Unbias Greek scholars put-a god at John 1:1 in their translations, 3 had was divine( James Moffatt–Hugh J. Schoenfield– Edgar Goodspeed, 1 had was godlike. a god is correct for the Word otherwise he would have been called Ho Theos like the true God was instead of Theos.
The appeal to a handful of modern translations does not settle the grammar of Gospel of John 1:1. The question is not how some translators chose to render it, but what the Greek construction actually means.
The clause is:
θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
In this clause, ὁ λόγος is the subject because it has the article, and θεός is the predicate placed before the verb. That word order is crucial. In Greek, when a predicate nominative comes before the verb, it commonly drops the article and carries a qualitative force, describing the nature or essence of the subject. So the absence of the article does not make it indefinite. It makes it descriptive.
This is why the clause does not mean “a god.” It means the Word possesses the nature of God.
If John had written ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, that would collapse the distinction and identify the Word as the same person as the Father, which would contradict the previous clause, “the Word was with God.” John is carefully doing two things at once. He distinguishes the Word from the Father, and at the same time ascribes full deity to the Word. The grammar is precise, not accidental.
The claim that “he should have written ὁ θεός if he meant the true God” misunderstands how John uses the article throughout the prologue. In Gospel of John 1:6, “a man sent from God” uses θεοῦ without the article, yet it clearly refers to the true God. In the same chapter, John can use both forms depending on function, not to distinguish between a true God and a lesser god.
Now consider the immediate context. In Gospel of John 1:3:
“All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”[1]
If “all things” that came into being did so through the Word, then the Word cannot be part of the created order. A created “lesser god” would fall into the category of things that came into being. The text excludes that. The Word is on the Creator side of the Creator and creation distinction.
Also notice how John concludes the prologue in ~John 1:18. The Son is uniquely in the closest relation to the Father and makes Him known. The entire passage presents the Word as sharing the divine identity, not as a secondary deity.
As for the translations you mentioned, they reflect interpretive decisions, not a different Greek text. Many scholars who understand the grammar still reject “a god” because it introduces an idea the syntax does not support and that the context contradicts.
Even rendering it “divine” can be misleading in English, because it may suggest something less than full deity, whereas the Greek construction is stronger than that.
So the issue is not bias. It is whether the grammar is being followed consistently.
The absence of the article in John 1:1 does not make “θεός” indefinite. The word order makes it qualitative. John is saying that the Word is God in nature, while remaining distinct from the Father.
How is it possible you don’t understand this @Servant1 ? This is a salvific issue for me, and who is the Holy Spirit? An impersonal force?
And what about this…
Jehovah’s Witnesses do affirm that Jesus was raised after His death, but they deny a bodily resurrection. Their position is that Jesus was raised as a spirit creature, not in the same physical body that was crucified.
This differs sharply from the New Testament witness, which presents the resurrection as bodily.
In Gospel of Luke 24:39, Jesus says:
“See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”[2]
And in Gospel of John 20:27, He invites Thomas to examine His wounds:
“Put your finger here, and see my hands… Do not disbelieve, but believe.”[3]
The apostolic teaching also ties the resurrection directly to the body. In First Epistle to the Corinthians 15:3 to 4:
“that Christ died for our sins… that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day”[4]
The same body that was buried is the one that was raised.
So the precise answer is…
They affirm a resurrection, but redefine it as a non bodily, spiritual resurrection, which is not the resurrection described in Scripture.
Care to explain?
J.
All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. - ESV ↩︎
See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have. - ESV ↩︎
Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” - ESV ↩︎
that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures - ESV ↩︎
1 Like
Greek Grammar Context: Orthodox scholars argue that the absence of the article before theos indicates a predicate noun, describing the nature or quality of the Word (divine), not simply identifying him as “a” separate deity
I think it’s been proven already That The word was not created He was with God from the beginning for all things were created by Him
So most likely who ever changed it to “a god” wanted it to align with their doctrine that Jesus was a created being.
For myself- there is something Jesus says in His prayer that is so 
beautiful that we as humans must be to one another, this is in the definition of love; love seeks not it’s own, but the well being of others. This truly means something remarkable the unity and fellowship that we all should share. Could it be that God wants us to share with one another what He has with His father. He came that are joy might be fullfilled.
Sense there is no Hierarchy with mankind as for being created beings, and we are made in God’s image then I would think there is no Hierarchy with God.
What is your thoughts.
I believe God came in the form of His creation to redeem man back to Himself…before Adam and Eve sinned I doubt they knew they were naked.
Interesting enough is Eve was taken out of Adam, but with what already existed in Adam, his rib.
So they were of the same essence
Let me know what u 
think
2 Likes
The idea that all people will ultimately be saved, often called universalism, does not align with the consistent witness of Scripture. The New Testament repeatedly presents a real division between those who are saved and those who are not.
In Gospel of Matthew 7:13 to 14, Jesus speaks of two distinct paths:
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.”[1]
This text makes it explicit that many go to destruction, not universal salvation.
The same division appears in Gospel of Matthew 25:46:
“And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”[2]
Two outcomes, both described as eternal, not temporary.
Paul confirms this in Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 1:8 to 9, where those who do not obey the gospel face judgment, not restoration into salvation.
So Scripture does not teach that all will be saved. It teaches that salvation is real, but not universal.
Now regarding your statement about God coming to redeem.
That is actually very close to the heart of the gospel, but it needs to be stated carefully. Scripture teaches that God the Son took on human nature, not that God simply “became His creation” in a general sense.
In Gospel of John 1:14:
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”[3]
This is the incarnation. The eternal Word takes on real humanity in order to redeem.
That redemption is accomplished specifically through the cross and confirmed in the resurrection. As Paul states in First Epistle to the Corinthians 15:3 to 4, Christ died for sins and was raised. Without both, there is no salvation.
Finally, your point about Adam and Eve.
In Book of Genesis 2:25:
“And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.”[4]
They were aware of their nakedness, but there was no shame. After sin, in Genesis 3:7, their awareness becomes tied to guilt and separation from God.
So the issue is not lack of knowledge, but the entrance of sin and shame.
God truly came in the person of Christ to redeem sinners through His death and resurrection. But that salvation is not automatically applied to all. Scripture consistently teaches a real distinction between those who believe and are saved, and those who remain under judgment.
My 2 cents @Corlove13 .
J.
Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. - ESV ↩︎
And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. - ESV ↩︎
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. - ESV ↩︎
And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. - ESV ↩︎
1 Like
I had no thoughts about univetsal salvation…
1 Like
Not saying you hold to universalism @Corlove13 …just a gentle reminder to those who do.
J.
1 Like
And Jesus shows the reality–John 20:17, Rev 3:12–Who do you believe and follow?
Do you understand how a rebuttal works? People ask you questions because we are called to test the spirits, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are mistaken about Jehovah, the Holy Spirit, and the resurrection of Yeshua the Messiah.
Is that correct?
J.
It just dawned on me that this is the reason why the Council of Nicaea was convened to confront these elements of the Arian Heresy.
For those who may not know, this is a fascinating time in History. Nicaea wasn’t just a meeting about old books; it was a high-stakes battle for the identity of the religion itself. The heresy is named after Arius, a priest from Alexandria. His main argument was based on a strict, rationalist type of monotheism. He argued:
If God the Father “begat” the Son, then the Father must have existed first. Therefore, Jesus was the first and greatest of all creations, but he was still a “creature.” This led to the famous Arian slogan: “There was a time when He was not.”
By 325 AD, this debate wasn’t just an academic spat; it was causing riots in the streets and dividing the Roman Empire. Emperor Constantine, who had recently legalized Christianity, didn’t care much for the theology—he wanted order.
He summoned over 300 bishops to Nicaea (modern-day Turkey) to settle the matter once and for all. The Council overwhelmingly rejected Arius. They drafted the Nicene Creed, which used a very specific Greek word: homoousios, meaning “of the same substance/essence.” They wanted to make it clear that Jesus wasn’t “God-adjacent” or a “super-angel,” but was eternally God.
Arius taught that Jesus was subordinate to the Father. Some historians argue that this made it easier for later “barbarian” tribes (like the Goths and Vandals, who were largely Arian) to view Jesus as a heroic, warrior-like figure or as a secondary commander under a High God, rather than as the “Prince of Peace” who is one with the Creator.
Because Arianism emphasized Jesus’s created nature, it focused heavily on his ability to suffer and change. For the “Nicene” side (the winners), if Jesus wasn’t fully God, his death on the cross couldn’t actually bridge the gap between humanity and the divine.
I love this part of the story. The debates at Nicaea were famously heated. Legend has it that Saint Nicholas (the historical figure behind Santa Claus) got so angry at Arius’s arguments that he actually got up and slapped Arius across the face during the proceedings!
Is this what you are referring to? @sryu98
Peter
They were naked and not ashamed…doesn’t imply they knew they were naked..right?
For if they had knowledge of their nakeness it would be at that point they’d be ashamed
So from that I don’t believe they knew they were naked, my speculation is they were in the light of God until they were aware of their nakedness, which would have been after they ate off the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
@PeterC yes, precisely. Just as how they stated that Jesus was creature and not God, to deny one part of the Trinity is to deny Jesus Christ himself
1 Like
@Corlove13, at this point, you are speculating, because the Bible doesn’t say, except that they were naked but unashamed.
Gen 2:25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
Apparently, the fall caused them to feel shame.
1 Like
I dont know what you are referring to..but I have no problems with speculating out of curiosity things that dont obstruct the gospel’s message, that don’t encourage, lead others astray from growing and vain arguments
But if I said something incorrectly..I said it incorrectly and it needs to be corrected.
I will let someone know I’m “trying this on”…and then see if I can find it-> true in the word.
I have no problem asking questions…if that makes speculation until I search passages of scripture. I’m not the one that has the problem with it…you are…I speculated that Holyghost and Holy Spirit have 2 different meanings…even if pneuma is the same in both because of what was noted in earlier version: using lower case “s” and “h”. Now the study Is to look at passages to see how its used in context. Speculation can be a way to study, not to cause conflict and arguments. But to clarify what can be a matter of helping one grow spiritually.
However to be dogmatic and create doctrine off of ideals not stated is a different issue all by itself.
Anyway this is what I said:
The point to Johann was…that the passage doesn’t imply “they knew they were naked” adding a question mark to asking J - if he agrees.
Looking back I never said “accept” so not sure what u r talking about.
Your original words, @Corlove13: “They were naked and not ashamed…doesn’t imply they knew they were naked..right?
For if they had knowledge of their nakeness it would be at that point they’d be ashamed
So from that I don’t believe they knew they were naked, my speculation is they were in the light of God until they were aware of their nakedness, which would have been after they ate off the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”
Even you call your words speculation. I prefer to stick with the texts and contexts; speculation is a waste of time, in my opinion. I don’t wander away from the Bible in guesswork.
I doubt that is wondering away from the text…
It just doesn’t imply what he thought it did, which is that they “Knew” they were naked. It doesn’t say they knew.
Nor does my speculation run away Biblically.
To asked what it might look like to be in the presence of God. One can go to Moses, the glow he had. So if He was glowing because He was in God’s presence then yes we can assume likewise for ourselves, If we’ve been in the presence of God.
You say you dont speculate but I already called u out. But there is more evidence to what you do rather than what you and Calvin say.
Paul describes the glow on Moses’ face, @Corlove13, as symbolizing the old covenant which was fading away compared with the new one, which Jesus ushered in through the Holy Spirit’s work in our lives.
2Co 3:5 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God,
2Co 3:6 who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
2Co 3:7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end,
2Co 3:8 will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory?
2Co 3:9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory.
2Co 3:10 Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it.
Then, he says that we believers have God’s glory hidden within us:
2Co 3:16 But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.
2Co 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
2Co 3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
Thus, we are in the Lord’s presence all the time, even when we are not aware of it.
1 Like
The radiant glow appeared on his face when he descended from Mount Sinai after spending 40 days in God’s presence to receive the Ten Commandments (Exodus 34:29-35)
Dallas Willard (1935–2013), a prominent philosopher and author on spiritual formation, interpreted Revelation 22:4–5 as the culmination of the human destiny and the ultimate goal of the Christian life. He often quoted or paraphrased these verses to emphasize the intimacy, transformation, and active, reigning life of the redeemed in God’s presence.
Key insights from Willard’s engagement with Revelation 22:4–5 include:
- Intimate Fellowship and Transformation: Willard quoted this passage to describe the final state of humanity, stating: “And they shall live with His face in view, and that they belong to Him will show on their faces. Darkness will no longer be. They will have no need of lamps or sunlight because God the Lord will be radiant in their midst. And they will reign through the ages of ages”.
- The Transformation of the Heart: Willard emphasized that the promise of seeing God’s face (Rev 22:4) is connected to a “Renovation of the Heart.” The goal of Christian life is for the heart or spirit to be so transformed that bearing God’s name—representing His character—becomes a natural reality.
- Active Reigning with God: Contrary to passive views of heaven, Willard stressed the phrase “they shall reign for ever and ever” (Rev 22:5), highlighting that the redeemed will be actively involved in God’s continuing creative and governing work in the universe.
- Present Reality of Eternal Life: Willard often taught that eternal life is not just a future event but a present reality that begins now. He viewed the “new heaven and new earth” described in Revelation 21-22 as a continuation and renewal of God’s active kingdom, which believers can enter into during their current lives.
- The Role of Spiritual Beings: He often pointed out that humans are “unceasing spiritual beings with an eternal destiny” within God’s universe. This perspective makes Revelation 22:4–5 the natural conclusion of a life spent in communion with God.
In summary, Willard viewed Revelation 22:4–5 not merely as a description of a distant future, but as the ultimate, glorious expression of a life lived in intimacy with God and transformed by His presence.
So my point to Johann- before they ate off the tree of knowledge of good and evil they must have been covered by the light of God in some fashion that they did not know they were naked.
The speculation is based on what it might look like when one is in the presence of God- from scripture’s text. Hence, the scripture :baptize them In the name of the Father, son and Holyghost…immersing in the presence of the father, son and Holyghost. Teaching them to Do all that I commanded u…etc (dont quote my words off my head)
I speculate that to be a light one must live in the light of God.
The Bible says that God has put his glory or light in us as believers and that it is growing, @Corlove13, especially in verse 18 of the following and in Romans 8, where he says we have been glorified, that is, given God’s brightness or glory:
2Co 3:11 For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.
2Co 3:12 Since we have such a hope, we are very bold,
2Co 3:13 not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end.
2Co 3:14 But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away.
2Co 3:15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts.
2Co 3:16 But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.
2Co 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
2Co 3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
Rom 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.