Singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb with an...

Jn 1: 1 O.G. God was the Word.
N.W.T. the word was “a god”.

Hello TW,

Here is a story we are all familiar with, the account of Barabbas.

John 18:40 KJV

“Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was *a robber.”

Numbers 35:31 KJV

“Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of *a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death”

Acts 3:14 (Young's Literal Translation)

“and ye the Holy and Righteous One did deny, and desired *a man -- *a murderer -- to be granted to you”

Even you should understand that, there being no indefinite article in Greek


We wouldn’t translate John 18:40 as “Now Barabbas was robber.”

We wouldn’t translate Numbers 35:31 as “…the life of murderer…”

We wouldn’t translate Acts 3:14 as “…and desired man -- murderer -- to be granted to you”

Why the above?

It shows that Barabbas belongs to the category or class of “murderer” or belongs to the category or class of “man”.


Here is an illustration that even you will possibly comprehend!

"Charles is a Prince".

To use a count noun in a generic sense (e.g. "I am *man") draws attention to the ‘class’ "man". Or, to use Slatten's (1918) classic example "Charles is *a prince" could mean that Charles is the son of a monarch or that Charles is not the son of a monarch but has the qualities of the class "prince." (There are other in-between possibilities but these are the two examples that best clarify the issue).

A Class has Definite and (sometimes) Indefinite Members:

The generic use of a noun points to a class. Here is the point:

This class is instantiated by *members* of the class.

For example,

*(keep Barabbas in mind).

"I am man” *(I am robber) draws attention to class "Man." But when I am an instantiated member of class "Man," I am *a* man. I am *a member of* class "Man". As such, I am a separate and distinct instantiation of another instance of class "Man". In the second example of "Charles is a prince", Charles has the qualities and characteristics of class "Prince."

This use highlights that there is a class "Prince" and it consists of princes. Those princes *in general* display certain qualities that Charles also displays.

Apply this same instantiation to Barabbas. Barabbas likewise, belongs to the class ‘Robbers’.

So, again, and likewise, those ‘robbers’ *in general* display certain qualities that ‘Barabbas’ also displays.

The point is that a generic use points to the class AND REFERENCES TO MEMBERS OF THAT CLASS MUST BE DEFINITE OR INDEFINITE.

John 1:1- theos instantiated twice: (Again keep Barabbas in mind).

So, in the John 1:1 expression "Jesus is [a] theos, many modern Trinitarians assert that the ‘theos’ here is "qualitative" (this is also mislabelled since ‘theos’ is not in fact a quality, i.e. qualitative). What they are trying to do is to spin the word "qualitative" to mean as a lump all quality, substance, non-count, generic use, etc., nouns.

The net effect is that you lose precision on what they mean when they use the term "qualitative." But even here in John 1:1, the ‘theos’ class is instantiated twice.

Both THE God (ho-theos) and the one who is with him ((a) theos). The fact that there are two instantiations argues that the second one is indefinite. One can correctly argue to what extent the LOGOS as indefinite ‘theos’ possesses the qualities of the definite ho-theos as a member of class ‘theos’, but it is still an indefinite use, grammatically speaking.


In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mark 6:49; 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6


Jesus is God and the Lump is Yogurt:

What Trinitarians are trying to do is to use the word ‘theos’ as if it were a substance (or other noncount noun or count noun in a noncount sense).

For example, if I took a lump of yogurt from a cup of yogurt and placed the lump next to the cup, I could say "The lump was with the yogurt and the lump was yogurt." Since yogurt is a mass noun, this works grammatically. However, there are two instantiations here of class "Yogurt". You can convert a mass noun to a count noun but adding quantifiers. Here you have "the cup of" yogurt and "a lump of" yogurt.

Thus, instantiations of class "yogurt" are indefinite or definite depending on its reference in context. Since ‘theos’ is not a substance or other kind of mass noun, the expression "the LOGOS was God" does not work grammatically. And even if some argue that it is a count noun used in a noncount sense in "Jesus is God", take them to the next step and ask them if Jesus is a definite QEOS or an indefinite one. Since they reject definiteness as heresy, where does that lead them?

Conclusion:

Thus, the literal translation "and the Word was a god" is really the best literal translation.

NB,

Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns:

Scripture Text

New World Translation

King James Version

An American Translation

New International Version

Revised Standard Version
Today’s English Version

Mark

6:49 an apparition a spirit a ghost a ghost a ghost a ghost
11:32 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a real prophet a prophet

John

4:19 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet 6:70 a slanderer a devil an informer a devil a devil a devil
8:44 a manslayer a murderer a murderer a murderer a murderer a murderer
8:44 a liar a liar a liar a liar a liar a liar
9:17 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet
10:1 a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief
10:13 a hired man an hireling a hired man a hired hand a hireling a hired man
10:33 a man a man a mere man a mere man a man a man
12:6 a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief

John1:1 is the exact same grammatical construction to the above examples and I have given you many examples. John 1:1 is no exception to the above examples. So, why do you insist that it means something else?

The Trinitarian translators above show that they understand exactly the situation with singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns.

But, theological bias prevents them from obeying the rules. They will selectively apply it to NT verses, but not to John 1:1 and yet that exact same rule applies.

Do you understand now TW?

If you care to show how this is in error, please show how.

PS,

Would you like to chose another one from your list?
O.G.= Original Greek
N.W.T. = Their Bible Changes.
Jn 1: 1 O.G. God was the Word.
N.W.T. the word was “a god”.
Jn 8 : 58. O.G. (Ego Eimi) I am.
N.W.T. I have been
Acts 10: 36 not in original language.
N.W.T. The word “other”.
1 Cor 10: 4. O.G. was Christ.
N.W.T. meant Christ.
11 Cor 5: 21. O.G. In him.
N.W.T. by means of him.
Gal 2:20 not in the original language
N.W.T. The word “union”
Phil 2: 9. not in original language.
N.W.T. the word ‘other’.
Col 1:16-17 not in the original language.
N.W.T. The word “other” 4 times.
Col 2: 9 O.G. Theotetos: (Deity)
N.W.T. divine quality.
Col 2:11 -12. O.G In whom
N.W.T. by relationship with him.
Tit 2: 13 O.G. God and Saviour.
N.W.T. God, and of the Saviour
Heb 9 : 27. not in original language.
N.W.T. once for all time.
Rev 3: 14 O.G. (Theu) of God.
N.W.T. by God.

"Don’t you ever give up
TW"

letusreason