine Greek language has definite article (the), but does not have an indefinite article (a, an).

    Yes.. the first instance of God in John 1:1a is ho theos which means 'the God". Some translations use theon which also means the God. The definite article draws attention to and emphasizes this...

    However, in the second instance of God as in John 1:1c the definite article is withheld. This de-emphasizes theos by adding an indefinite article meaning 'a god' which actually attests to the Word's divine qualitative sense which uses feminine nouns to express this quality.

    Even though this information can be freely ascertained by using the Strong's Concordance. Those who seek to hide the meaning of John1:1c make an erroneous claim that theos can never be used in the feminine sense. This is an untruth, because it can be used in the feminine sense. Case and point.

    The Hebrew and Greek languages often use feminine nouns to point to a creation. According to the strong concordance theos can be rendered two ways. One way, is in the Masculine sense as in the first instance of (John 1:1) But what about in the second instance as in John 1:1c? Isn't that scripture describing his qualitative sense? His divinity in being divine?

    Strong's Concordance

    theos: God, a god

    Original Word: θεός, οῦ, ὁ

    Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine; Noun, Masculine

    Transliteration: theos

    Phonetic Spelling: (theh'-os)

    Short Definition: God, a god

    Definition: (a) God, (b) a god, generally.

    Many Scholars know this, but withhold the fact that theos can be rendered (a god) as it was with Paul and Moses. Other variations of rendering John 1:1 also exist:

    1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament

    1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English

    1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists

    1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation (Herman Heinfetter)

    1879: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)

    1885: "and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)

    1911: "and the Word was a god" – The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911)

    1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago

    1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.

    1958: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);

    1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany

    1975: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);

    1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin

    Read more...

    Post edited by BroRando on
  • @theMadJW Think anyone will take the time to read THAT?

    Yes, if one is serious about studying Biblical Greek & God. Thankful my first year Koine Greek college class included John 1:1 exegetical insights.


    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Please explain "the Word was a god." translation. Koine Greek language has definite article (the), but does not have an indefinite article (a, an).

    @BroRando Yes.. the first instance of God in John 1:1a is ho theos which means 'the God". Some translations use theon which also means the God. The definite article draws attention to and emphasizes this...

    Puzzling assertion since ho theos is not in John 1:1 (implies Biblical Greek language learning has opportunity for improvement).

    How many Koine Greek definite articles & grammatical case usage are in:

    Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. (John 1:1 Society of Biblical Literature Greek New Testament)

    Second puzzling idea is "Some translations use theon which also means the God." (the is incorrectly asserted for theon by itself)

    What is similar between Greek prepositions and definite article ? (Thankful for Greek language insight from A.T. Robertson's "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research")


    @BroRando However, in the second instance of God as in John 1:1c the definite article is withheld. This de-emphasizes theos by adding an indefinite article meaning 'a god' which actually attests to the Word's divine qualitative sense which uses feminine nouns to express this quality.

    Amusing assertion as only one Koine Greek word in John 1:1 is feminine. Also explanation disagrees with Koine Greek scholars William D. Mounce and Daniel B. Wallace quoted earlier.


    @BroRando Even though this information can be freely ascertained by using the Strong's Concordance. Those who seek to hide the meaning of John1:1c make an erroneous claim that theos can never be used in the feminine sense. This is an untruth, because it can be used in the feminine sense. Case and point.

    Logos Bible Software Morph Search in SBLGNT for lemma:θεός@N??F found one definite feminine result: Acts 19:37 τὴν θεὸν (the goddess)


    @BroRando The Hebrew and Greek languages often use feminine nouns to point to a creation. According to the strong concordance theos can be rendered two ways. One way, is in the Masculine sense as in the first instance of (John 1:1) But what about in the second instance as in John 1:1c? Isn't that scripture describing his qualitative sense? His divinity in being divine?

    Strong's concordance is lacking for in-depth Biblical language study: e.g. number of feminine (1) & masculine (1,306) uses of θεὸς in the Greek NT.

    Yes for quality of The Word being God (divine). God is being The Word & more. Deuteronomy 6:4 has a mixture of singular and plural words:

    שְׁמַ֖ע => Sh'ma (Hear & Obey imperative singular verb)

    יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל => Yisra'el (Israel singular noun)

    יְהוָ֥ה => YHVH (singular HOLY Name, which means: "Who was, Who is, Who is coming")

    אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ => God (plural elohim with plural pronoun suffix: of us)

    יְהוָ֥ה => YHVH (singular HOLY Name, which means: "Who was, Who is, Who is coming")

    אֶחָֽד => Unique (singular noun)

    Thankful for Hebrew language exegetical insight (about imperfect verb, which expresses incomplete action)

    In Exodus 3:14 Moses asks God to tell him what to say to the people when they ask who sent Moses to them. God tells Moses, “This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘[אֶהְיֶה] has sent me to you.’ ” The three-consonant root היה (meaning “to be”) has an א in front of it, indicating that it is a 1cs Imperfect verb, so the subject of the verb is “I.” But how should we translate the verbal idea? “I will be”? “I am”? “I have been”? The answer is yes, yes, and yes. Because the basic sense of the verb is “to exist,” and God has always existed and always will exist, the Imperfect verb includes all of these senses. Indeed, elsewhere God describes himself as “the Alpha and Omega … who is, and who was, and who is to come” (Revelation 1:8).

    In English, however, our verbal system operates on the basis of time, unlike the Hebrew verbal system, which operates on the basis of whether or not the action is regarded as completed. So how can we translate this Hebrew verb that indicates continuing existence unrestricted by time into the English language, where action is expressed in terms of the time in which it occurs? Well, we do the best we can. Most English translations opt for the present tense and render the designation God gives himself as “I am.” Recognizing the significance of the Hebrew Imperfect conjugation, however, gives the reader the advantage of seeing that God is describing himself not just as being present then, but rather as being continually present. The omnipresence of God is an essential foundation of a believer’s confidence. And it provides a greater depth of understanding for the “I am” in the words of the Son of God at the end of Matthew’s gospel (28:20): “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

     Michael Williams, The Biblical Hebrew Companion for Bible Software Users: Grammatical Terms Explained for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 53.


    Logos Bible Software Morph Search in LHB (Lexham Hebrew Bible) for (<LogosMorphHeb ~ JF???> OR <LogosMorphHeb ~ N?F???> OR <LogosMorphHeb ~ R??F???> OR <LogosMorphHeb ~ V???F????>) WITHIN {Milestone <Ge1.1-2.3>}  found 40 feminine words in Genesis 1:1-2:3 while (<LogosMorphHeb ~ JM???> OR <LogosMorphHeb ~ N?M???> OR <LogosMorphHeb ~ R??M???> OR <LogosMorphHeb ~ V???M????>) WITHIN {Milestone <Ge1.1-2.3>}  found 201 masculine words in Genesis 1:1-2:3 (hence disagree with Hebrew language assertion about often use of feminine words pointing to creation: e.g. Genesis 1:1-2:3 has 73 masculine nouns with 22 feminine nouns).


    @BroRando Many Scholars know this, but withhold the fact that theos can be rendered (a god) as it was with Paul and Moses. Other variations of rendering John 1:1 also exist:

    English variants "a god" cited prove personal theological bias in mistranslating John 1:1. A primary Textual Criticism resource is:

    Metzger, Bruce Manning, United Bible Societies. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.). London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994.

    Metzger's Textual Criticism in the Gospel of John shows the first verse having any Greek manuscript variations is John 1:3-4 (punctuation), with John 1:4 having the first word variation in different Greek manuscripts (verb tense).


    Keep Smiling 😊

Sign In or Register to comment.