“Well, who created God, then?” Many an atheist has lobbed this one, supposing it to be a devastating objection in question form.
In reply, Christian philosopher Paul Copan knocks this one out of the park.
Well played, sir. I would add a few points:
One of the perfections a perfect being is supposed to have is aseity – existing but not because of anything else. God by definition has this. The physical cosmos, it seems, could not. It seems that no physical object could exist independently of anything else (a se – Latin for “through itself”). Any physical object owes its existence to some cause or causes, and will go out of existence if conditions cease to be favorable.
So there is nothing arbitrary in the believer in God demanding to know what caused the physical cosmos to come into existence, while not demanding to know what caused God to exist. Given the sort of being God is supposed to be (perfect, so a se) it is a contradiction to suppose that God is caused to exist. (X caused an essentially uncausable being to exist.) The question/demand/objection I started this post with is based on ignorance of what sophisticated monotheism is. It’s too bad that some well known recent atheist writers have propagated this mistake.
There is trouble here, by the way, for some Trinity theories (hint: eternal generation). See here if you’re interested.
John – the link was given by Victor in Comment 8. It is a valuable tool for a quick look at the grammatical structure of the words in a particular verse.
But if you want an exhaustive treatment of a word in all its uses, you need a proper lexicon. I think from what you say in another thread you have already found one.
The reply from the Greek linguist is clear, and thank you for it. Translating en as “by” means that you are giving it the meaning it would have if the case were ablative (genitive in modern Greek). He says that is an error, and I think we can all agree.
Marg and Victor
Hi Marg.
I’d appreciate the link to the Lexicon you mention. I live in a country where there are no substantial/functioning public libraries and have great diffculty in accessing information – except via Internet!
Thanks
Victor
I have had a reply to the issue of John 14v10 from an Eastern Orthodox source. It reads-
” The passage in John 14v10 and the argument about the translation of the Greek perposition “ev”
or in English “in” (as has been translated down the ages) is only one aspect of the continuing discussion .
The preposition “ev” is dative , which is clearly distinguishable from the rather conjectural ablative translation of “by”. Indeed , it is an error to translate it into the ablative.
The normal translation of “ev” is “in, at within” . “Ev” can also mean “one”.
The comments in the official Greek Bible read ” While human being are made in God’s image, the incarnate Son is an exact image of the Father (Col 1v15) . He DID NOT say I am the Father , for HE IS NOT. Instead he declared “I am in the Father and the Father in me”
This means that He and the Father are one in essence or substance (omoousin). See John 10v30
John 3v31&32 John 6vv60-69, John 8v58 ” ” QUOTE ENDS
MY OWN THOUGHTS
(i) I don’t have time to delve into the difference between ‘image’ and ‘exact image’ at this stage -but will do so in future. You might like to consider the difference betweem the Hebrew words ” tselem” , “dumuth” and the Greek words “elkon” and “homousin” ?
(ii) Colossians 2v9 reads “for in him dwells the fullness of the Deity bodily”.
Ephesians 3v19 states that this also applies to believers “that ye might be filled with the fullness of
God ”
(iii) 2 Timothy 1v14 talks about “the Spirit that dwells within us”-but this again mirrors another scripture which in the NASB states ” Guard, through the Holy spirit who dwells in us”
Best Wishes
John
I have to thank you for that link, Victor. Here is a free lexicon, and I don’t even have to look up each word separately in a book. Just get the verse, and all the details are given.
It isn’t a commentary, of course. It’s a lexicon. So ALL the possible meanings, as well as the grammatical details, are given for each word, every time it appears. That leaves you to figure out how the information fits into the context of the verse. It’s wonderful.
So I looked up John 14:5. Perfect. Take a look.
By the way, John, I was not familiar with the ablative case, so I looked it up. I learned that
So there is no ablative case in Greek now. The genitive case has replaced it.
Victor – according to the books I have, en is ALWAYS followed by the dative case. So your “en + dative” is good shorthand.
However, the link you supplied gives the meaning as “in, at, (up-)on, by, etc.” In other words, it can have many different meanings, depending on the context.
And “by” does not usually mean “because of”.
So I am very interested in seeing what the liguistic expert has to say. But at first glance, I have to agree that your modified translation sounds forced.
Hi Victor
I see where you get your interpretation.
I am not an expert in linguistics and took the matter to a local Orthodox cleric.
He commented-
(i) Your translation looks ‘forced’
(ii) Your translation does not appear in any Greek Bible in print.
He has submitted your thoughts to his Archbishops linguistic expert.
I hope the latter will revert within a week!
I’ll keep you informed!
Best Wishes
John
@john: These are really in dative: http://lexicon.scripturetext.com/john/14-10.htm
Victor
O.K. but where do you see the dative case.
Regards
John
@john: I’ve read an ancient Greek studybook. It says “en+Dative” may mean “by”.
Victor
I have looked at various sources and find NO reference to ‘en’ being interpreted as ‘by’
See Strongs Greek Concordance reference 1520.
Best Wishes
John
Victor
I think a bit of common sense is required.!
Trinitarians often perform the most aweful gymnastics to ‘shoe horn’ words to justify their doctrine.
What a pity!
Regards
John
@john: I get my modified translation looking into Greek. “In” may also mean “by”.
Victor
Why do people insist in seeing what they want to see?
Where did you get this ‘modified translation?
May I suggest that you consult the Greek scriptures.
A better translation is ” I am in the Father and the Father in me……. but the Father abiding in Me does his works”- but this still does not tell the whole story…….
The Greek word used for ‘in’ in all cases is ‘en’ .
The same word is used to denote ‘oneness’ or ‘having a common purpose’ elsewhere in the Bible.
Consider
“I and the Father are one” (en) John 10 verse 30
“The one who plants and the one who waters have a common purpose” (en”) 1 Corinthians 3 v8
” …united in faith with a single purpose'(en) Philippians 2 v2.
I must say I was startled on first reading your post – I wondered if had missed something!
I say this because there is NOT ONE trinitarian proof-verse and I wondered how I had missed something!
Best wishes
John
Most of us agree that the Son exists because of the Father. But also the Father exists because of the Son: (Jn. 14:10) “… I (exist) by the Father and the Father exists by me …” (a modified translation).
The cause of existence of the Son is the Father. And a cause of existence of the Father is the Son. This is circular. This can be circular because both the Father and the Son are infinite. If one would be finite there could be no loop, because a finite thing cannot be a part of itself. For infinite things we may assume that a thing can be like a part of itself.
Comments are closed.