And God called their name adam

[mikeboll64]

From the Biblos.com Apostolic Interlinear:
27   2443
27   CONJ
27   ἵνα
27   ina
27   so that
3936
V-AAS-3S
παραστήσῃ
parastēsē
he might present
846
P-NSM
αὐτὸς
autos
it
1438
F-3DSM
ἑαυτῷ
eautō
to himself

Various translations:
KJV:  That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

GWT:  Then he could present it to himself as a glorious church, without any kind of stain or wrinkle-holy and without faults.

BBE:  And might take it for himself, a church full of glory, not having one mark or fold or any such thing; but that it might be holy and complete.

DRB:  That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish.

WBS:  That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

YLT:  that he might present it to himself the assembly in glory, not having spot or wrinkle, or any of such things, but that it may be holy and unblemished;

That's sure a lot of “ITS” from a lot of scholars who, according to you, are all mistaken.

mike

[Lightenup]

Mike,
Verbs would agree with the subject as to both being third person and singular and gender if a pronoun isn't added but one is supplied for readability. The verb 'would be' refers to the church which is feminine and the feminine pronoun for third person singular is 'she.'

Eph 5:27
that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.

This is the correct translation. There shouldn't be an 'it' in the sentence when referring to Christ or the church here because Christ is in the masculine and the Church is in the feminine…also the church is spoken about as the 'bride' in the context.

Kathi

[mikeboll64]

I don't know, Kathi. There sure are a lot of scholars, including Young, who have that “IT” in their translations.

And I STILL don't see where you are finding the “HER” in your translation.

“present to Himself the church in all her glory”

Where are you seeing this “her” in the Greek words?

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2011,14:50)

Mike, Verbs would agree with the subject as to both being third person and singular and gender if a pronoun isn't added but one is supplied for readability.  The verb 'would be' refers to the church which is feminine and the feminine pronoun for third person singular is 'she.' Eph 5:27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. This is the correct translation.  There shouldn't be an 'it' in the sentence when referring to Christ or the church here because Christ is in the masculine and the Church is in the feminine…also the church is spoken about as the 'bride' in the context. Kathi

Kathi,

In the oldest and more reliable manuscripts the first clause has a masculine pronoun which refers to Christ and a feminine article which refers to the church. In all manuscripts the second clause has a feminine article which functions as a pronoun and it refers to the church.

“…so that HE might present THE (feminine) church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that SHE might be holy and without blemish. ESV

The “SHE” in the second clause is the feminine article which functions as a pronoun.  ALL the manuscripts have the feminine article (Received, NU, Critical). So you are correct that “it” is wrong. The church is NOT called an “it” anywhere in the text.

The church is called “THE church” with a feminine article and then “SHE” (feminine article again which functions as a pronoun).

Why some translators say “it” to refer to the church is beyond me.

Jack

[mikeboll64]

Jack,

Look at the green part of my post at the top of this page.  Notice the bolded word, “IT”, is masculine.  Is the church both a “HE” and a “SHE”?

[KangarooJack]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 07 2011,04:52)

Jack, Look at the green part of my post at the top of this page.  Notice the bolded word, “IT”, is masculine.  Is the church both a “HE” and a “SHE”?

Mike,

You did not pay attention too well. The oldest manuscripts do not say, “That He might present 'it' (or him).” The one pronoun refers to Christ and two feminine articles refer to the church.

“That HE (masculine pronoun) might present THE (feminine article) church….” The article “THE” which refers to the church is feminine.

In the second clause the feminine article is used again but it functions as a pronoun and is translated “SHE.”

There is no pronoun with the word “church” in the the verse in the oldest manuscripts. Two FEMININE ARTICLES are used and the second functions AS a pronoun and is correctly translated “SHE.”

“…so that HE (masculine pronoun) might present THE (feminine article) church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that SHE (feminine article) might be holy and without blemish. ESV

You're not listening.

Jack

[mikeboll64]

Okay Jack.

I guess that the mss that Biblos.com, the JW's interlinear, and the 8 translations I posted above were newer mss?  Where is your source to back up your claim?

I'll look into it some more when I have the time.  As I told Kathi a long time ago, this scripture does not really do her justice anyway, for even inanimate objects are often referred to as a “SHE”…………..not to mention that many times in scripture, Greek feminine words are translated into English as neuter.

So in this case, “SHE” or “IT” are equally faithful translations.  But neither one goes towards proving her claim that it is normal to refer to more than one individual as a “HE”.

mike

[Proclaimer]

The end result of KJ's stance on this is that we are all named Adam.
Whereas, it is obvious that we are named uniquely and our nature/type is named adam.

Anyhow, I hope you are doing OK Adam, and Adam too. Also, Adam should be more respectful toward Adam, and Adam needs to listen more.

That is my 2 cents worth.

What do you say Adam? What do you think of Adam's ideas?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 11 2011,21:48)

The end result of KJ's stance on this is that we are all named Adam. Whereas, it is obvious that we are named uniquely and our nature/type is named adam. Anyhow, I hope you are doing OK Adam, and Adam too. Also, Adam should be more respectful toward Adam, and Adam needs to listen more. That is my 2 cents worth. What do you say Adam? What do you think of Adam's ideas?

t8

And what if someone has the name Adam then that means they are Adam and adam, right?

Now listen and learn.

Jesus shares the “Name of God”, Matt 28:19.

Therefore Jesus is God both in nature and in name!

WJ

[KangarooJack]

t8 said:

Quote

The end result of KJ's stance on this is that we are all named Adam.

Exactly! Genesis 6 says, “My Spirit shall not always strive with the Adam….”

God called the man and the woman “Adam” (Gen. 5:1-2) After that it was the man that took the name “Adam” for himself and gave the woman the name “Eve.”

The differentiation was made by the man and not by God.

KJ

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 13 2011,04:56)

t8 And what if someone has the name Adam then that means they are Adam and adam, right? Now listen and learn. Jesus shares the “Name of God”, Matt 28:19. Therefore Jesus is God both in nature and in name! WJ

WJ.

People have the Jesus as a name do they not.
Are they Jesus?

See that. Of course they are Jesus, but they are not Jesus the Christ. That is 2 people right. Basic stuff WJ. Only a warped doctrine makes a man stumble over such easy to understand precepts.

Listen and learn.

There is one WHO is Jesus Christ.
There is one WHO is God.

And, in your understanding there is one God the Father, Son, and Spirit.

Scripture says otherwise.
There is one God the Father.
Amen.

[Proclaimer]

I should also add that there are plenty of names that start with Yah, (I scraped these off Wikipedia:

Yahashua, (Joshua)
Yirme-yahu (Jeremiah)
Yesha-yahu (Isaiah)
Netan-yah
Yedid-yah
Adoni-yah
Nekhem-yah
Yeho-natan
Yeho-chanan
Yeho-shua
Yeho-tzedek.

There are names with theos too:
Theodore
Dorotheus
Theodosius
Theodosia
Theodotos
Theodotē
Dositheus
Dosithea
Theophilus
Theognis
Theophanes
Theophrastus
Theaetetus
Timotheus

Think about how this dismantles your argument regarding Yashua/Yeshua.

[Ed J]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 13 2011,04:56)

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 11 2011,21:48) The end result of KJ's stance on this is that we are all named Adam. Whereas, it is obvious that we are named uniquely and our nature/type is named adam. Anyhow, I hope you are doing OK Adam, and Adam too. Also, Adam should be more respectful toward Adam, and Adam needs to listen more. That is my 2 cents worth. What do you say Adam? What do you think of Adam's ideas? t8 And what if someone has the name Adam then that means they are Adam and adam, right? Now listen and learn. Jesus shares the “Name of God”, Matt 28:19. Therefore Jesus is God both in nature and in name! WJ

Hi WJ,

Elijah shares the name of God and the title God, does that make Elijah God?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 18 2011,18:25)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 13 2011,04:56) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 11 2011,21:48) The end result of KJ's stance on this is that we are all named Adam. Whereas, it is obvious that we are named uniquely and our nature/type is named adam. Anyhow, I hope you are doing OK Adam, and Adam too. Also, Adam should be more respectful toward Adam, and Adam needs to listen more. That is my 2 cents worth. What do you say Adam? What do you think of Adam's ideas? t8 And what if someone has the name Adam then that means they are Adam and adam, right? Now listen and learn. Jesus shares the “Name of God”, Matt 28:19. Therefore Jesus is God both in nature and in name! WJ Hi WJ, Elijah shares the name of God and the title God, does that make Elijah God? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

We have been over this a zillion times too. Christ's predacessors were mere shadows and Christ is the SUBSTANCE (or reality).

The shadows were only representations of rest but Christ IS rest and therefore God. Ponder this sonny.

“Come unto ME all you who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.”

Doesn't take a degree in rocket science after all does it young man?

KJ

[Pastry]

Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 02 2011,10:31)

KJ Quote Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Aug. 02 2011,01:12) Go back to the op of this thread.  God NAMED the male and the female “Adam” (Gen. 5:1-2). It was the man who named the woman “Eve.” But God named her “Adam.” did you never heard of the Adam's family ??

Ya wohl ich habe, und weiss es….How does that song go??? Weird Family….

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Quote (Pastry @ Aug. 19 2011,00:31)

Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 02 2011,10:31) KJ Quote Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Aug. 02 2011,01:12) Go back to the op of this thread.  God NAMED the male and the female “Adam” (Gen. 5:1-2). It was the man who named the woman “Eve.” But God named her “Adam.” did you never heard of the Adam's family ??     Ya wohl ich habe, und weiss es….How does that song go???  Weird Family….

Show where God called the woamn “Eve.” It explicitly says that the man named her “Eve.” God named them both “Adam.”

And God called them (the male and the female) “Adam” (Genesis 5:1-2).

You show your comtempt for the word of God.

KJ

[terraricca]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Aug. 19 2011,12:07)

Quote (Pastry @ Aug. 19 2011,00:31) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 02 2011,10:31) KJ Quote Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Aug. 02 2011,01:12) Go back to the op of this thread.  God NAMED the male and the female “Adam” (Gen. 5:1-2). It was the man who named the woman “Eve.” But God named her “Adam.” did you never heard of the Adam's family ??     Ya wohl ich habe, und weiss es….How does that song go???  Weird Family…. Show where God called the woamn “Eve.” It explicitly says that the man named her “Eve.” God named them both “Adam.” And God called them (the male and the female) “Adam” (Genesis 5:1-2). You show your comtempt for the word of God. KJ

KJ

you made a issue about Adam being made first and called ADAM

Eve being made out of Adam so would that not be enough to say that they are called Adam ,what mean human or man is it not ,?

you try to make some thing about nothing

Pierre

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Aug. 18 2011,02:33)

We have been over this a zillion times too. Christ's predacessors were mere shadows and Christ is the SUBSTANCE (or reality).

Show me the difference Jack:

Was Christ anointed by his God, just like his predecessors?

Was Christ sent by his God, just like his predecessors?

Was Christ a servant of his God, just like his predecessors?

Was Christ a prophet of his God, just like his predecessors?

Did Christ obey the commands of his God, just like his predecessors?

Did Christ worship his God, just like his predecessors?

Did Christ do signs and wonders through the power of his God, just like his predecessors?

These are just a few off the top of my head, Jack.

mike

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Aug. 18 2011,19:33)

We have been over this a zillion times too. Christ's predacessors were mere shadows and Christ is the SUBSTANCE (or reality). The shadows were only representations of rest but Christ IS rest and therefore God. Ponder this sonny. “Come unto ME all you who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.” Doesn't take a degree in rocket science after all does it young man? KJ

KJ, when a point is lost you then back it up with another idea.
We have successfully dismantled wach of your points, one at a time.

I get the feeling when this happens you just jump to another point that you think is stronger as if that were some kind of support.

Better to be honest with everyone and say, “OK, I lost that point, but what about this”.

Instead you try to give the impression that your arguments and doctrine is solid. This is not true. You should admit the points that you have been defeated in?

Why? Because that would be the honest thing to do and where is your faith? I have no problem with letting truth have its way because I have a better opportunity to let truth change me.

It is pride that ignores the points you have lost and it is pride that makes a person give the appearance that their doctrine is rock solid, when in actual fact, their arguments have been destroyed one by one.

It reminds me of a company that is facing bankruptcy and continues trading and taking in investment hoping that somehow they will trade out. The directors then face criminal charges because they take in investors who are under the impression that all is good and this is a good company to invest in. They are not told the truth about how the company is really losing value.

You are tying to get people to invest in your doctrine when you know full well that your supports are full of holes?

[KangarooJack]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 19 2011,10:01)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Aug. 18 2011,02:33) We have been over this a zillion times too. Christ's predacessors were mere shadows and Christ is the SUBSTANCE (or reality). Show me the difference Jack: Was Christ anointed by his God, just like his predecessors? Was Christ sent by his God, just like his predecessors? Was Christ a servant of his God, just like his predecessors? Was Christ a prophet of his God, just like his predecessors? Did Christ obey the commands of his God, just like his predecessors? Did Christ worship his God, just like his predecessors? Did Christ do signs and wonders through the power of his God, just like his predecessors? These are just a few off the top of my head, Jack. mike

He was all those things MORE THAN His predacessors and not “just like” them. Example: He was anointed ABOVE His fellows (Heb. 1). As shadows they pointed TO HIM. He is the SUBSTANCE. The NWT says, “reality.” The KJV says that He is the “body” (that is, embodiment).

How can He be the “reality” without being God? How can He be the embodiment of all that is good without being God?

Another failed attempt on your part to reduce jesus to the level of everyone else. Hebrews 3:1-6 says that He is counted worthy of the glory of the builder and the builder of all things is God. Therefore, He is counted worthy of the glory which God receives in contradistinction to His predacessor Moses who received only the glory of a servant.

AGAIN IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED A ZILLION TIMES!

KJ

[Author]

Posts