Talk:John 1

Non-Neutrality
The begining of this article under Analysis it mentions that "Jesus is God" about John 1:1 in the following statement: "The first part (v. 1-18) is an introduction to the Gospel as a whole, explaining that Jesus is God and acts as the mouthpiece (Word) of God "made flesh"" however different religions have different views on the trinity and John 1:1 for example the Jehovah's Witnesses believe in a single almighty God whereas Catholics believe in a trinitarian God so I think this article should either change or it should be noted in spirit of Wikipedia's neutrality. --James Kelly 23:30, 08 May 2006 (EST)

Individule Chapters
Are entries on individual chapters of a book encyclopedic?--Peter Kirby 02:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure, if all the articles of individual episodes of tv shows like star trek or south park are encyclopedic on here, chapter by chapter of the bible is surely worthy of wikipedia.

POV/Translation Issue
I'm not sure at all an article like this really belongs on Wikipedia, but if it is going to stay around any length of time, it needs to change. There are quite a number of respected Bible translations that do not convey the thought in 1:1 that the "Word was God", but instead that the Word was "divine", "godlike", "a god" etc. This will be a problem if the article remains. I assume any similar article will likely have issues much the same. --Oscillate 21:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Philo on Logos
A Greek Speaking Church father, Philo, "describes the Logos as the revealer of God symbolized in the Scripture (Gen. 31:13; 16:8; etc) by an angel of the Lord (Somn. 1.228-239; Cher. 1-3). The Logos is the first-born and the eldest and chief of the angels." Chokma (angel of Wisdom).128.227.198.52 (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Robert Roberg

Son of Humanity
Are there any recognised translations of John's Gospel which use the title "Son of Humanity" in their translation of John 1:51? I've not found any examples, e.g. in the BibleGateway and BibleHub collections. I've only found one article which uses these words as a "different" translation, but Angela N. Parker, the article's author, does not cite this translation as being used anywhere. My suggestion would be not to include this term in the article unless it can be found in appropriate versions of the text. BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Use of the King James Version
Apologies if this issue has already been addressed, but this articles primarily sights the King James version, I'd like to note that this is probably not the best version to use, as the style of English used in this translation is not always particularly easy to understand, in addition to there also being a number of straight forward translation errors within the King James Version. I would suggest changing the translation used in this article to something more frequently sighted in academia such as the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). Barabbus04 (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "the style of English used in this translation is not always particularly easy to understand" The style of English in that translation is Early Modern English and its "grammar, lexicon and phonology" are not so different than currently used Standard English. The main article on the version has an entire section on its mistranslations, but they are apparenty more evident in the Old Testament section, due to the translators' poor understanding of the Hebrew language. They apparently had a much easier task in translating the New Testament from Greek. Dimadick (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)