Get ready with your Colossians because your John 1 is about to bite the dust.
Yeah, heard that one, probably more than you've heard puns about your screen name. This particular truth has been around far longer than your "teachers" have, and hasn't been refuted as of yet.
Our English Bible gradually developed over the last six hundred years. John Wycliffe is credited with the first English translation of the New Testament which was completed about 1380 C.E. Until that time the Word of YHWH was locked up in the Latin tongue which was unknown to the common people. The Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome about 400 C.E. was the standard Bible used in the Catholic Church.
More revisionist history i see. The Eastern Empire used Greek as the Official language. Those manuscripts were Obviously available to Jerome, else he could not have compiled the Latin Vulgate. Until 1054, the Eastern Orthodox Church (using and speaking Greek) and the Roman Church (using and speaking Latin) were united. At any rate, none of this is germaine to the present issue, which is the interpretation of the first chapter of John in the Greek Manuscripts.
Wycliffe's translation is based upon the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek. It is therefore a "version of a version." In Wycliffe's version, John 1:3-4 use the word "him" in reference to the "Word" of verse 1 and is a translation of the Latin "ipsum" and "ipso" (he, she, or it).
A-priori assumption that the Vulgate, and by derivation, the English of the Wycliffe's version is erronious. You are in a round about manner, begging the question on this particular point. This is still not germaine to the subject of what the Greek Manuscripts actually say.
The next great English translator was William Tyndale. He was an excellent Greek scholar who had access to the Greek text of Erasmus which Wycliffe did not have. The hand of the Almighty was upon Tyndale as He used him to give us our first English translation based upon the Hebrew and Greek. His New Testament was published in 1526 and revised to its final state in 1534.
This is worthy of further comment. So, now just why would you think that "the hand of the Almighty" was upon Tyndale, and not say, Jerome? Could it possibly be that Tyndale had a rendering of a certain part of a passage that fit your preconceptions? Incidentally, the First Edition of Erasmus' New Testament was actually published in 1516, not 1526, although i conceed that this looks as if it could be a typo on your part, so i'm not going to get overly excited about it except to point it out to you.
Tyndale's translation of John 1:3-4 reads,
John 1:3,4 - 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. As you can see, Tyndale used "it" instead of "him." "It" is a translation of the Greek "autou" meaning he, she, or it. What this tells us is that Tyndale did not read Messiah into the "logos" or "word" of verse 1 and he was not influenced by the Latin Vulgate or Wycliffe.
Ah yes, now we're getting somewhere. Because you think that this particular rendering supports your a-priori presupposition above, you believe this to be a "correct" rendering. Well, if you think about the matter, the gender of the pronoun is completely irrelevant for your particular purposes, but we will discuss that particular rendering below.
Miles Coverdale, a friend of Tyndale, gave us the first complete Bible printed in English in 1535. It was not a firsthand translation from the Hebrew and Greek, but was based on the Latin Vulgate and Tyndale's translation. Coverdale used "him" in John 1:3-4.
You forgot to mention the sections that were based on the German Martin Luther bible that Coverdale borrowed heavily from. Luther's Greek text was the second edition of Stephanous (Estienne), which is in turn a revision of the text of Erasmus. It probably reads "him" because that is the correct rendering for reasons that we will go into below.
In 1537, John Rogers, using the pseudonym "Thomas Matthew," published a translation based largely on Tyndale and Coverdale which became known as Matthew's Bible. He uses "it" in John 1:3-4.
Ok, so he "borrowed" the neuter pronoun from Tyndale, doesn't mean it was right.
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.
Still proves nothing. Rogers had no training in Hebrew, and one cannot tell who worked on what. To say that Coverdale decided anything about the translation of John 1:3-4 is at best speculative.
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."
Still proves nothing about the Greek text.
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."
Your point being...What?
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.
You still have yet to demonstrate that the Vulgate was/is in error on this particular point
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. As you can see, the following translation of John 1:3-4 is not without historic and linguistic foundation;
A rather presumptious statement if you consider the times that you are speaking of. You really think that Protestant scholars were going to endourse anything Catholic, especially if it was in error? This still has not proven that the masculine pronoun is incorrect.
"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."
Verse 2 begins as follows ou|to" [houtos] is a demonstrative pronoun, and it is in the masculine gender. There is no debate on this matter. Look it up in any lexicon you wish. The rendering is as follows: "This one (male person) was (imperfect tense, denoting continous and/or repeated action in past time) in the origin with God."
Verse 3 pavnta di` aujtou' ejgevneto, [panta, dia autou egeneto]
The first word, "panta" is neuter and is correctly translated "all things". The phrase "dia autou" is a prepositional phrase. The case of the personal pronoun, "autou" is genative, which defines the translation of the preposition. The phrase translates as "through him". While the neuter has exactly the same form in the genative case as the masculine, context determines the gender. Egeneto is the aorist indicative of ginomai, which means became, or came to be.
If you render autou as "it" you beg the question "what does 'it' refer to?" It doesn't refer to origin, that is a feminine noun, requiring a feminine pronoun. It doesn't refer to panta, which is plural. You are left to conclude that 'autou' must refer to either God, or the masculine pronoun 'houtos' in verse 2. In either case, the masculine pronoun "him" is correct.
"and apart from him [autou], {same form as above, and connected by 'kai' to the other clause) not even one thing (neuter gender for the number one) that (neuter indefinite pronoun) was made. If you persist in rendering 'autou' as a neuter (it) you must be consistent. You must do it in verse 7, where the passage would be rendered This man came or a witness in order that he might bear witness concerning the light, so that all might believe through it. Doesn't work does it? You would have to do so in verse 10 as well...in the world it was and the world through it came to be, and the world did not know him (the pronoun is accusative masculine there, can't make 'it' work). It is absolutely clear that the pronoun is masculine.
The "logos" (Word) of John 1:1 means "the spoken word" or "something said (including the thought)." In that sense the word is an "it," not a person but a thing. In other words, YHWH spoke creation into existence. 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." YHWH spoke and it was done.
Absolute nonsense. Once again, you do not know Greek and you have been taken in by people who do not know Greek. First off, the general term for "the spoken word is rJh'ma [rhema], not lovgo" [logos]. i refer you to Vines expository dictionary, Moulton's anayltical Greek Lexicon, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker's Greek Lexicon, and Thayer's Lexicon.
Ps.33:6,9 - By the word of YHWH 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 YHWH speak creation into existence, but He also spoke His Son Yahshua into existence; "And the word (YHWH's spoken word) was made flesh" (Jn.1:14). Yahshua did not become the "Word of YHWH" until his birth as a flesh and blood male child.
Nice try, but not this time. We are discussing John 1, not Psalm 33. The passage reads as follows:
In the origin [arxee] was (imperfect tense, continuous action in past time) the Word. And the Word was (imperfect tense again) with God (pros, indicating intimate presence), and the Word was (imperfect tense) God.
The use of the imperfect tense is defined as follows:
"Like the present tense, the imperfect displays an internal aspect. That is, it portrays the action from within the event, without regard for begining or end. This contrasts with the aorist, which portrays the action in summary fashion. For the most part, the aorist takes a snapshot of the action while the imperfect (like the present) takes a motion picture, portraying the action as it unfolds. As such, the imperfect is often incomplete and focuses on the process of the action.Wallace,D.B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p.541
So then, one could easily say In the origin, the Word already was, and the Word already was with God, and the Word Already was God. There is your proof of Preexistence in eternity of the Messiah. Enough of this nonsense of Him being a created being. The Language of the New Testament does not support such a foolish assertion, but you didn't know this because you cannot read Greek.
John 1:14 states that the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us. The word for became, is egeneto, the aorist indicative of ginomai, which means became. While passive in form, the verb is actually deponent (one or more of it's three forms missing, in this case, the active), and the passive form is actually active in meaning. The subject ~Word~ is doing the action. Note that the KJV has the passive form "was made", but the passive shows up in only three places, John 1:3 (two aorists, and one perfect passive participle), John 1:10 (aorist), and John 8:33 (future), John 1:14 is active voice in meaning.
To say the "logos" of John 1:1 is a reference to Messiah is to read him into the text. Roman Catholic scholars had to do this in order to support their unscriptural trinity doctrine. If Messiah did not pre-exist, the trinity doctrine would collapse, it being based upon the belief that all three members of the "godhead" were co-eternal. Since Messiah only pre-existed in YHWH's plan of salvation and not literally, the trinity doctrine is without foundation.
On the contrary, the Greek text DEMONSTRATES CONCLUSIVELY that 1) the Word is eternal, and preexisted with God, and indeed, IS GOD; 2)The word became flesh, and the Messiah. At no time did he ever cease to be God. You should do more research before you presume to drop a bunch of Horse Manure about matters that you don't know the first thing about.
Bring on Colossians.
In light of the total fiasco that John 1 has become for you, you probably want to think twice about that.
Bring on Colossians. Since nothing was refuted in your last post.
Excellent work DCL