REFUTING RAMIL PARBA ON JOHN 1:1 by Bro. Duane

By Bro. Duane

Let us analyze in detail. This will only show that his assessment is very inappropriate.

Ramil Parba (INC Minister) said: Kaya nang suriin ito ng mga nagsipagsuri ito ang sinasabi nila about the function of the term theos or God in the third clause of John 1:1, ito ang ating mababasa sa, The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance & Environment sa page 99:

"The closing words of v.1 should be translated, 'the Logos was divine.' Here the word theos has no article, thus giving it the significance of an adjective."

My Response: We saw Ramil Parba quote the book, “The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance & Environment” which is on page 99.

Is that really written on page 99 of said book?

This is page 99 of the book mentioned by Ramil Parba.

"about the purifiying is connected with baptism, and we do know exactly what form it would take. It is introduced only to to give the Baptist the opportunity of declaring again his subordination to Jesus. The disciples of John endeavour to rouse in their master jealousy of Jesus. Probably the dispute was as to whethere Jesus baptism or John's was the more effective. vv. 31-36 are a comment and reflection of the Evangelist. All the ideas are most with elsewhere, in the other parts of the Gospel. They are suggested by the Baptist's wods in Ἐν, 27-30. "(The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance & Environment”, page 99.)

It is clear that it is not written in page 99!

--------------------------------------------------------------

Ramil Parba (INC Minister) said: The term "GOD" or "Theos" in John 1:1 doesn't function as NOUN but it does function as Adjective. That is a predicative adjective and it is not a predicative nominative. the Word Was GOD. "The" is an Article. "WORD" is the subject of the clause "was" is a linking verb. "GOD" this is predicative adjective. So the "GOD" is predicative adjective because of the absence of the article."

Is it correct? No! It was very, very WRONG!

Let us answer what he said one-by-one.

Ramil Parba (INC Minister) said: The term "GOD" or "Theos" in John 1:1 doesn't function as NOUN but it does function as Adjective."

My Response: This is incorrect. Theos is a noun. While adjectives (like “good,” “bad,” etc) can function in a number of ways, nouns always function as nouns (substantives). Liddell and Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, present no evidence of the use of θεὸς as an adjective, as follows: ὁ θεὸς, “God, in a general sense, θεὸς δώσει “God will give,” and in a particular sense, θεὸς τις “a god.” The noun, θεὸς, thus does not require a definite article to function as a noun, as follows: πρὸς θεῶν “by the gods.”

Ramil Parba (INC Minister) said: That is a predicative adjective and it is not a predicative nominative. the Word Was God.

My Response: This is a misunderstanding of what a “predicate adjective” is. A predicate adjective is an adjective acting substantially (like a noun) in the predicate position. This happens when nouns or adjectives are working with equative verbs (like “was” here).

--------------------------------------------------------------

Ramil Parba (INC Minister) said: Kaya nga naninindigan tayo at sinasang-ayunan yan ng ibang mga bible scholars, in fact even in the Greek Grammar talagang yung sabihin na logos dyan without the article sabi nila it functions as adjective at hindi po a noun or hindi po nominative in form.

Ramil Parba used the book of Professor Daniel B. Wallace, the Greek Grammar beyond the basics and quoted Page 269 which states.

“Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows:"What God was, the Word was (NEB), or "the Word was divine" (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, "divine" is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even meal. Thus "divine could be misleading in an English Translation. (Page 269, Greek Grammar beyond the basics, Daniel B. Wallace)”

My Response: What is the comment of a renowned New Testament scholar about this?

"I was shocked to learn that InC ministers had used my Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics in support of their heterodox beliefs."(Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics)

--------------------------------------------------------------

Ramil Parba (INC Minister) said: Pero maliwanag dito sa sinasabi nila na the word was divine, ang sabi nila e yun ang mas angkop na pagkakasalin tulad ng binanggit nya na salin ni James Moffatt.

"The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine."(John 1:1, James Moffatt Version)

My Response: What does the New Testament Scholar, Dr. Daniel Wallace said in his comment?

"Consequently, I have no problem translating it as ‘divine’ as long as we understand that only true deity is divine. "(Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics)

Now, here is my question: Is James Moffatt against Christ being God?

This is the information about James Moffatt.

James Moffatt was an orthodox Trinitarian who supported the Nicene Creed and Chalcedon Confession:

"The Word was God...And the Word became flesh,' simply means "The word was divine...And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man..." Moffatt, Jesus Christ the Same, (Abingdon-Cokesbury), 1945, p.61.

Moffatt apparently did believe that "divine" signified that Jesus was "one and the same God" with ho theos.