RE: Who translates the latter?
The same question applies to you too? The question is not “who” translates, but which translation is CONSISTENT with the Greek and the INTENT of John’s gospel — which is to present Jesus Christ as GOD ( Jehovah ) incarnate.
RE: Since Jesus said that even humans in their flawed state may properly be termed “gods” I find no problem if Jesus be called “a god”.
OK, let’s look at what Jesus is referring to when he uses that term — gods for flawed humans.
Let’s start with a look at Psalm 82, the psalm that Jesus quotes in John 10:34. The Hebrew word translated “gods” in Psalm 82:6 is Elohim. It usually refers to the one true God, but it does have other uses.
Psalm 82:1 says, “God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the gods.” It is clear from the next three verses that the word “gods” refers to magistrates, judges, and other people who hold positions of authority and rule. Calling a human magistrate a “god” indicates three things: 1) he has authority over other human beings, 2) the power he wields as a civil authority is to be feared, and 3) he derives his power and authority from God Himself, who is pictured as judging the whole earth in verse 8.
This use of the word “gods” to refer to humans is rare, but it is found elsewhere in the Old Testament. For example, when God sent Moses to Pharaoh, He said, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1). This simply means that Moses, as the messenger of God, was speaking God’s words and would therefore be God’s representative to the king. The Hebrew word Elohim is translated “judges” in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8, 9, and 28.
The whole point of Psalm 82 is that earthly judges must act with impartiality and true justice, because even judges must stand someday before the Judge. Verses 6 and 7 warn human magistrates that they, too, must be judged: “I said, `You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.’ But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler.” This passage is saying that God has appointed men to positions of authority in which they are considered as gods among the people. They are to remember that, even though they are representing God in this world, they are mortal and must eventually give an account to God for how they used that authority.
Now, let’s look at how Jesus uses this passage. Jesus had just claimed to be the Son of God (John 10:25-30). The unbelieving Jews respond by charging Jesus with blasphemy, since He claimed to be God (verse 33). Jesus then quotes Psalm 82:6, reminding the Jews that the Law refers to mere men—albeit men of authority and prestige—as “gods.” Jesus’ point is this: you charge me with blasphemy based on my use of the title “Son of God”; yet your own Scriptures apply the same term to magistrates in general. If those who hold a divinely appointed office can be considered “gods,” how much more can the One whom God has chosen and sent (verses 34-36)?
That’s what Jesus is referring to. It has nothing to do with the first chapter of John.
However, to say that John 1:1c DIMINISHES the Diety of Jesus Christ into Him being created is to overlook the intent of the apostle — which is to tell the world that GOD HIMSELF (not those little “gods’ being referred to in the passage of Psalms ) became a man in the person of Jesus Christ.
Unless you can read minds of persons writing long ago you can only perceive intent from they wrote and is available to us. And just what that intent was is a matter of how one views the entirety of what John wrote.
“The same question applies to you too? The question is not “who” translates, but which translation is CONSISTENT with the Greek and the INTENT of John’s gospel — which is to present Jesus Christ as GOD ( Jehovah ) incarnate.”
I simply must ask: Who of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Orthodox, etc., etc. views the Son, Jesus, as being the same as the Father, Jehovah? Or does the Father, Jehovah, become the Son, Jesus, by incarnation?
Did John? since you speak to his “intent”?
“