November 24, 2012 at 12:18 pm #321670
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 24 2012,06:41) Wakeup? 2beesee? No comments?
Hi Mike and Wakeup,
I'm sorry, I haven't had much time on the net lately.
hopefully soon I'll catch up with all of these posts.
Perhaps tomorrow.November 24, 2012 at 5:58 pm #321718
Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 23 2012,15:07) Regarding many Gods; yes there are many,many gods,but all are dead gods invented by men by the craftiness of satan.
Angels are considered gods.
So, according to the two above statements that you yourself made, we can conclude that angels of God, like Michael and Gabriel, are “all are dead gods invented by men by the craftiness of satan”, right?
Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 23 2012,15:07) For there is no TRUE God beside God.
So then Jesus, who is also called “god” many times in scripture, is a “false god”? Perhaps Jesus is one of the “dead gods invented by men by the craftiness of satan” that you mentioned above?
Wakeup, it is easy for me to see how your mind is struggling to explain certain things that are clearly taught in the Bible – simply because you don't WANT those things to be true. See, you don't WANT Satan to be a god, like he is clearly called by Paul AND by Jehovah, so, in order to protect the Bible from itself, you'll invent phrases like “false god” and “so-called god”.
But Satan is never called a “false god” or a “so-called god” in any scripture. Jehovah called him “the god of Ekron”, and Paul called him “the god of this age” – yet no one in scripture ever called him a “false god”, or a “so-called god”. Those kinds of phrases are from men like you, who aim to protect the Bible from itself. I will believe the words of scripture over the words of men who are trying to protect the Bible from itself.
We can end this with one simple question:
Wakeup, it is scriptural that Jehovah is the God OF gods, right? Will you name one of the gods that Jehovah is the God of?November 24, 2012 at 6:17 pm #321721
Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 23 2012,14:27) Just picture your self as the person and your WILL.
Now you and your WILL are not two but one.
now you being God;you can PROJECT that total WILL of yours OUT,and make that WILL form into an other person.
Now we have TWO persons; but at the same time that other person is you;because it is your WILL.
Your WILL,(the other person) cereated all things,by the WILL of you. the other person which is your WILL, can not operate by itself,unless you want it. You WILL it.
Your WILL(the other person) is totally dependant on you.
If you dont want it to happen nothing WILL happen.
Now picture this WILL as the WORD of God.
I hope that this does clarify the matter.
Yep, now it's as clear as mud to me, Wakeup.
Let's follow your thinking through:
1. The other “god” in John 1:1 was “the will of God”.
2. It is normal to call a person's will by their own name, ie: It was Wakeup's Wakeup (his will) that he move to California.
Or, Wakeup, it is of my own free Mike that I teach you the scriptural truth about John 1:1.
3. It is completely normal to say that one's will is with them, as if it can somehow not be with them.
4. God transformed His will into another person, who was really still God.
(a. Does that mean God in heaven no longer had His own will, since it was transformed into Jesus?
b. Does it mean that God was in heaven at the same time God was on earth praying to God in heaven?
c. Does it mean that the will of God became the only begotten Son of God? )
5. God's own will, which was transformed into Jesus, said he came, not to do his own will, but the will of He who sent him.
Have I summed it up correctly, Wakeup?
How about, instead of making up this mish-mash of illogical claims, you actually address the FACTS of the matter, as laid out by the NETNote scholars?
1. Do you accept that there are THREE different ways to translate John 1:1c? YES or NO?
2. Do you accept that “a god” is one of those three possibilites? YES or NO?
3. Do you accept that it is completely abnormal to say “God was with God in the beginning”? YES or NO?November 25, 2012 at 9:58 am #321829
Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 16 2012,21:45) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 16 2012,11:16) John 1:1 NWT
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
The above is the correct translation of 1:1, and it means that Jesus was a god who was with THE God in the beginning. Jesus was made flesh and dwelled among mankind with the glory of the only begotten Son of God that he was.
Jesus was A GOD? this does not sound right.
Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and BESIDE ME THERE IS NO SAVIOUR. (there is no A god beside him)?
Isaiah 43:12 I* have declared, and have saved, and I* have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I AM GOD.
Isaiah 43:13 Yea, before the day was *I AM HE*; and there *IS NONE* that can deliver out of my hand: I* will work, and who shall let it
Isaiah 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. IS THERE A GOD BESIDE ME? yea, THERE IS NO GOD; I KNOW NOT ANY.
So where does this *A GOD fit in?*
Wakeup, that is just the typical Jehovah's Witness translation and view.November 25, 2012 at 10:48 am #321831
Quote You'll notice that there are THREE possibilites in translating John 1:1c into English:
1. THE God
2. a god
3. qualitatively god
Numbers 2 and 3 are equal, since one who is “qualitatively man” is equally “a man”. Likewise, one who is “qualitatively god” is equally “a god”.
So now we're basically down to TWO possibilities:
1. The Word was the very God he was with.
2. The Word was a god who was with THE God.
You'll notice in the Greek that John wrote, “THE word was with THE god, and THE word was god”.
He did NOT identify the Word as THE God that the Word was with.
That should be enough for now.
If we look at ourselves, there are three different 'layers' to us.
There is our 'spirit' which is the deep and free person of who we really are…. it is our emotions, our love, our joy, our sadness, it is our self
Then there is our thoughts, or our reason….
So our spirit with our thoughts make up who we are, plus or minus the flesh.
God is spirit.
But God does not have a body of flesh.
The world was made through Jesus and Jesus had glory with God before the world was made, and so it seems that God's own thoughts or reason had worked through this vessel (the word) in the past before this vessel was made flesh.
Just pondering it.November 25, 2012 at 11:13 am #321835
The word 'was God' Mike, it says the word 'was God', not 'was a God'.
Don't you feel there is something wrong with that?November 25, 2012 at 2:49 pm #321845terrariccaParticipant
- Topics started 67
- Total replies 28,224
Quote (2besee @ Nov. 25 2012,16:13) The word 'was God' Mike, it says the word 'was God', not 'was a God'.
Don't you feel there is something wrong with that?
your logic is only skin deep,many questions have been left in mikes quote,
why do you not answer themNovember 25, 2012 at 4:49 pm #321871
Quote (2besee @ Nov. 25 2012,03:48) The world was made through Jesus and Jesus had glory with God before the world was made, and so it seems that God's own thoughts or reason had worked through this vessel (the word) in the past before this vessel was made flesh.
You're almost there, 2B. Now just accept that this “vessel”, the Word, WAS already Jesus, the Son of God. Here's why:
Through [the Word] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
For through [the Son of God] all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created through him and for him.
1 Corinthians 8:6
……..and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Here you have three different scriptures telling us who God made all things through. One scripture calls him “the Word”. One calls him “the Son of God”. And one calls him “Lord Jesus Christ”. But the same thing is said about all “three” of these people: God created all things through him.
To me, this is strong evidence that the Word is the Son of God, who is our Lord Jesus Christ.November 25, 2012 at 5:57 pm #321884
Quote (2besee @ Nov. 25 2012,04:13) The word 'was God' Mike, it says the word 'was God', not 'was a God'.
Don't you feel there is something wrong with that?
This is about to be a LONG post. Please, please, please bear with me and read it. My aim is not to ridicule you or to force you into believing something just because I believe it. My aim is to give you enough information for you to make an educated decision on the matter of John 1:1.
What you may not know is that neither the Hebrew nor the Greek languages use an indefinite article. For example, we in English would say, Today we took a car for a test drive. In Greek, they say, Today we took car for test drive. (Notice the indefinite article “a” is missing in the Greek version.)
What that means is that each of the over 8000 times the indefinite article “a” is translated into English Bibles, it has to be ADDED by the translator – as he sees fit. Here is a Hebrew example:
21 When the angel of the Lord did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the Lord.
22 “We are doomed to die!” he said to his wife. “We have seen God!”
Due to the lack of the indefinite article, we in English have to “guess” if Manoah thought he'd seen God Almighty, or “a god”. And judging from verse 21, which makes it clear that Manoah KNEW it was not God Himself, but an angel of God, I'd say verse 22 deserves a translation of “a god”. But most English translations render it as “God”. Does that make “God” the absolute correct translation, since it could be translated either way?
Here is one from the Greek language:
The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.
The “a god” at the end could just as faithfully be translated as “God”. We must decide from context whether the people of Malta thought Paul was the one true God, or if he was one of many gods. Most translators assume that the people of Malta didn't know Jehovah, and so ADD the indefinite article “a” into the verse, rendering it as “a god”. But again, it could go either way, depending on what the translator believes was being taught.
So the Greek words in the verse above are really: they changed their minds and said he was god. Now in English, that sounds to us like they thought he was THE God, Jehovah. But in Greek, it could just as easily mean they thought he was “a god”.
Are you with me so far?
The same principal applies to John 1:1, but with a twist. The first mention of “God” in part b (the Word was with God) actually uses the definite article “THE”. So the Greek words leave no guess work in part b, because it is spelled out for us that the Word was with THE god.
As for part c (and the Word was god), John did NOT use the definite article “THE” in front of “god”. So that leaves it open to the translators. There is a rule called “Colwell's Rule”, which allows for us in English to ADD the definite article “THE” in certain cases. And there is the general rule that we MUST add the indefinite article “a” in many cases – so that it makes sense in English.
So now, as the info from the NETNotes scholars pointed out, we in English have the choice of ADDING the definite article “THE” before the word “god” in part c, or ADDING the indefinite article “a” before the word “god” in part c.
Either way, we in English are ADDING a word. And EITHER translation would be faithful to the Greek words that were written. There is no right answer based only on grammar. (I should mention that the NETNotes scholars aren't breaking new ground with this announcement. ANY Greek to English translator knows these rules, and even the strictest of Trinitarian scholars will admit that “a god” is one of the grammatical possibilities of John 1:1c.)
So now we have to decide BY CONTEXT whether John meant “THE god” (God), or whether he meant “a god”.
Here's what we know:
1. John specifically used the definite article “THE” in part b – saying that the Word was with THE god.
2. He did NOT use the definite article in part c…………….. why not? (After all, he used it both times for the Word, calling him “THE logos” both times. So why are there two mentions of “theos”, but only one of them is called “THE theos” by John?)
3. It is an asinine notion that THE God can be with THE God. Even the TRINITARIAN scholars from NETNotes point this out by saying, “The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”)”
4. We also know that Jesus WAS called a god many times in scripture, but that he is not the Most High God that he is the Son of. (Mark 5:7, Luke 1:32)
5. We know that the Word later became flesh, dwelled on earth, and died at the hands of human beings. (Did God Almighty do these things – or did He send His Son to do these things?)
6. We know that God created all things THROUGH this Word. (Did God create all things through Himself?)
7. We know that this “Word” in John 1 is most likely “the Word of God” from Rev 19:13. (Does it seem likely that God Almighty would be called “the Word OF God Almighty”?)
I could go on and on, 2B, but I believe this is enough information for now – and that it should be enough information for you to make an informed decision about John 1:1.
To sum up, don't just assume that because the vast majority of English translations say “and the Word was God”, that it's the truth of the matter. (See Judges 13:22 above) I could list MANY English translations (not just the NWT) that DON'T have “God” in 1:1c. Remember that the majority of these “God” translations are made by men who are trying desperately to FORCE the scriptures into teaching that Jesus IS the very God he is the Son of. And in their zeal to do this, they don't even seem to mind that they've come up with a translation that has the Word OF God being the very God he was WITH in the beginning. If even the 25 TRINITARIAN scholars from NETNotes can clearly see the flaw in this reasoning, then we should be able to easily see it too.
mikeNovember 25, 2012 at 6:17 pm #321887LightenupParticipant
- Topics started 62
- Total replies 9,896
Was the 'word' in John 1c THE only begotten God?November 25, 2012 at 7:16 pm #321894RichtunerMember
- Topics started 3
- Total replies 133
I find it difficult to see the same old problem with John 1 and 1John 5:7.
Even the later is in Italics people get all off the reservation about it.
Does everyone here believe that God cannot control His own Words, even down to our generation?
Did God not know how His Word would turn out in being translated into English?
These two complement and agree with each other, (NO I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE TRINITY)
Take this for an example, God created all thing by saying, by His Word, God spoke and it was so, God said let there be and it was etc.
Can God lie? Why? Can He speak a lie or anything that is not truth? Why?
God calls those thing that be not as though they were, meaning if God says that grass is blue, you need to look out the window because it will be blue and not green. He can not lie.
Now look at this,
Joh_8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Notice that when he speaks a lie it is of his own and the father of it. If no truth is in him, he cannot tell the truth. If he does it is surrounded with lies.
How about God? Can he speak a lie? Then if He can only speak truth, He speaks of His own and is the father of truth.
Why is it so hard to believe that God's Word is God Himself?
In the beginning, “God” period! His presents was all that was in the beginning.November 25, 2012 at 7:41 pm #321897
Quote (Richtuner @ Nov. 25 2012,12:16) Does everyone here believe that God cannot control His own Words, even down to our generation?
………..and the Word was God.
……….and the Word was a god.
The Emphatic Diaglott
……..and a god was the Word.
……the Logos was divine.
The American Translation
………..the Word was divine.
In which of the above translations do you suppose God was “controlling His own words”?November 25, 2012 at 7:46 pm #321899
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 25 2012,11:17) Mike,
Was the 'word' in John 1c THE only begotten God?
Yep. And Satan was THE God of Ekron.
Kathi, why would you attempt to muddy up these important grammatical FACTS I'm trying to show 2besee, when you and I both agree that John 1:1 speaks of TWO gods, one of whom was with the other in the beginning?November 25, 2012 at 7:52 pm #321902terrariccaParticipant
- Topics started 67
- Total replies 28,224
Quote Take this for an example, God created all thing by saying, by His Word, God spoke and it was so, God said let there be and it was etc.
you mean God was talking to himself when he said that rightNovember 25, 2012 at 9:01 pm #321913
Mike, I haven't read your above posts yet but i have been thinking.
To say that in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was A God does Not. Seem. Right.
In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God seems right.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth… “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.”
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.”
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.