Note (6.) to "DEFinite John 1:1c - DEF"

6.  Those many trinity-defenders who attempt to change the natural rendering of John 1:1c into "the god" ("God") because of some imaginary word order "rule," should closely examine the word order of the following: Mark 12:37, "how of him is he son?" has the very same intended meaning as Matt. 22:45, "how son of him is he?" And Mark 12:27 says (in the NT Greek word order), "not he is god of dead," while the very same thing is worded at Luke 20:38, "god not he is of dead." And Matt. 3:11 has "he you will baptize in spirit holy," whereas Mark 1:8 says the same thing in this order, "he but will baptize you spirit holy."

Why, even a single scripture shows the impropriety of the "word-order" approach for this scripture: John 10:1 has this word order, "that (one) thief is and robber" [the first predicate noun is before the verb and the second is after the verb!]. This is always translated as, "that one [or 'he'] is a thief and a robber." It is never rendered, "that one is the Thief and a robber. And it is never "qualitatively" rendered as "that one has the full essence of thiefness and is a robber."

Furthermore, if word order in relation to the verb (as in the trinitarian 'rules' to make Jn 1:1c say "God" rather than the grammatically accurate 'a god'), why would John ever use such a clause without a verb? Examine Jn 4:24 which has given translators so much trouble: there is no verb to tell us if this might be a definite, indefinite, or "qualitative" 'spirit.' If John had really been aware of such a rule, he surely would have used a verb here!

The word-order scheme designed to give a trinitarian twist to John 1:1c is rarely, if ever, used in translation of any other scripture, not even by recognized trinitarian translators!

Entire Study File

Trinity Index