In the book of John it is written "The word was God". Why does it not say the word is God? Why past tense form

Question

It is written elsewhere in the Bible that God can not change. In John the past tense is used but the present and future tense is not. Such indicates a change has taken place in something most bible scholars say is God and can never change. Why because they insist that a trunity or triune God is a fact. To me it appears something is wrong. Is it with me?

Answer 1

John is telling the story of Christ. Sort of a once upon a time the word was with God, and the word was God and the word was made flesh
"Jesus"

Answer 2

The entire text being spoke of here is John 1:1 "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

An explaination of the translation error follows:

“The Word was a god.” Regarding the Son’s prehuman existence, John says: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (Joh 1:1, NW) The King James Version and the Douay Version read: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This would make it appear that the Word was identical with Almighty God, while the former reading, in the New World Translation, indicates that the Word is not the God, Almighty God, but is a mighty one, a god. (Even the judges of ancient Israel, who wielded great power in the nation, were called “gods.” [Ps 82:6; Joh 10:34, 35]) Actually, in the Greek text, the definite article ho, “the,” appears before the first “God,” but there is no article before the second.

Other translations aid in getting the proper view. The interlinear word-for-word reading of the Greek translation in the Emphatic Diaglott reads: “In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.” The accompanying text of the Diaglott uses capital and small capital letters for the God, and initial capital and lowercase letters for the second appearance of “God” in the sentence: “In the Beginning was the LOGOS, and the LOGOS was with GOD, and the LOGOS was God.”

These renderings would support the fact that Jesus, being the Son of God and the one used by God in creating all other things (Col 1:15-20), is indeed a “god,” a mighty one, and has the quality of mightiness, but is not the Almighty God. Other translations reflect this view. The New English Bible says: “And what God was, the Word was.” The Greek word translated “Word” is Lo´gos; and so Moffatt’s translation reads: “The Logos was divine.” The American Translation reads: “The Word was divine.” Other readings, by German translators, follow. By Böhmer: “It was tightly bound up with God, yes, itself of divine being.” By Stage: “The Word was itself of divine being.” By Menge: “And God (= of divine being) the Word was.” And by Thimme: “And God of a sort the Word was.” All these renderings highlight the quality of the Word, not his identity with his Father, the Almighty God. Being the Son of Jehovah God, he would have the divine quality, for divine means “godlike.”—Col 2:9; compare 2Pe 1:4, where “divine nature” is promised to Christ’s joint heirs.

What this explaination basicly says is the GOD The Almighty was accompanied by The Word, who was godlike. Two seperate persons two seperate titles.

There is considerable more information available on this distiction when looking at a Greek intelinear translations.

Answer 3

Yes, "word of God" is the content, message that the bible try to convey, since the catholic and the protestant belief are different, they won't use their counterpart's Bible and make that claim. And the claim has nothing to do with the wording too, there are numerous bible in different languages and interpretations like NIV, KJV etc. however the message is the same. Besides the Bible is not a book of dogma, it inviting investigations, studies from individuals, so the content and the application of it is the real deal. Ethnic(Jews) rituals or local(Middle east) knowledge dating back to early AD would affect the validity of the lessons telling. If someone add/burn a few page or the whole bible with his free will, it makes no difference the book burnt is actually the Bible that most Christians holding dear or "Javascript Bible", a reference for web page developer. The word of God is the message believers can get from the Bible, not equals the Bible in its physical form.

Answer 4

It uses past tense form because it's telling about the beginning, which, consequently, happened in the past. Since God doesn't change, and the Word was God, then the Word is God, will always be God.

Answer 5

The past tense is used because it is speaking of the Creation. During the time of Creation, the Word was God and the Word was with God. That doesn't mean He still isn't God, that just means that he was God all the way from the beginning.

Answer 6

I totally understand the perspective you have expressed. I think however in the rest of the John 1 passage (just read it), the whole thing is in past tense. The 'He' it talks about is Jesus (v. 2). I think John is merely expressing that all these truths and Christ were a part of God and with Him from the beginning. Saying the source of all of this, the word, life, all things made, etc... is God himself. It is one of those mysteries of God that are hard to fathom.

Answer 7

You mean to tell me that you really want an answer?

The passage begins with "In the beginning...", which refers to past events (obviously). So, since the Apostle John believed in subject-verb agreement as much as I do, he used past-tense verbs like 'was'.

The only thing 'wrong' is the intent of your heart when it comes to reading the scriptures. If you're seeking a relationship with your creator, great. If you want to disprove some literary rubbish, grab a copy of the Da Vinci Code.

Answer 8

Or, the beginning is rebirth, then, as much as now. Rebirth continues, with every infinitesimal measure of time. It's the same process, and it is God, and you have to be reborn, or you will not survive this world.

Ergo, the beginning always was in a state of change, as is every moment a transition.

In the end, everything will still be in a state of rebirth, and change, but our perspective today, of that infinitely distant point in time, is limited to a finite mind, and that end appears to be a static end. He would still be living, and changing eternal. He was, is, and will be; Resurrection.

Answer 9

Probably because this was written for future populations, but the Word technically IS God. A very good point though.

Answer 10

As "Justme" said...a story is being told. It wouldn't sound right as:
In the begining (past), the word IS (present) God.