+
             The Key to the New Testament
      [or: The Last Word is Logos]
.
          "Come, let’s consider your options,”
        says the LORD -- Isaiah 1:18a / NETbible
.
/ Subject > Re: Is Jesus Like God? [#16] / 29Nov02 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy and /
/ alt.religion.apologetics,alt.bible.prophecy,alt.philosophy /
/ Forum TOL General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
.
 "A meaning, an intention always goes above and beyond
   what is actually captured in language, in words that
    reach others. An insatiable yearning for the right
     word - that is what constitutes the genuine life
      and nature of language." -- Hans-Georg Gadamer
.
 Over the many centuries of the Faith's long history there has
been an endless procession of believers who have stepped forth
claiming to have found the magic key that unlocks all the
mysteries of the sacred scriptures. In the Middle Ages a
humble Dominican friar named Thomas Aquinas didst wed the
Faith with the grandly systematic philosophy of Aristotle to
achieve a new synthesis, and a new direction for the Church,
that has strongly persisted, even unto the very day. Yet
only a few centuries later, many believers turned to rival
theological systems, offered by such mighty heroes of the
Faith as Luther and Calvin and Wesley and Fox, etc.
.
 And again even today many believers (perhaps even the vast
majority) find their way through the scriptures by way of these
guides (or keys), either indirectly (through the modified forms
of the scribes and pharisees) or directly (by drinking the
waters straight from the source). And along with these popular
keys there have been many others, famous or infamous or lost
in some forgotten backwash of the historical tides. The result
for our day is that every church, every preacher, every
teacher or commentator or exegete, subtly claims to be in firm
possession of the keys that unlock the meaning of the texts.
.
 The resulting hermeneutical chaos from so many competing
systems and visions and understandings and whatnot has only
encouraged many believers to reject all such absolute or final
claims, and so rely on their own wits and judgment. Many put
their faith in charismatic preachers, others in talented and
distinguished bible-scholars of exceptional merit, others in
whatever authority happens to take their fancy at the moment.
.
 Of course, all of this abundant proliferation of "keys",
of many and various points-of-view, of highly authoritative
interpretations, has left the average bible student surrounded
on all sides by an infinite sea of bright and shiny keys, and
clinging (as to a life preserver) to their own special key,
which is the only one (of course) that truly and correctly
reveals the divine meaning and intent of the Word of God!
.
 In a world burning in the flames of unbelief and disbelief
and lack of faith, the individual believer of more reasonable
disposition may conclude that there is no magic key to the
scriptures. Look at the historical evidence. Look at the many
claims from the past that are not only obviously wrong (and
wrong-headed), but also foolish from beginning to end. Such
an abundance of silliness can only mean that there is no magic
key. That there is only some interpretations are better than
others but I'm not exactly sure why or wherefore so please
don't ask about that thx.
.
 Problems, problems! Such problems for believers these days :(
Confusion. Skepticism. Antagonism. Corruption and spiritual
dissolution. Disbelief and loss of faith. And all resulting in
a generalized state of hermeneutical anarchy! That's what it
is. That's what it all finally comes down to. How can every-
body have the right key, when all the keys contradict each
other? The only rational response is to reject ALL these so-
called keys; which is to say to reject all claims to absolute
and final and perfect interpretations. Away with them, I say!
.
 And why not, eh? Not one of them can really demonstrate the
alleged superiority of their particular "key". Not one of them
can explain ALL the questions and mysteries that the entire
library of sacred books raises. No indeed; not by a long shot!
And this is because the Bible is just too darn big for them.
Too big for their fancy schemes and systems to contain (and
tame). Too rich and diverse and chaotic to submit humbly to
the endless demands of emotional piety and/or theological
imperatives.
.
 So then there are subjective keys (eg. individual taste
or judgment) and objective keys (scholarship, philosophy,
theology). There are keys that are external to the believer,
and held by those trusted ones of long and great wisdom. And
there are keys that are internal to the believer, and held
within the heart, or mind, or both. But the keys are every-
where. There's no escaping or denying them. No matter how hard
you try to push them away, they always come back when you
sleep, as if they truly belonged there always and forevermore.
.
 Yes, every believer has their own special key, tailor-made
just for them, slightly different from all other keys. Many
keys are static and frozen in time, but some keys are dynamic
and seem to grow stronger with age. Some keys are better than
others, yes. But who has the best key? How are we to judge
among all these keys; their relative merits and deficiencies,
their strengths and weaknesses, their pros and cons? And
herein lies the problem; for there is no technique, no tried
and true method of comparing up all the many and various
interpretations, systems, perspectives, and approaches
toward the Bible that have manifested themselves at
one time or another.
.
 It would seem, then, that the best that any sensible bible-
reader can do is to sample a wide variety of "readings", and
favor those approaches that seem more reasonable overall (more
true to the spirit of the texts, as it were). But subjective
whims and illogical traditions should not be allowed to
interfere overmuch in this matter of judging among the keys.
If we are to have any hope of judging rightly, we have to be
careful and rigorous in our methods. We have to allow reason,
common-sense, and philosophical logic to infuse our judgments,
and guide our readings and comparisons. Nothing less than
this will be consistent enough to survive the ruthless
criticism required to mark this or that key as definitely
and objectively better than all other keys.
.
 If our methods are sound, then our judgments will also be
sound. And if our judgments are sound, it is only because
our methods are rational and realistic, historical and
philosophical. So let us by all means put our methods to the
test at every opportunity so as to make progress in our under-
standing, and advance toward the discovery of that one special
key that will open the word of God to our semi-blinded eyes.
Why semi-blinded, you ask? Well, let me put it this way:
.
 "For any single individual to work himself out of the life
under tutelage which has become almost his nature is very
difficult. He has come to be fond of this state, and he is for
the present really incapable of making use of his reason, for
no one has ever let him try it out. Statutes and formulas,
those mechanical tools of the rational employment or rather
misemployment of his natural gifts, are the fetters of an
everlasting tutelage. Whoever throws them off makes only an
uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch because he is not
accustomed to that kind of free motion. Therefore, there are
only few who have succeeded by their own exercise of mind
both in freeing themselves from incompetence and in achieving
a steady pace." -- from 'What is Enlightenment?' by I.Kaant
.
 But let us suppose *anyway* that there is a key to the NT
that is better than all other keys, and is available to many
(though never to all) believers. What would this mystical and
mysterious key look like? There is an old patristic notion
that the best interpreter of scripture is scripture itself.
Now this is a good idea that has yielded much good fruit over
the centuries, but it cannot of itself function as a key, but
only as a general hermeneutical principle (at best).
.
 The best key would therefore have to be some verse(s) from
the NT; a verse that is relatively simple to understand, yet
rich in depth of meaning and potential significance. Such a
verse would necessarily require more authority than any other
verse, and would have to be able to act as a measuring rod
by which to size up the merits and strengths (and even the
errors and faults) of *ALL* that the scriptures do declare,
proclaim, infer, deduce, suggest, and teach.
.
 But is there really such a multi-talented verse (or verses)
in the NT? Oddly enough, there are several bible-bytes that
can function as generalized practical and/or theological tools
(eg. 2P.1:5-8). But I think that the best one of them all is
the three deceptively simple lines of John 1:1. If there is
any one verse in the entire vast collection of all the world's
sacred scriptures that you would want to translate, interpret,
and understand correctly, this is the one! To get Jn1:1
right side up in your head and heart is to have a tremendous
advantage over the scribes and pharisees (and all those
billions of poor believers who follow trustingly after them).
To know Jn1:1 in spirit and truth is to hold a very useful
tool (ie. a "key") with which to access, measure, and compare
any and all other verses, whether they be scripture or not,
especially those that follow in the rest of John's gospel.
.
 "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD."
.
 Some entity that the author elsewhere identifies as 'the word
of life' is here declared to be as eternal as creation, as
old as time and space. In the same way, the beginnings of
the Faith are bound up in the opening words of the first NT
document to be written. Paul and Silvanus wrote of history, of
remembrance of persecution and suffering and flight; and they
also wrote of "a word of God" (1Th.2:13f). In putting the
gospel into written form, those two good prophets made the
Faith into a historical force that would forever change and
direct the minds and hearts of countless believers. And all
Christian literature that came afterward would be stamped by
the awareness of their achievement: the Christian epistle
as a vehicle of the gospel. 'In the beginning of Christian
thought and reflection was the written word born of
persecution, suffering, pain, doubt, anger, darkness,
hostility, and fear; but also with love and joy and faith.'
.
 "AND THE WORD WAS WITH THE GOD."
.
 This "Logos" entity is some kind of impressive cosmic-type
being who likes to hang with the one true God. Therefore it is
safe to assume that this Logos person is not actually a part
of the God, not a different form or mode of the God, but more
like a very close friend and intimate companion who stays with
you. Of course, "the God" is John's favorite reference to the
deity; it is synonymous with "the Father", such that the two
terms 'God' and 'Father' refer to the same being. The God is
thus a unique individual person (the One True God), just as
the Logos is a unique individual person (see John 1:2).
.
 "AND GOD WAS THE WORD."
.
 Huh? Uh oh. Wait a minute. That's not right. John doesn't
recognize two separate and distinct entities, one of whom he
refers to as 'the god' and other as 'god'!?! How confusing
is that? And since John is most definitely NOT one to sow
ambiguity and confusion - especially not in these most crucial
opening verses! - the only logical conclusion is that this
clause was somehow tampered with early on (perhaps mid-second
century or so). The ambiguity, in other words, was and/or is
artificially created, and is *NOT* a legitimate part of the
sacred text. Thus there is an error in this obviously awkward
last clause that is VERY easily overlooked and underestimated
by the legions of bible-scholars and translators when they
produce their famous English version, you know the one: "and
the Word was God."
.
 There is only one God for the author of the Gospel According
to John (and 1John), and that god is the one true god, the
Father, who is THE GOD! Obviously there is some mistake here
in the text; some error that needs to be corrected. Most
English versions offer a solution by resorting to rhetorical
trickery, and rendering the phrase as 'and the Word was God'
which is dubbed intelligible according to trinitarian theology.
But since John is a monotheist, it is extremely unlikely that
he would refer to *anybody* else as being 'God'!
.
 Moreover, this trinitarian switcheroo (which the scribes
and pharisees never acknowledge or explain or justify) does
violence to the text. It is *NOT* necessary or warranted;
and it is NOT justified by bogus claims that this is what
the author intended to say. John put the word 'logos' at
the end of verse one for two very good reasons: (1) he is
emphasizing the fact that he is saying something about
the logos. And (2) he is connecting this logos with the
declaration that immediately follows:
.
 "THIS ONE WAS IN THE BEGINNING WITH THE GOD." -- Jn1:2
.
 So the problem clearly resides in the second word of the
troublesome phrase: 'and - was the Word'. Obviously the
missing term in this statement ought to be a descriptive
adjective of some sort; some Greek term that resembles
'theos'. In fact, there is one like this: 'theios'. If we
use this term we get: "And divine was the Word." So now
we have two options:
.
 "AND THE WORD WAS GOD"
.
 OR . . .
.
 "AND DIVINE WAS THE WORD"
.
 How do we decide which of these is right? By determining which
one better expresses the thoughts and intentions of the author.
And also by determining which of the two alternatives does the
least violence to the text. And by deciding which of the two
readings better solves the awkward problem posed by the raw
(and slightly altered) Greek text. Remember that by pulling
their little literary switch, the translators are implicitly
acknowledging that the text needs correction, that there is
something wrong with the text as it is. Why else would they
"improve" the meaning by moving key terms around? If John had
wanted to say 'and the Word was God', what prevented him from
doing so? Was John unable to place the words in the correct
order for himself? Wut? Was he not inspired enough maybe?
.
 You can see now why all the little websites and commentaries
of the scribes and pharisees never explicitly mention that
they had to move a few words around in order to get the
English version just so. No. They are in too much of a hurry
to show how John only *seems* to be a monotheist, but is in
reality a faithful trinitarian like unto the masses. They are
hoping that ignorant bible-readers will never notice their
literary sleight-of-hand, their little trick with smoke and
mirrors, because once anyone notices it (ie. notices that
something's amiss), then many questions may be asked that are
exceedingly embarrassing (not to mention difficult to answer)!
.
 So in conclusion I would now like to offer to all true
believers what is (perhaps) the best key to the Gospel of
John; and thus to the rest of the NT as well. Therefore I
solemnly swear on the family jewels that this is the best
English version of what the original autograph actually
and historically proclaimed:
.
       "In the beginning was the Word.
           And the Word was with the God;
               and divine was the Word.
   This One was in the beginning with the God."
                   -- John 1:1-2 / Prophet Version
.
          - the cyber-mouse that roared - textman ;>
.
P.S. "The possibility that the other person may be right
   is the soul of hermeneutics." -- Hans-Georg Gadamer, 1989
x

+
/ Re: The Key to the New Testament / [#17] / 30Nov02 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
/ Forum TOL General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
.
> On Nov29 o2bwise wrote: Thanks bro
> Hey textman, It appears our view on the matter are identical
> or close to identical. Thanks for your last post though I
> did wince with your suggestion that the Greek manuscript
> with respect to John 1:1 is contrived.
.
 textman replies: Hi o2. I much prefer the term 'adjusted'
to your 'contrived'. There is a subtle, but significant,
difference between these two words. So perhaps there is
no need for wincing after all? :)
.
> Isn't theos without the article compatible with "divine"
> as a rendering?
.
 Perhaps it is somewhat compatible, maybe. But actually, I'm
more convinced now than ever before that the 'dropped iota'
is the correct solution to the Greek text's linguistically
(and theologically) awkward last clause. Historically (and
theologically) it makes the most sense. Indeed, when we
consider the liberties that the scribes (both past & present)
take and have taken with the text (eg. so-called "free" or
paraphrase versions) it becomes *very* difficult to conceive
how the dropped iota could ever have remained in place and
survived the beating that John's gospel had suffered for so
many decades (ie. prior to the textual-blessings of the good
pagan emperor Constantine) at the hands of endless scribes
and pharisees intent only on glorifying God by adjusting
the text ever so slightly in favor of ... WHATEVER!
.
 Let me put the matter another way. Comparing translations can
be a practice that yields many surprises, and sometimes one
particular version shows something that can't be found in any
other version. Consider, then, the following bible-byte from
the Chicago Bible (An American Translation):
.
 "In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God,
and the Word was divine. It was he that was with God in the
beginning. ... No one has ever seen God; it is the divine
Only Son, who leans upon his Father's breast, that has made
him known." -- John 1:1-2,18
.
 Interesting rendition, yes? Now I can't exactly give the
American Translation my unqualified endorsement, but it does
seem to me that these Chicago translators had a lot more on
the ball than the translators of all these more popular, and
supposedly superior, versions!
.
> Thanks man. While many of these posts are simply too long
> for me at the present time, I did read your last one and
> appreciated it. God Bless, Tony (o2)
.
 thx o2. There's no need to hurry after my epistles; they're
built to last! :) And if you think that the average length of
my posts is way too long, be advised that most people will
doubtless agree with you. As for myself, however, a five page
long post is hardly more than a footnote by comparison with
the sum total of all my writings on the website; which
contains over 20MegaBytes worth of yummy prophetic literature;
all of which is entirely FOC for true believers. WOW!
Who says there's no free lunch, eh? 
.
      - the almost overly generous one - textmman ;>
x