The war in heaven

[theplains]

On 8/11/2025 at 12:20 PM, CV75 said:

I carry two perspectives in this world: 1) He is the only God I have ever known. 2) I am one of numberless souls He has ever known, and whose lives He has personally and perfectly experienced from start (fallen mortality) to finish (exalted gods). In this way, He has simultaneously always been and became God. This "simultaniety" is a function of atonement and applied agency, and is therefore viewed from the observer's frame of reference (referred to as "reckoning" in the Book of Abraham). I can only view things from my mortal perspective except when my understanding is spiritually "quickened" by God.

I don't see that simultaneous aspect in Joseph Smith's teaching.

"In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss
of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He
came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed
that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may
see" (History of the Church, volume 6; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1938).
https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf).

Edited August 26, 2025 by theplains

[CV75]

15 hours ago, theplains said:

I don't see that simultaneous aspect in Joseph Smith's teaching.

"In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss
of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He
came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed
that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may
see" (History of the Church, volume 6; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1938).
https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf).

I see it: to imagine and suppose that God was God from all eternity is only half the equation (and this is what Joseph Smith is about to expand upon -- according to this document, anyway); how He came to be God from all eternity is the other half. I do that that by synthesizing all that I have been able to figure from my study and experience.

[theplains]

On 8/27/2025 at 10:21 AM, CV75 said:

I see it: to imagine and suppose that God was God from all eternity is only half the equation (and this is what Joseph Smith is about to expand upon -- according to this document, anyway); how He came to be God from all eternity is the other half. I do that that by synthesizing all that I have been able to figure from my study and experience.

How did he come to be God?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

How did he come to be God?

My personal opinion and current working model is as follows: That depends on your (generic "you") perspective -- some of us have multiple perspectives depending on our vantage point. One way to integrate these perspectives is to first accept that He became God when you learned of Him, recognized and worshipped Him as such. The rest is a matter of when you think you first learned of Him, and what you have learned of Him. "Learned of" means both "learned about" and "taught by."

Since we are children of God, it makes sense to me that our journey reflects God's in aspect. I take the scripture, "Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth..." to mean that we both had beginnings, shared and experienced a beginning point as an intersection of our existence in different ways. We are likewise in the end (His purpose) and continuation (His eternal round) with the Father: beginning, continuation and end and continuation, beginning so forth.

I don't think any of this impacts my relationship with Christ in any way. I hope the time spent discussing it contributes to it in a positive way, though.

Edited September 3, 2025 by CV75

[theplains]

On 9/3/2025 at 10:55 AM, CV75 said:

One way to integrate these perspectives is to first accept that He became God when you learned of Him, recognized and worshipped Him as such.

Did Heavenly Father become God when he, born of his heavenly parents (Jesus' grandparents),
grew up in the spirit world to a point where he could perform those functions?

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Did Heavenly Father become God when he, born of his heavenly parents (Jesus' grandparents),
grew up in the spirit world to a point where he could perform those functions?

As a consequence of the fact that Jesus Christ (God) was born as a helpless baby on earth, and afterward grew to maturity — all the while learning obedience by the things which he suffered — he was finally required to prove his courage, humility, faith and loyalty to his Father by overcoming his own immense fears and his own extreme reluctance to partake of bitter cup of the atoning sacrifice. As a consequence, I don’t find it at all surprising that God the Father himself was also required to prove himself worthy of the right to rulership at another time and place in eternity, in the same way Jesus had to prove himself worthy. After all, the life and acts of Jesus Christ prove that God can be required to face unimaginably difficult tests of faith and devotion. And as the saying goes, if it can be proven beyond doubt that something actually happened at least once before, it shouldn’t be at all surprising if the same thing happens again.

Jesus Christ wasn’t automatically born worthy to have the right to sit down on the right hand of God, but was required to prove himself worthy to obtain that supreme honor. To deny the truth of these incontrovertible facts is to assert that Jesus was an impeccable automaton without free will, rendering the atoning sacrifice akin to a virtual reality computer program. In fact, by his own testimony Jesus Christ revealed that way he drew inspiration and resolve to face his own great personal challenges and tests of faith was through the realization that he was only being asked to do what the Father himself had succeeded in doing before him.

One of the things I love about the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is that God the Father is, in reality, a great conquering hero, a being endowed with free will who faced head on the worse that the forces of spiritual darkness and evil could throw at him, but against seemingly impossible odds came off infinitely and eternally triumphant!

Your God is good because he has no choice no choice but to be what he is. Meanwhile, the God of the Latter-Day Saints, both the Father and the Son, proved themselves worthy by voluntarily taking upon themselves very real weaknesses that required them to muster great faith and courage, thereby proving themselves to be truly worthy of all honor, adoration and glory. And again, this comes as no surprise to we Latter-Day Saints because why would God the Father require such great sacrifices and tests of devotion of his Son if he never had to to face and triumph over the same kinds of great tests himself? It’s never been a strong and admirable position to occupy when someone requires another to do difficult things that the issuer of the commandment isn’t fully willing and able to face and triumph over himself…

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (John 5)

 

Edited September 5, 2025 by teddyaware

[CV75]

6 hours ago, theplains said:

Did Heavenly Father become God when he, born of his heavenly parents (Jesus' grandparents),
grew up in the spirit world to a point where he could perform those functions?

When you learned of Him, recognized Him and worshiped Him one way He became God?

[Pyreaux]

On 8/26/2025 at 5:23 PM, theplains said:

I don't see that simultaneous aspect in Joseph Smith's teaching.

"In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss
of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He
came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed
that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may
see" (History of the Church, volume 6; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1938).
https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf).

On 9/5/2025 at 8:40 AM, theplains said:

Did Heavenly Father become God when he, born of his heavenly parents (Jesus' grandparents),
grew up in the spirit world to a point where he could perform those functions?

Sir, Joseph is just saying God once experienced a progression in some sense. But Joseph never nails that down as "a spirit birth of heavenly parents" nor "a mortal birth with parents", which is often an overextension by later interpreters. He just insists God was once in a state analogous to humanity. Because the Joseph Smith Papers also has a version that portrays Joseph Smith saying, "the same as Jesus Christ himself did..."

If you've noticed, many modern Latter-day Saint thinkers use the "same as Jesus" phrase to counter the idea that the sermon dictates God's embodiment or earthly sojourn was "exactly" like our situation. Because Jesus both was and wasn't like us. The sermon explicitly states that God is an "exalted man".

Now, Jesus was God before birth, and is also "a man” in form, body, and likeness, yet not merely mortal and not defined by a fallen beginning. Joseph’s words leave room for both truths: Jesus was a God who was a man, in a sense still is a man, who became exalted, thus in our terminology, became a god. Embodiment being a vital characteristic in Joseph's definition of human exaltation into "godhood". Now that may not be what a "god" is you, but to Joseph there is a distinction, for instance, Jesus is a member of the Godhead, and so is already God, even in His premortal state.

So, what does "a God", therefore "becoming God", even mean to you? For instance: If you say the Bible dictates God's defining characteristic as not His exalted body but rather perhaps God is defined by being "the Creator" and thus God, then he became God when he first created something. Right? The Biblical God progressed to his present form of God in Genesis. Same for other like-definitions, like Father of Spirits, being Heavenly, being Sovereign over all, or the object of worship, would then mean he only became God when those things first happened. 

If you are still hung up on the Psalmic God being God "from everlasting to everlasting", again olam doesn't mean "infinite", "olam" = "long duration, indefinite time, hidden time," not necessarily without beginning or end.

Exodus 21:6 speaks of a slave serving his master "le-ʿolam" - obviously not forever without end, but for life.

Jonah 2:6: “The earth with her bars was about me forever (le-ʿolam)" - meaning it felt unending, not infinite.

The Bible itself doesn’t use "eternity" in the pagan Greek philosophical sense some are using it. That’s a later import.  This would mean they are reading that doctrine of a "God" back into Scripture, not directly out of it.

If you define "God" as that which never changes (Malachi 3:6), Scripture complicates that to:

Jesus is the unchanging God, the I Am.

Incarnation: "The Word became flesh" (John 1:14).

Progressed: "Jesus increased in wisdom" (Luke 2:52).

Exalted: "God highly exalted him and gave him a name above every name" (Phil. 2:9).

Perfection through suffering: "He was made perfect through sufferings" (Heb. 2:10).

So biblically, Jesus (who is God) experienced real changes, progression, and "becoming."

On the other hand, He was always divine, yes, but only in the flesh was He "the express image of [the Father’s] person" (Heb. 1:3). The "I AM" "from eternity" is not static, not even with how He is known (Exodus 6:3 - "By my name YHWH I was not known to them"). If you say "that was only His human nature," then you're splitting Jesus in a way Scripture doesn’t ("the Word was made flesh," not “the Word just wore flesh like clothes"). In other words, the Bible itself testifies to divine progression in the person of Jesus Christ. Whom Joseph suggested God's embodiment was like Jesus.

1. The god One Becomes (Exaltation)

This LDS form of godhood refers to the eternal potential in humanity. For instance, according to D&C 132 and other revelations, faithful Latter-day Saints who enter into and keep the "new and everlasting covenant" of eternal marriage can receive a fullness of the Father's glory.

This isn't about becoming a new "God" to be worshipped, but rather becoming like God the Father. This state is called exaltation or eternal life.

What it means: It means inheriting all that God has; glory, power, dominion, and the ability to have eternal increase. D&C 132:20 states that those who receive this blessing "shall be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them."

This is conditional. It's tied to receiving temple covenants, a gift of grace from Jesus Christ, not something earned through human effort alone.

2. The God That Already Exists

The divine beings who make up the Godhead: God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. This is the "God" that is worshipped. A God who existed in the premortal life. Jesus was a spirit, the "Firstborn" of the Father's children. He was Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Creator of this world under the Father's direction. He is not a god that "became" a god in the same way the D&C describes; rather, he has always possessed a divine nature and was appointed as the Savior and Redeemer from the beginning. He has now become a resurrected, glorified being, the "express image" of the Father's person. The concept of "God" in LDS terminology can thus refer to both the members of the Godhead and to exalted beings who have achieved a similar state of glory and power. For the Father has a body of flesh and bone, that Joseph doesn't "suppose" He always possessed that body.

Does your overemphasis on the unreviewed-for-correctness King Follett Sermon as the ultimate word on the subject make it easier for you to delegitimize thoughtful scriptural-based interpretations from LDS thinkers who can ground their doctrine in the scriptures, like the Bible, not folk doctrines of the early LDS church?

Edited September 7, 2025 by Pyreaux

[theplains]

On 9/5/2025 at 3:51 PM, CV75 said:

When you learned of Him, recognized Him and worshiped Him one way He became God?

He was already God before I worshipped him.

[theplains]

On 9/6/2025 at 7:19 AM, Pyreaux said:

So, what does "a God", therefore "becoming God", even mean to you?

God has always been God. A being does not become God.
 

On 9/6/2025 at 7:19 AM, Pyreaux said:

1. The god One Becomes (Exaltation)

This LDS form of godhood refers to the eternal potential in humanity. For instance, according to D&C 132 and other revelations, faithful Latter-day Saints who enter into and keep the "new and everlasting covenant" of eternal marriage can receive a fullness of the Father's glory.

This isn't about becoming a new "God" to be worshipped, but rather becoming like God the Father. This state is called exaltation or eternal life.

What it means: It means inheriting all that God has; glory, power, dominion, and the ability to have eternal increase. D&C 132:20 states that those who receive this blessing "shall be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them."

This is conditional. It's tied to receiving temple covenants, a gift of grace from Jesus Christ, not something earned through human effort alone.

When future faithful LDS males (who believe they will become Gods and have spirit children), whom
will these future spirit children worship?  Them or their Grandfather God?
 

On 9/6/2025 at 7:19 AM, Pyreaux said:

2. The God That Already Exists

The divine beings who make up the Godhead: God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. This is the "God" that is worshipped. A God who existed in the premortal life. Jesus was a spirit, the "Firstborn" of the Father's children. He was Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Creator of this world under the Father's direction. He is not a god that "became" a god in the same way the D&C describes; rather, he has always possessed a divine nature and was appointed as the Savior and Redeemer from the beginning. He has now become a resurrected, glorified being, the "express image" of the Father's person. The concept of "God" in LDS terminology can thus refer to both the members of the Godhead and to exalted beings who have achieved a similar state of glory and power. For the Father has a body of flesh and bone, that Joseph doesn't "suppose" He always possessed that body.

Does your overemphasis on the unreviewed-for-correctness King Follett Sermon as the ultimate word on the subject make it easier for you to delegitimize thoughtful scriptural-based interpretations from LDS thinkers who can ground their doctrine in the scriptures, like the Bible, not folk doctrines of the early LDS church?

I think LDS have jumped through hoops to reinterpret what Joseph Smith really meant to say
of this discourse.

"In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss 
of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He 
came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed 
that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see".

[CV75]

45 minutes ago, theplains said:

He was already God before I worshipped him.

Same here. When did you begin to worship Him?

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

God has always been God. A being does not become God.
 

When future faithful LDS males (who believe they will become Gods and have spirit children), whom
will these future spirit children worship?  Them or their Grandfather God?
 

I think LDS have jumped through hoops to reinterpret what Joseph Smith really meant to say
of this discourse.

"In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss 
of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He 
came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed 
that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see".

Travis Anderson from the "Missionary Discussions" YouTube channel has discussed this. You should take the time to find it and check it out (that is if you are truly sincere in coming to a correct understanding).

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

I think LDS have jumped through hoops to reinterpret what Joseph Smith really meant to say
of this discourse.

Reinterpret?  Or is it that all the access we have now to all the original sources helps us put it in better context and evaluate what he was teaching?

[Pyreaux]

On 9/12/2025 at 3:07 PM, theplains said:

God has always been God. A being does not become God.
 

When future faithful LDS males (who believe they will become Gods and have spirit children), whom
will these future spirit children worship?  Them or their Grandfather God?
 

I think LDS have jumped through hoops to reinterpret what Joseph Smith really meant to say
of this discourse.

"In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss 
of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He 
came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed 
that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see".

Then your definition is a modern invention. The word "eternity" in the modern sense of having "always been" is often imported into the Bible from later pagan Greek philosophical traditions, not directly from the original Hebrew. The Hebrew word olam is the root of many Protestant interpretations. Olam (עוֹלָם) is better understood as "long duration," "age," or "indefinite time."

Therefore, biblical phrases like "from olam to olam" (Psalm 90:2) signify an enduring, continuous existence that extends beyond human memory, but not necessarily a being without a beginning or prior state. You're reading a foreign Greek definition of God into the text. A Semitic understanding to Psalm 90:2 ("Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from olam to olam you are God"), is not a metaphysical statement about YHWH's atemporal existence outside of time, but a powerful declaration of his enduring reign. A king's power is demonstrated by his ability to maintain his reign. Psalm 90:2 is a majestic statement about YHWH's enduring kingship. 

Furthermore, the Bible itself contains concepts that can be interpreted as there being "gods" that have "become".

Psalm 82:6: "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." This verse, cited by Jesus in John 10:34, suggests that other beings, identified as "gods," were "born" as children of the Most High. This introduces the idea of a hierarchy of divine beings who are not the one God, but are still called "gods" who "became" the "sons of God".

The Bible is explicit that the Christians are adopted as the new sons of God, fated to become everything Christ is. The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions have a concept of theosis or deification, which is surprisingly close to the LDS idea of human potential. Theosis is the belief that humans can become like God or "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). This shows that the concept of divine progression is not a unique LDS invention but has historical roots in Christianity that predate Protestantism by millennia. This suggests that your argument against "becoming god" is an isolated Protestant interpretation, not a universal Christian one.

If Jesus is God, he experienced real change and "becoming." His was explicitly transformed and exalted. Then promised us the same, to sit on the throne of God. This challenges the notion that gods are inherently static, never changes, or "always been".

Therefore, the assertion that "God has always been God" is not a universally accepted biblical truth but a specific theological interpretation. It relies on a specific reading of biblical words and a selective focus on certain verses while overlooking others that suggest divine progression and a plurality of "gods."

Secondly, LDS theology agrees that God the Father has always been God in the sense that he is an eternal, divine being who presided over all things. The King Follett sermon's teaching that "God himself was once as we are now" is not interpreted to mean that God the Father was ever a mortal human of a fallen world. Instead, it refers to a stage of his eternal progression, not that that he wasn't God, only He became the embodied being He that has come to define what God is to Joseph. As Joseph is portrayed as saying, it was similar to the process that Jesus Christ experienced. If that is the cases, then He was always God, but not always in his current state of being, that is what Joseph defines as a god, via an exalted body.

Thirdly, in LDS theology, the worship of future exalted beings is not a tenet. The central point of worship is always God the Eternal Father, in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and through the power of the Holy Ghost. Future exalted individuals, or "gods," will not be worshipped by their spirit children or any others. We were never told otherwise. They will become like God in attributes, power, and glory, but they will not supplant God the Father as the object of worship. This is analogous to how Jesus Christ, who is also a God, directs all worship back to the Father.

The interpretation of Joseph Smith's discourse is still a subject of ongoing discussion. The quote you provided does challenge the traditional idea of the Greek static God who existed unchanged, but not the Christian God that did change into a man. However not every word the prophet speaks is considered a revelation or a formal statement of doctrine. The King Follett sermon was given at a specific time and place (the funeral of King Follett) and recorded second hand in by four people in four parts. It was not a formal, written proclamation or canonized scripture. It was a sermon not submitted to the general membership of the Church, nor was it published as an official declaration signed by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, which prevents a single leader from unilaterally changing core beliefs. The sermon, no matter how powerful, or revolutionary, did not undergo this process.

Hence, Gordon B. Hinckley's Statement in 1997, "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it."

LDS members "jump through hoops" to reinterpret Joseph Smith can also be called the act of discerning the inspired from the personal. Joseph gave impromptu sermons, but he also instituted a process of canonization and the principle of unanimous consent are designed to ensure that the core, saving doctrines are clear and consistent, while allowing for personal and historical contexts of individual teachings.

Edited September 14, 2025 by Pyreaux

[theplains]

On 9/12/2025 at 4:45 PM, CV75 said:

Same here. When did you begin to worship Him?

Maybe around 27.

[theplains]

On 9/12/2025 at 5:23 PM, InCognitus said:

Reinterpret?  Or is it that all the access we have now to all the original sources helps us put it in better context and evaluate what he was teaching?

Do the Joseph Smith Papers indicate something different?

[CV75]

1 minute ago, theplains said:

Maybe around 27.

So in a way that is when and how He became God to you.

[theplains]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So in a way that is when and how He became God to you.

By your logic, an apple only becomes an apple when I believe its an apple.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

By your logic, an apple only becomes an apple when I believe its an apple.

No, the logic is an apple only becomes food when someone eats it or maybe when someone wants to eat it

God is not God’s personal name with this logic, but a title for his role as our God, a role which only begins when we are present in some way.  Similar to my kids calling me Mom.  Me being called Mother didn’t make sense until I became a mother.

Edited September 15, 2025 by Calm

[CV75]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

By your logic, an apple only becomes an apple when I believe its an apple.

More accurately, in a way it becomes an apple when you become aware of it and call it such. If you worshipped it, it would also become God to you.

Edited September 15, 2025 by CV75

[webbles]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

Do the Joseph Smith Papers indicate something different?

The Joseph Smith Papers don't go into theology.  They also don't compare the differences between the 6 versions of the King Follet discourse nor do they try and create a harmony of the 6 versions.  They do explain that 3 of the versions were written down while Joseph spoke and the other 3 were probably written based on notes taken during the discourse.

See the historical introduction at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-thomas-bullock/1#historical-intro

[InCognitus]

On 9/15/2025 at 12:02 PM, theplains said:

Do the Joseph Smith Papers indicate something different?

The Joseph Smith Papers give us the original sources, so we can compare them and see which ones agree or differ from the others in some way, and we are not limited to one person's interpretive compilation of the original source or sources, as they were published in the Times and Seasons, Church History, or Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

I explained in great detail the difference between the King Follet Sermon sources and the Sermon in the Grove source in my post to you on May 26.  A lot of people have relied on those published compilations through the years, but a lot can be gained from studying the original notes and the realization that the published version of the Sermon in the Grove relies primarily on the account of only one person (Thomas Bullock), and he didn't always get everything right.

[Clear]

On 6/29/2025 at 7:43 AM, The Nehor said:

I don't think the ratios is 1/3 to 2/3.  It says "a third part".  So, you just need 3 parts of various sizes.  Say you have 100 people.  10 of those people like vanilla, 50 like chocolate, and 40 like strawberry ice cream.  The "third part" could refer to either of those parts.

Nehor responded (6-29) "No, the Greek makes it fractional. It might be symbolic but a strict reading means the three parts were roughly or exactly the same size."

 

Actually Nehor is perfectly correct.  The greek in Revelation is "το τριτο" (a neuter, articulated noun) which means "a third part".    To say "one third" (33%), one uses "ενα τριτον".  τριτοσ can represent a third part of any number (e.g. the third thing in a list of 100 things).

[Clear]

 On 6/29/2025 at 7:43 AM, The Weebles said:

I don't think the ratios is 1/3 to 2/3.  It says "a third part".  So, you just need 3 parts of various sizes.  Say you have 100 people.  10 of those people like vanilla, 50 like chocolate, and 40 like strawberry ice cream.  The "third part" could refer to either of those parts.

MY LAST POST IS INCORRECT and I cannot tell how to edit it.

 

Nehor responded (6-29) "No, the Greek makes it fractional. It might be symbolic but a strict reading means the three parts were roughly or exactly the same size."

 

Actually WEEBLES is perfectly correct.  The greek in Revelation is "το τριτο" (a neuter, articulated noun) which means "a third part".    To say "one third" (33%), one uses "ενα τριτον".  τριτοσ can represent a third part of any number (e.g. the third thing in a list of 100 things).

[InCognitus]

3 minutes ago, Clear said:

I cannot tell how to edit it.

As a new member, you can't edit your posts until you reach 25 posts.