Author Topic: John 1:1  (Read 22118 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
John 1:1
« on: October 06, 2017, 12:10:26 AM »

A christian quoted an argument from to refute a muslim concerning the correct Translation of John 1:1....can some please tell me how to respond to this? Here's the quote...

"John 1:1 in a literal translation reads thus:  "In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word."  Notice that it says "God was the word." This is the actual word-for-word translation.  It is not saying that "a god was the word."  That wouldn't make sense.  Let me break it down into three statements.

"In beginning was the word . . . "
(en    arche      en  ho  logos)
A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.
"and the word was with the God . . . "
(kai  ho  logos  en  pros ton theon)
This same Word was with God.
"and God was the word."--Properly translated as "and the Word was God."
(kai theos en   ho  logos)
This same Word was God.
Regarding statement 3 above, the correct English translation is " . . . and the Word was God" and not "and God was the word."  This is because if there is only one definite article ("ho"="the") in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative ("subject") form ("theos" and "logos"), then the noun with the definite article ("ho"="the") is the subject.  In this case "ho logos" means that "the word" is the subject of the clause.  Therefore, " . . . the Word was God" is the correct translation and not "God was the Word."1 But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Jesus is "a god" or the "mighty god" as was addressed above."

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: John 1:1
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2017, 03:36:44 AM »
Wa Alaium As'salam dear brother,

The gossip of John can say whatever it wants.  This verse isn't even a statement from Jesus nor by GOD Almighty.  Not that if the gossip of John does contain "statements" from GOD Almighty, then these would be true and authentic.  No, not at all.

Theos (god) in the NT was also used for satan.  Satan was also called theos.  So theos also means "with authority".  The reader must understand that the translations of:

1-  Son of God.
2-  God.

These are English translations from Greek words that also mean "Servant of GOD" and "one with power and/or authority".  The gossip of John never intended to say that Jesus is our Creator.  For more proofs, please visit:,868.msg3373.html#msg3373

The gossip of John says it is corrupt:

It is also ridiculous that the gossip of John in the very end of it admits (the author admits) that it was written by a mysterious person other than the real John:

John 21:24-25
24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

We know his testimony is true??  Does this sound like the original John to you?  So basically, the words that make up the "Gospel of John" are words of mere man or men.  So John 1:1 can not in anyway, shape or form prove that Jesus is our Creator, especially when Jesus himself said that if he were to bear witness of himself, his witness would be false (i.e., he would be a liar):

And like I mentioned above, even satan was called theos (God).  So "theos" does not anything.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Offline submit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: John 1:1
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2017, 05:56:22 AM »
It interesting to read Greek interpretation about the Start, which when read article by article confirms that in beginning there was only two forms of one-God or two separate  gods in equality.
These two figures, God and Word decided to create a third form that is Holy Spirit from themselves/one-selves somewhere later. We then have Two Superior and One inferior ones in term of having existence.

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: John 1:1
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2017, 08:27:41 AM »
 First of all those are not the words of Jesus which is enough to clear my doubt but out of severe curiosity I've been digging the internet and reading books and articles about John 1:1 since i've posted this question this morning....seriously our Trinitarians friends never fails to surprise me and as usual they've proven how desperate they are(with all due respect of course)...sometimes i ask myself if Trinitarians really are serious when they use John 1:1 to prove the divinity of Jesus because they take the whole gospel of John out of context when they make these assertions about John 1:1...but for now, to hell with the context and let me show you a little explanation of John 1:1 on which i stumbled on a Unitarian Website....

"John 1.1, 14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God… And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory,
glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
The first and most important thing to realize is that “the word” is God’s word and not Jesus. The
word does not become Jesus until John 1.14. The word of God is never in any one of the 42
books of the Bible preceding this verse referred to as a person distinct from the Father. The
word is God’s utterance, his plan, his creative power, or his message given to the prophets. John
1.1 begins with the same words as Genesis 1.1. In the Genesis account God speaks and creation
happens; in John it says the word was in the beginning with God (see also Psalm 33.6, 9).
God’s word was with him. This expression may sound strange to us, but it is found in other
verses as well where something is “with” them but it is really “within” them (Job 10.13; 23.13-
14; Proverbs 8.22, 30). In fact, the word “with” in John 1.1 is the word pros, which most often
translated “to” or “toward.” So the word was toward God or with God or within God—it was
close to his heart.
The last part of John 1.1 reads, “and the word was God.” The word belongs to the sphere of
God; because he is divine, his word is divine. It is not a separate being from God any more than
my word is a distinct being from me, yet in a metaphoric sense my word is me because it
expresses who I am.
Finally in John 1.14 the word of God, his plan for salvation, his will for humanity, his ultimate
revealed purpose, becomes a living breathing human being in Jesus of Nazareth. How did this
happen? The holy spirit overshadowed the virgin Mary which resulted in a totally unique
pregnancy. God’s plan to save the world became flesh. In fact, throughout the Gospel of John,
Jesus makes it clear that he spoke the words of God and did the works of God (John 8.28; 12.49-

To rub some salt to the wounds, i would like to add that in the same gospel of John it is written...

"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." [John 17:3]

So taking the gospel of John in context, John 1:1 obviously doesn't prove Jesus to be God....

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: John 1:1
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2017, 08:54:19 AM »
Another explanation by Prof. Don Cupitt of Cambridge

"John’s words ought to be retranslated: “The Word was with God the Father and the Word was
the Father’s own Word,” to stress that the Word is not an independent divine being, but is the
only God’s own self-expression. If all this is correct, then even John’s language about Jesus still
falls within the scope of the King-ambassador model.[20]
The considered views of these leading Christian thinkers show that it is sufficient to think of
“word” as God’s utterance, not His Son prior to the begetting of the Son in Mary. On this model,
the Son is in fact what the word became.[21] The Son does not preexist as Son. The Son is the
visible human expression of God’s pre-ordained purpose. There was no Son of God until the
Messiah was conceived in history. Before that God had His Design and Plan “with Him,” as the
basis of His whole intention for creation and for mankind. On this understanding the Messiah is
truly a human being, a status which cannot be claimed for him if he has been alive since before

And as far as i know, Jesus is called the Word in the Quran as well which kinda agrees that the "Word" was the "Divine Intention", "purpose" , "plan", etc of God...

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: John 1:1
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2017, 09:01:13 AM »
 By the way Thank you dear brother Osama...and also thank you Brother Submit...

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: John 1:1
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2017, 09:43:04 AM »
It would be also useful to know that English translations which are older than the KJV uses "It" instead of "He" when talking about the "Word"...

The Tyndale New Testament (1534)
"All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made."

The Bishops’ New Testament (1595)
"All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made."

The Geneva Bible (1599)
"All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made."

And no those were not typos, it's just the English of the 1500s....though "Word" is a masculine word, the translators knew that it was not a "Person"...

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: John 1:1
« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2017, 04:58:50 PM »
Jesus, according to Islam, created from the Word, and was filled with the Holy Spirit.  So the "Word became flesh" in the verses after John 1:1 is not in contradiction with Islam:

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: John 1:1
« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2017, 09:59:38 PM »
Exactly brother Osama....

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: John 1:1
« Reply #9 on: October 08, 2017, 02:23:29 AM »
By the way Thank you dear brother Osama...and also thank you Brother Submit...

You are very welcome, dear brother Shaad.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: John 1:1
« Reply #10 on: October 16, 2017, 08:12:58 AM »
Assalamualaikum guys,

I tried searching for counter arguments on this subject and i found one which was pretty much intriguing and i asked some questions to to our Jewish Brethren more precisely some Rabbis about their view...

Well basically i found some christians trying to prove that the "Word" is a different entity by quoting passages from the Targum...for example

Genesis 3:8

"And they heard the voice of the Word of the Lord God walking in the garden in the evening of the day; and Adam and his wife hid themselves from before the Lord God among the trees of the garden."

At first glance it doesn't seem to be a strong argument in my opinion...anyway i got some interesting answers by the Rabbis

A Rabbi from says...

"Actually, the word in Hebrew is not the word of God but the voice (kol). The meaning is that God's Divine Presence (Shechina) came to the Garden to rebuke and punish Adam and Eve for their failing (while first giving them a chance to confess and repent). Although God Himself is infinite, He sometimes makes His presence more felt in one place, which is the notion of His Shechina."

Another one from a different website says...

"In the original Hebrew the term that is used is "kol" (קול) which is more properly translated as "sound" or "voice". The meaning is that God revealed to them his presence through some sort of sound. The term walking is used in reference to sound in other places in the Bible such as in Jeremiah 46, 22."

Offline Sama

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: John 1:1
« Reply #11 on: October 17, 2017, 02:21:55 PM »
When I first learned of this verse it appeared to me that I had finally found my elusive goal. However, after substantial research into Christian theological literature, I would later come to learn that this verse too can not be interpreted to justify a "triune" God. My own experience has shown that this verse is the one most popularly quoted by most Christians in defense of the Trinity. For this reason I shall spend a little more time in it's analysis than in the analysis of the other verses.

First of all, it is quite obvious from simply reading the above verse that even in the very best case, this verse speaks only of a "Duality" not a "Trinity." Even the most resolute conservative Christian will never claim to find in this verse any mention whatsoever of a "merging" of a Holy Ghost with God and "the Word." So even if we were to accept this verse at face value and just have faith, even then, we find ourselves commanded to believe in a "Duality" and not a "Trinity." But let us see if this verse does in fact even command us to believe in a "Duality." To do this we need to notice the following points:

1) Mistranslation of the text:

In the "original" Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak Greek?), "The Word" is only described as being "ton theos"(divine/a god) and not as being "ho theos" (The Divine/The God). A more faithful and correct translation of this verse would thus read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine" (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you will find exactly this wording).

Similarly, in "The New Testament, An American Translation" this verse is honestly presented as

"In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine."

The New Testament, An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173

And again in the dictionary of the Bible, under the heading of "God" we read

"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.'"

The Dictionary of the Bible by John McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317

In yet another Bible we read:

"The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine"

The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, by Dr. James Moffatt

Please also see "The Authentic New Testament" by Hugh J. Schonfield and many others.

If we look at a different verse, 2 Corinthians 4:4, we find the exact same word (ho theos) that was used in John 1:1 to describe God Almighty is now used to describe the devil, however, now the system of translation has been changed:

"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not."

According to the system of the previous verse and the English language, the translation of the description of the Devil should also have been written as "The God" with a capital "G." If Paul was inspired to use the exact same words to describe the Devil, then why should we change it? Why is "The God" translated as simply "the god" when referring to the devil, while "divine" is translated as the almighty "God" when referring to "The Word"? Are we now starting to get a glimpse of how the "translation" of the Bible took place?

Well, what is the difference between saying "the word was God," and between saying "the word was a god (divine)"? Are they not the same? Far from it! Let us read the bible:

"I have said, Ye (the Jews) are gods; and all of you are children of the most High"

Psalms 82:6:

"And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh"

Exodus 7:1

"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not."

2 Corinthians 4:4

What does all of this mean? Let me explain.

In the West, it is common when one wishes to praise someone to say "You are a prince," or "You are an angel" ..etc. When someone says this do they mean that that person is the son of the King of England, or a divine spiritual being? There is a very slight grammatical difference between saying "You are a prince" and between saying "You are THE prince," however, the difference in meaning is quite dramatic.

Further, it is necessary when translating a verse to also take into account the meaning as understood by the people of that age who spoke that language. One of the biggest problems with the Bible as it stands today is that it forces us to look at ancient Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures through Greek and Latin glasses as seen by people who are neither Jews, Greeks, nor Romans. All of the so called "original" manuscripts of the NT available today are written in Greek or Latin. The Jews had no trouble reading such verses as Psalms 82:6, and Exodus 7:1, while still affirming that there is only one God in existence and vehemently denying the divinity of all but God Almighty. It is the continuous filtration of these manuscripts through different languages and cultures as well as the Roman Catholic church's extensive efforts to completely destroy all of the original Hebrew Gospels (see last quarter of this chapter) which has led to this misunderstanding of the verses.

The Americans have a saying: "Hit the road men." It means "It is time for you to leave." However, if a non-American were to receive this command without any explanation then it is quite possible that we would find him beating the road with a stick. Did he understand the words? Yes! Did he understand the meaning? No!

In the Christian church we would be hard pressed to find a single priest or nun who does not address their followers as "my children." They would say: "Come here my children", or "Be wary of evil my children" ... etc. What do they mean?

A fact that many people do not realize is that around 200AD spoken Hebrew had virtually disappeared from everyday use as a spoken language. It was not until the 1880s that a conscious effort was made by Eliezer Ben-Yehudah to revive the dead language. Only about a third of current spoken Hebrew and basic grammatical structures come from biblical and Mishnaic sources. The rest was introduced in the revival and includes elements of other languages and cultures including the Greek and Arabic languages.

Even worse than these two examples are cases when translation into a different languages can result in a reversal of the meaning. For example, in the West, when someone loves something they say "It warmed my heart." In the Middle East, the same expression of joy would be conveyed with the words: "It froze my heart." If an Mideasterner were to greet a Westerner with the words: "It froze my heart to see you," then obviously this statement would not be greeted with a whole lot of enthusiasm from that Westerner, and vice versa. This is indeed one of the major reasons why the Muslims have been so much more successful in the preservation of their holy text than the Christians or the Jews; because the language of the Qur'an has remained from the time of Muhammad (pbuh) to the present day a living language, the book itself has always been in the hands of the people (and not the "elite"), and the text of the book remains in the original language of Muhammad (pbuh). For this reason, a translator must not and should not "translate" in a vacuum while disregarding the culture and traditions of the people who wrote these words. As we have just seen, it was indeed quite common among the Jews to use the word "god" (divine) to convey a sense of supreme power or authority to human beings. This system, however, was never popularly adopted by them to mean that these individuals were in any way omnipotent, superhuman, or equal to the Almighty.

2) Basic message of John:

Now that we have seen the correct translation of the verse of John 1:1, let us go a little further in our study of the intended meaning of this verse. This verse was taken from the "Gospel of John." The very best person to ask to explain what is meant by a given statement is the author of that statement himself. So let us ask "John" what is his mental picture of God and Jesus (pbuh) which he wishes to convey to us:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him."

John 13:16.

So the author of John tells us that God is greater than Jesus. If the author of this Gospel did indeed wish us to understand that Jesus and God are "one and the same," then can someone be greater than himself? Similarly,

"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

John 14:28.

Can someone "go" to himself? Can someone be "greater" than himself?

"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:"

John 17:1.

If John meant to tell us that "Jesus and God are one and the same" then shall we understand from this verse that God is saying to Himself "Self, glorify me so that I may glorify myself"? Does this sound like this is the message of John?

"While I (Jesus) was with them in the world, I kept them in thy (God's) name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."

John 17:12.

If the author of John wanted us to believe that Jesus and God are one person then are we to understand from this verse that God is saying to Himself "Self, while I was in the world I kept them in your name, self. Those who I gave to myself I have kept ..."? Is this what the author intended us to understand from his writings?

"Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world."

John 17:24.

Similarly, did the author intend us to interpret this as "Self, I will that they also whom I have given myself be with me where I am; that they my behold my glory which I have given myself, for I loved myself before the foundation of the world"?

So, we begin to see that in order to understand the writings of a given author, it is necessary to not take a single quotation from him in a vacuum and then interpret his whole message based upon that one sentence (and a badly mistranslated version of that sentence at that).

3) Who wrote the "Gospel of John"?:

The "Gospel of John" is popularly believed by the majority of regular church-goers to be the work of the apostle John the son of Zebedee. However, when consulting Christianity's more learned scholars of Church history, we find that this is far from the case. These scholars draw our attention to the fact that internal evidence provides serious doubt as to whether the apostle John the son of Zebedee wrote this Gospel himself. In the dictionary of the Bible by John Mckenzie we read

"A. Feuillet notes that authorship here may be taken loosely."

Such claims are based on such verses as 21:24:

"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true."?

Did the apostle John write this about himself? Also see 21:20, 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, and 21:20-23. The "disciple who Jesus loved" according to the Church is John himself, but the author of this gospel speaks of him as a different person.

Further, The Gospel of John was written at or near Ephesus between the years 110 and 115 (some say 95-100) of the Christian era by this, or these, unknown author(s). According to R. H. Charles, Alfred Loisy, Robert Eisler, and other scholars of Christian history, John of Zebedee was beheaded by Agrippa I in the year 44 CE, long before the fourth Gospel was written. Did the Holy Ghost "inspire" the apostle John's ghost to write this gospel sixty years after he was killed? . In other words, what we have here is a gospel which is popularly believed to have been written by the apostle John, but which in fact was not written by him. In fact no one really knows for certain who wrote this gospel.

"Since the beginning of the period of modern critical study, however, there has been much controversy about [the Gospel of John's] authorship, place of origin, theological affiliations and background, and historical value"

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 2, Abingdon Press, p. 932

4) Who "inspired" the author of this gospel to write this verse?:

The words of John 1:1 are acknowledged by most reputable Christian scholar of the Bible as the words of another Jew, Philo of Alexandria (20BC-50AD), who claimed no divine inspiration for them and who wrote them decades before the "gospel of John" was ever conceived. Groliers encyclopedia has the following to say under the heading "Logos"("the word"):

"Heraclitus was the earliest Greek thinker to make logos a central concept ...In the New Testament, the Gospel According to Saint John gives a central place to logos; the biblical author describes the Logos as God, the Creative Word, who took on flesh in the man Jesus Christ. Many have traced John's conception to Greek origins--perhaps through the intermediacy of eclectic texts like the writings of Philo of Alexandria."

T. W. Doane says:

"The works of Plato were extensively studied by the Church Fathers, one of whom joyfully recognizes in the great teacher, the schoolmaster who, in the fullness of time, was destined to educate the heathen for Christ, as Moses did the Jews. The celebrated passage : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word Was God" is a fragment of some Pagan treatise on the Platonic philosophy, evidently written by Irenaeus. It is quoted by Amelius, a Pagan philosopher as strictly applicable to the Logos, or Mercury, the Word, apparently as an honorable testimony borne to the Pagan deity by a barbarian...We see then that the title "Word" or "Logos," being applied to Jesus, is another piece of Pagan amalgamation with Christianity. It did not receive its authorized Christian form until the middle of the second century after Christ. The ancient pagan Romans worshipped a Trinity. An oracle is said to have declared that there was 'First God, then the Word, and with them the Spirit'. Here we see the distinctly enumerated, God, the Logos, and the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, in ancient Rome, where the most celebrated temple of this capital - that of Jupiter Capitolinus - was dedicated to three deities, which three deities were honored with joint worship."

From Bible Myths and their parallels in other religions, pp. 375-376.

6) What was "The Word"?

"O people of the book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which he bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit preceding from him so believe in Allah and his messengers. Say not "Three," desist! It will be better for you, for Allah is one God. Glory be to him. Far exalted is he above having a son. To him belong all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough is Allah as a disposer of affairs."

The noble Qur'an, Al-Nissa(4):171

In the Qur'an we are told that when God Almighty wills something he merely says to it "Be" and it is.

"Verily! Our (Allah's) Word unto a thing when We intend it, is only that We say unto it "Be!" - and it is"

The noble Qur'an, Al-Nahil(16):40 (please also read chapter 14)

This is the Islamic viewpoint of "The Word." "The Word" is literally God's utterance "Be." This is held out by the Bible where thirteen verses later in John 1:14 we read:

"And the Word was made flesh".

In the Qur'an, we read:

"The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: 'Be.' And he was."

The noble Qur'an, Aal-Umran(3):59.

Regarding what is meant by Allah by "a spirit preceding from him" I shall simply let Allah Himself explain:

"And [remember] when Allah said to the angles: 'I shall create a human (Adam) from sounding clay, from altered mud. So when I have fashioned him and have breathed into him of my spirit, then fall down in prostration before him'"

The noble Qur'an, Al-Hijr(15):29

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: John 1:1
« Reply #12 on: October 17, 2017, 04:04:58 PM »
As'salamu Alaikum dear brothers,

Jazaka Allah Khayr for the detailed analysis, dear brother Sama.  Here is my very simple Islamic perspective about the Holy Spirit and the Word:

1-  They belong to the world of Command.  Unlike our flesh and blood, dust and water bodies belong to the world of Creation.

2-  The WORD is used to create Beings, just like the HOLY SPIRIT is used to create our spirits that get blown into us while we're inside our mothers' wombs.  And of course similarly in the world of Creation, our mothers' eggs and fathers' sperms created our flesh and blood, dust and water bodies.

Angels are created from LIGHT, and JINNS CREATED FROM SMOKELESS FIRE.  These are probably different from the light and fire that we know here on earth.  We are also create from the SELF.  The human is made of:

(a)-  SELF.
(b)-  SPIRIT that turns this Self alive.
(c)-  Here on earth, they both are inside flesh and blood, dust and water.

The inhabitants of Hell will not have the SPIRIT in them.  They shall be neither alive nor dead:

[020:074]  Anyone who comes to his Lord guilty will incur Hell, wherein he never dies, nor stays alive.

[003:169] And reckon not those who are killed in Allah's way as dead; nay, they are alive (and) are provided sustenance from their Lord;

Please visit:

3-  So when John 1:14 says:

John 1
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

This is Jesus, who was made/created from the WORD, coming to earth in a flesh and blood, dust and water.  Like we are created from THE SPIRIT and the SELF, he was created from WORD, SPIRIT, SELF, and flesh and blood, dust and water.  Every SELF shall go through death:

[029:057] Every SELF (nafs) shall taste death: Afterwards shall ye return unto Us;

As to the "Son of God", it's been proven to mean Servant and Creation of GOD:

Jesus was called ABD (SLAVE) of GOD:

When you engage the polytheists:

When you engage the polytheists, don't try to get into the analysis of their corrupt texts.  The John gossip wasn't even written by John, and the Bible's theologians admit that it's been altered and corrupted:

Instead, talk to them from the Islamic perspective similar to what I explained above.  Force the analysis to be Islamic.  You'll win, insha'Allah.

I hope this helps, insha'Allah.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: John 1:1
« Reply #13 on: October 18, 2017, 01:23:55 AM »
Most of the time Trinitarians will take everything out of context and on top of that they will rely on English translations to prove their point...for example the Original Hebrew Text refutes the Targum counter argument used by's a third answer i received by the way, it's from

"Shalom Shaad,

The Hebrew word in Genesis 3:8 that you are referring to is, "kol." This does NOT mean, "word." It has several meanings, the meaning referenced in this context is, "sound." G-d created a sound because he wanted Adam and Eve to sense His approach. G-d does not actually "approach," since G-d is everywhere, but this is the experience He wanted Adam and Eve to have, and so He gave it to them.
Be very wary of translations. They are often used to sell false ideas. Everywhere and throughout history there are salesmen looking to peddle whatever they are peddling, and all too often, they do not let truth stand in their way."

This proves how translations can be dangerous sometimes...By the way, Thank you brother Sama and Osama as well...

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: John 1:1
« Reply #14 on: October 18, 2017, 06:33:51 AM »
As'salamu Alaikum dear brothers Shaad, Sama and Everyone,

I am not sure this argument about "sound" would convince Christians.  I also don't think that saying the John 1:1 quote existed before Christianity also is believable by everyone.  I think we should approach it as follows:

1-  Prove that John's book is the gossip of "John", and not the Gospel of John.  The book had been altered and written by mysterious people.

2-  Prove that Jesus, WITH ALL HIS GLORY, remains a helpless SLAVE to GOD Almighty as all of us.

3-  Explain John 1:1 from the Islamic context as I demonstrated above.

No need to beat around the bush.  The verse is worthless and so is the entire argument of trinity.  Jesus was created from the Word like Adam, peace be upon both of them.  This is why both of them were Miraculous.  One of Adam's Miracles was that he was given the knowledge to know all of the names of the Beings in the World of Command:

[002:031] And He taught Adam the names of all the things. Then, presented them before the angels and said, “Tell Me the names of all these (things) if you are right.”

Jesus also was given the BOOK that enabled him to do limited Miracles, including limited creation:

Numerical Miracle:

By the way, there is a Numerical Miracle in the Glorious Quran regarding Adam and Jesus, peace be upon them both:  (Adam and Jesus have the same occurrences in the Noble Quran)

Take care,
Osama Abdallah


What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube