Without watching a video or reading an article, and just knowing what we know about the Greek of John 1:1 and also how it connects with Genesis one, we began to come to the same conclusion that you have. However, we felt alone in our understanding. Because this understanding is very rare. Especially in the last part of that verse when it's describing the nature of the Word. It's not the nature as in the spirit being that were talking about. That to me was the greatest thing revealed. And you so beautifully explained and backed by scripture, exactly what my son and I were trying to understand. Your video is so clear and simple, anyone can understand this. I greatly appreciate it.

Louis XIV said 'L'etat c'est moi' ('I am the state') . This does not mean that Louis XIV is a country or a piece of land. The analogy seems similar here.

Would have loved to read the untainted original Word. I'm sure we would be surprised, and even shocked many times, at how twisted It has become through the ages with the many diverse translations.

I love the way the REV tackles this verse.

Dr. Smith, I have looked at your blog and a lot of the sources you cite for your case here and I think you make one of the best cases for the Biblical Unitarian position out there. I am concerned, however, at the translation of John 1:1c (and the word was fully expressive of God) because it just does not exist in the text that way. Isn't it usually better to translate and include only as much interpretation as is necessary? I mean, when Trinitarians translate the word "morphe" as "nature" you probably don't see that as being the best approach since they allow their doctrine to include an interpretation of the passage in Philippians 2:5-11 instead of just translating the word as "form." It just seems like nudging people in a certain direction should be done with their full awareness and with full disclosure. Thanks for your time.

Nice love these videos

Very good i agree with thes GOD bless you

Great explanation

Hi Dustin, thank you for the elucidation on this rather controversial passage. I agree entirely with your exegesis. But, just curious if you agree with the premise that John 1:1, and even up to verse 18, is employing a literary convention referred to as antanaclasis? I personally do. And with that predicate in mind, I find that it further helps to undermine a trinitarian allusion or interpretation to this pericope. Again, i'm in accordance with all that you explained, I just thought that it would further underscore your position by giving a bit of context to John's writing style. As you may agree, profound insights are often expressed in a poetic or eloquent fashion, and this is somewhat indicative of all the writings traditionally ascribed to John. And if you agree that that is the case here, again, I believe that it would add further weight to your testimony. For, as you are aware, a trinitarian's rebuttal is often derived from a hyper-literal interpretation of these verses. Thus, first establishing the literary genre that John has utilized in the first few verses of his Gospel, may initially dispel the justification of a literal hermeneutic being employed here?

Very good exegesis!

Most interesting.

The Sahidic Coptic from the 300's AD say "a" god. thats probably what Jn. 1:1 should or did say originally. No Im not a JW, or Oneness.

I appreciate your work, thankyou. It has helped me reconcile doctrinal issues with my former beliefs as a Mormon in coming to belief in the one True God, YHWH. I have been told by my LDS friends that there is much support for the doctrine of the prexistence of souls in Jewish writings. What would your response be to this?

@Sirach144

2 жыл бұрын

There isn't. The belief in thr preexistence of souls is from the Book of Abraham which is a massive mistranslation.

Neat, clean and simple, great exposition, insightful.

Nice explanation of a most controversially interpreted verse. I think I've heard every version of its meaning, but your words and thoughts give a most reasonable sense of the true meaning. Why would John deliberately decide to confuse everything by suddenly interjecting a new name for Jesus as well as ascribe new activity to Him predating His physical birth? Two thoughts help my understanding are the use of personification, and that God Himself had Jesus in His mind and plan before creation.

Thank you so much man of God

I keep trying to teach this to other Filipino but they said I am wrong....

Where would I find one of the references you referred to where the two consecutive nouns (one without the definitive article) is a common Greek construct

This is my grandma’s favorite Bible verse and I never understand it but I am gonna get a tattoo of it

good work other wise interpret by Trinitarian is blasphemy cos it makes 2 Gods and yet no sign of the third person holly spirit.

What a wonderful exegesis!

Excellent teaching!

Very nicely done brother! 🗣🔥

Thank you. Very powerful.

Great stuff thanks