- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi WJ,
You should let the bible teach you.It can teach little children but you may have to put aside the other carnal teachers you have sought.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 12 2009,15:56) Hi WJ,
You should let the bible teach you.It can teach little children but you may have to put aside the other carnal teachers you have sought.
NHLittle children know that when they are praying to Jesus they are praying to God and not “a god”.
WJ
Quote (igorwulff @ Oct. 13 2009,05:01) WJ, so you are saying that the word theos is never about a representative of YHWH?
HiDo you always answer a question with a question?
I answered you and if you will answer me then you will have your answer…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 12 2009,11:53) Can you give me one OT or NT example of YHWH or the prophets or Jesus or the Apostles ever ascribing the word “'elohiym” or “Theos” to any being with divine qualities other than Jesus?
WJcan I play moderator for a moment Nick and ask that this conversation go somewhere else. I'm actually trying to keep this thread fairly focused on the coptic translation.
Thankyou.
Back to coptic:
The Greek of John 1:1 has no indefinite article. (“a”) So, if someone translates it into a language that does have indefinite articles (such as English, Coptic, etc) the translator must put the “a” or “an” in where it is needed. (Every English Bible does this thousands of times.)
The languages that John 1:1 were translated and copied into had no indefinite article (Greek, Latin, syriac, aramaic, etc) Around 1500, it was translated into English which does have the indefinite article.
But 1300 years before, it was translated into Coptic, which does have the indefinite article in it's language. And the translators, who lived at a time when koine Greek was still spoken and at a time when they definitely understood it, tranlsated john 1:1c with “a god.”
Quote (david @ Oct. 13 2009,17:34) Back to coptic:
The Greek of John 1:1 has no indefinite article. (“a”) So, if someone translates it into a language that does have indefinite articles (such as English, Coptic, etc) the translator must put the “a” or “an” in where it is needed. (Every English Bible does this thousands of times.)
The languages that John 1:1 were translated and copied into had no indefinite article (Greek, Latin, syriac, aramaic, etc) Around 1500, it was translated into English which does have the indefinite article.
]But 1300 years before, it was translated into Coptic, which does have the indefinite article in it's language. And the translators, who lived at a time when koine Greek was still spoken and at a time when they definitely understood it, tranlsated john 1:1c with “a god.”
Quote (david @ Oct. 13 2009,17:34) But 1300 years before, it was translated into Coptic, which does have the indefinite article in it's language. And the translators, who lived at a time when koine Greek was still spoken and at a time when they definitely understood it, tranlsated john 1:1c with “a god.”[/b]
Where is the evidence 1300 years before?And if what you say were true then they were wrong for the Bible says there is “Only One God” and no other!
Surely the Apostle John knew this when his inspired hands wrote it for he did not have to use the word “Theos' in John 1:1c did he?
Of course he did, that is why he wrote John 1:18. and John 20:28, and 1 John 5:20.
But then we do have the definite article in John 20:28, and 1 John 5:20 dont we?
So it is again, most all of the major translators translated it right and the NWT translated it wrong.
David in all of the scriptures that call Jesus God, is there once anywhere it is translated “a god”?
Case closed! NWT Corrupt. Coptic Corrupt!
WJ
David said:
Quote FROM JEHOVAH'S STANDPOINT, OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NO GOD, NO MIGHTY ONE. OBVIOUSLY.
David,
You're losing your scholarly edge and speaking like the rest of them here. Jehovah's standpoint is to be ours also.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Oct. 15 2009,09:16) David said: Quote FROM JEHOVAH'S STANDPOINT, OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NO GOD, NO MIGHTY ONE. OBVIOUSLY.
David,
You're losing your scholarly edge and speaking like the rest of them here. Jehovah's standpoint is to be ours also.thinker
Thinker, what do you think?–If Jehovah told Jesus what to do, is it your standpoint that you should tell Jesus what to do?
My point, to be clear is, while we are to IMITATE Jehovah, we are NOT JEHOVAH.He STANDS in a different point/position, relative to us. Hence, he does have a different stand point.
Being that he is the Almighty, there are none above him, none he looks up to. Do you think you share this with him? No, thinker, you aren't God. So, you have a different position than he does.
I think I now understand the problem. When you say “Jehovah's standpoint is to be ours” I you are using the word “standpoint” to mean “opinion” or “attitude.” But it also means “perspective.” Maybe what I was trying to say, from his position, or from his point of perspective.
Understand that from his point of view, Jesus is his Son. From our point of view, Jesus is not our son. We have different perspective on position than he does.
Quote Where is the evidence 1300 years before? And if what you say were true then they were wrong for the Bible says there is “Only One God” and no other!
It also says “God alone” is wise, or God “only” is wise. Yet, we say others are wise. Apparently they are not. No one is wise C O M P A R E D to Jehovah.
Logic.
Quote So it is again, most all of the major translators translated it right and the NWT translated it wrong. Why is it so fun for you to incorrectly state or make it seem like the NWT is the only Bible in existence to translate it differently. There are MANY.
And, the earliest version of the Bible where they had the choice, in a language where they have both definite and indefinite articles, they also had a choice. And guess what? They chose “a god.” Guess what else? They lived while common Greek was still spoke. They used the Greek alphabet for their language. And, finally, they lived before the time when it was illegal and punishable by death to translate it correctly.Quote David in all of the scriptures that call Jesus God, is there once anywhere it is translated “a god”? –WJ
WJ, you do know the NT was written in Greek, correct?
And what do we know about Greek and the indefinite article (“a”)?
I will allow you to retract your silly question if you like.
We have several Bibles, like The New International, the James Moffatt, the German, the Rye K.James version, and the new King James which I use. Georg uses the Rye Study Bible.
What I fouind interesting is what it says in the K.J. Moffatt version
John 1:1 The Logus exsisted in the very beginning, the Logus was with God, the Logus was divine.
verse 2 He was with God in the very beginning.
verse 10 he entered the world-the world which exsisted through him-yet the world did not recognize him;
vese 11 he came to what was his own, yet his own did not welcome him.
verse 12 On those who have accepted him, however, he has conferred the right of being children of God, that is, on those who
verse 13 believe in his Name, who owe this birth of their God, not to human blood, nor to any
verse 14 impulse of the flesh or a man. So the Logus became flesh and tarried among us;
we have seen his glory- glory such as in son enjoys from his father-seen it to be full of grace and reality.
What I dn't like about this Bible, I find rather not to my liking, was, I like to always ofset the Father and capitalize His Name and Jesus and the Father LORD.
Our German Bible is written like the King James Bible.Peace and Love Irene
Quote David in all of the scriptures that call Jesus God, is there once anywhere it is translated “a god”? Case closed! NWT Corrupt. Coptic Corrupt!
–WJ
I just really find this amusing. WJ, you gave a “case closed” because apparently, there is not “once anywhere” in the GREEK scriptures where Jesus being called “god” is translated “a god.”
For those who don't immediately see the humor, GREEK has no “a.” It has no indefinite article, therefore, you could ask the same question of every single instance where “a” or “an” is found in the NT.
Anyway, back to the coptic.
david
For what it's worth, you're doing a great job.
I am no Greek or anything scholar, but understanding the bible as I do, you are correct.Georg
Quote (david @ Dec. 15 2009,02:45) Quote David in all of the scriptures that call Jesus God, is there once anywhere it is translated “a god”? Case closed! NWT Corrupt. Coptic Corrupt!
–WJ
I just really find this amusing. WJ, you gave a “case closed” because apparently, there is not “once anywhere” in the GREEK scriptures where Jesus being called “god” is translated “a god.”
For those who don't immediately see the humor, GREEK has no “a.” It has no indefinite article, therefore, you could ask the same question of every single instance where “a” or “an” is found in the NT.
Anyway, back to the coptic.
DavidI am glad you find it humurous. But I should have clarified my point.
Is there anywhere besides John 1:1 where the Coptic translates Jesus as “a god”!
The Coptic is all you have David, and the lonely NWT.
We know the NWT is corrupt for there are many disengenuos examples of mistranslation by the so-called scholars who were not Hebrew or Greek scholars at all.
So who is to say the Coptic version which is rejected by most legitimate Greek scholars is not a corrupt translation also.
You are trying to prove something that is ambiguous as being unambiguous.
The very fact that the scriptures say “There is no God but one” falls down in favour of the Trinitarian view of John 1:1c because John was not a polytheist for he did not have to use the word theos in the verse did he?
WJ
Quote (banana @ Dec. 15 2009,03:53) david For what it's worth, you're doing a great job.
I am no Greek or anything scholar, but understanding the bible as I do, you are correct.Georg
Hi GeorgeDavid makes himself and the NWT as the final authority no matter what the many other real Greek and Hebrew scholars say.
AT Roberston says concerning John 1:1…
In the beginning (en arch). Arch is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Genesis 1:1 . But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing. Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse Genesis 14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in Genesis 8:58 “before Abraham came (genesqai) I am” (eimi, timeless existence). The Word (o logo). Logo is from legw, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logo is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatiko logo for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Proverbs 8:23 . Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John's standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logo, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence. The term Logo is applied to Christ only in John 1:1 John 1:14 ; Revelation 19:13 ; 1 John 1:1 “concerning the Word of life” (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of “the Word of God” in Hebrews 4:12 . But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul ( 2 Corinthians 8:9 ; Philippians 2:6 ; Colossians 1:17 ) and in Hebrews 1:2 and in John 17:5 . This term suits John's purpose better than sopia (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the aeon Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos “became flesh” (sarx egeneto, verse John 14 ) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once. With God (pro ton qeon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pro with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of pro: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklhton ecomen pro ton patera). See proswpon pro proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12 ), a triple use of pro. There is a papyrus example of pro in this sense to gnwston th pro allhlou sunhqeia, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of pro here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koin, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom. And the Word was God (kai qeo hn o logo). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying o qeo hn o logo. That would mean that all of God was expressed in o logo and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (o logo) and the predicate without it (qeo) just as in John 4:24 pneuma o qeo can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1 John 4:16 o qeo agaph estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar_, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 o Logo sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality
Roberston is a world renowned Greek scholar and is in agreement with 100s of other real Greek scholars on the translation of the verse.
I choose them over the illegitimate translators of the NWT and the forgotten Coptic version and watchtowers opinion.
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
