Did john say god became flesh? or was it satan at

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ June 05 2009,06:19)

Paladin said:

Quote

Are you an angel? God commanded angels to worship the resurrected Christ. He never commanded men to worship Jesus. In fact, it was Jesus who told us that “true worshippers will worship the Father.”

Then I guess heaven will be segregated. The angels who worship Jesus will be in one segment and men will be another.

Quote

Kiss the Son lest he be angry and you perish in the way when His wrath is kindled (Psalm 2:12)

This Psalm was addressed to Israel, i.e., men.

Paladin said:

Quote

If Jesus truly was God, why did angels have to be told to worship him? And why did it have to come from the Father if Jesus was God?

The order came from the Father because it was the Father who exalted the Son. If you were exalted to CEO in a company those who were your once your superiors would need an official word from the powers that promoted you. Hebrews 1 says that Christ was for a little while made lower than the angels. Then God promoted Jesus and gave the angels the official word to worship His Son.

Your questions serve only to convolude and confuse.

thinker

Hi tt,
Men will populate heaven?
Where does this come from?
The meek will inherit the earth.

June 4, 2009 at 6:44 pm#132443

Participant

Hi TT,
So Jesus is ever subservient to God.
How come you believe in a trinity?

June 5, 2009 at 1:38 pm#132518

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2009,04:36)

Hi PD

Quote (Paladin @ June 03 2009,08:48)

Can't deal with the message, attack the messenger? I do hope you do not think that is original!

Sorry you see it as an attack. I guess I have my answer.

In other words you do not have any credentials for “attacking” the 100s of scholars and commentators that brought you the translations, Biblical dictionaries, Hebrew and Greek definitions Etc., right?

Quote (Paladin @ June 03 2009,08:48)

I have at least the same credentials as those whom God chose to present his word in the first place. They were “unlearned and ignorant men.”

Look again, 2 thirds of the NT was written by a man who was trained by the best of his day.

circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. Phil 3:5, 6

Also look for yourself and tell me if Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, and Peter were still unlearned men when they penned the scriptures. Do you exalt yourself to their status of being able to pen scriptures?

Quote (Paladin @ June 03 2009,08:48)

Please do not tell me you think only the “credentialed elite” can read scripture.

I never said that did I?

Quote (Paladin @ June 03 2009,08:48)

Or follow a concept to fruition. Or extrapolate interpolations.

Fine, but when you interpolate Biblical pronouns to fit your own extrapolations with no credentials in Biblical Hebrew or Greek translation, then you are simply usurping your status as being equal to the experts, of which you are not.

So again, why should we believe you over them?

Quote (Paladin @ June 03 2009,08:48)

Do you honestly think only trinitarians can follow what is written, by adding [omoousian, theos 'o huios] what they perceive was left out? And you call THAT “scholarship?”

Obviously you know nothing about Biblical translation, or you would understand that in order to make sense of the text translators had to add words depending on context, Greek grammer, Etc.

For instance on John 1:1…

What case, gender, and number is “theos” in John 1:1? Why is it anarthrous?

How about parsing “en”, its found three times in the verse. Its very imprtant.

Whats its lexical form? Why is the imperfect tense important in the verse?

How does the imperfect tense relate to the prepositional phrase at the start of the verse?

Why is “arche” in dative case? Why does “pros” have grave accent?

But there you go again, you claim that you know more than the translators, and for your information not all were Trinitarians.

It’s the same ole tired argument that the scriptures have been corrupted without any proof of such. Why haven’t the modern day Arians come out with their own Bible, OH that’s right they have, it’s called the NWT. The NWT is the most corrupt supposed translation there is.

The reason they cannot come out with their own Bible supporting their Arian doctrines is because like the NWT it would be totally rejected by the experts in Biblical Hebrew and Greek translation regardless of their “Trinitarian” status.

That’s why you do not see the NWT or any of the other questionable translations on Blueletterbible.org or Biblegateway.com.

BTW all of those translations oppose your rendering of the pronouns!

Quote (Paladin @ June 03 2009,08:48)

As for proving my abilities in the scriptures, I notice YOU have not responded to my posts, with any degree of rebuttal. Problem?

I’m just getting to know you. Lets just wait and see.

Blessings WJ

To Paladin's remark:

Quote

(Paladin)Those are the guys that make arguments about “pros ton followed by accusative” in John 1:1 and claim it means a close personal intimate relationship between two entities; Jesus and his father.

If that is true, it must be true for every occasion of “pros ton” followed by accusative, such as Mark 11:7 wich most certainly is NOT a “close intimate relationship;” It is between Jesus and a colt, the foal of an ass. Mark 11:7 And they brought the colt “pros ton” to [accusative] Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.

(WJ responded):
So since you think you know more than the 100s or even thousands of Hebrew, Greek scholars, Theologians, and Commentators, then please at least tell us what credentials you have, or what Theological Degrees, Biblical Greek or Hebrew degrees do you have.

Otherwise you are just another Arian apologist who thinks that he knows more than anyone else.

If you have no formal training or background in these matters than what gives you the right to change what the Translators or experts bring us? Most of them have dedicated their entire lives to bring us the scriptures and truth that we have?

Why should we believe you?

The truth is, when ever someone begins questioning the Translations and the Translators they are always someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about and who do not have any Degrees in Biblical Hebrew or Greek.

These apologists just bring us more of the same with variations of their false teachings while claiming that they are the ones speaking the truth and the Biblical experts are deceiving or do not know what they are talking about.

Quote

(WJ) Sorry you see it as an attack. I guess I have my answer.

Would you mind telling me what YOU think it is, if it is not an attack?

My clues are:

Quote

“So since you think you know more… “
“Otherwise you are just another Arian apologist who thinks…”
“they are always someone who doesn’t know what they are talking a
bout… “
“These apologists just bring us more of the same with variations of their false teachings while claiming that they are the ones speaking the truth and the Biblical experts are deceiving or do not know what they are talking about.”

And you don't see this as an attack? I certainly do not want to accuse you unjustly. It still looks like an attack to me. I gave you a simple example of where the commentators are wrong, with their use of “pros ton” followed by an accusative, and you totally ignore it, make no effort to deny, explain, or otherwise enlighten my alleged ignorance, just attack the messenger.

To make it worse, you deny it is an attack, then try to use subtlety to turn it to your own purpose with “I guess I have my answer.”

What was the question? Why was it not posted? You are making it up as you go along, and trying to make me look bad because you cannot deal with the issues raised in my post.

The issue of “pros ton” followed by the accusative, for just one example, is used by trinitarians as a proof that Jesus is God, and John 1:1 proves it. Well, John 1:1 proves no such thing because of “pros ton” followed by the accusative. It is an empty argument.

Instead of responding to the issue, you question my credentials. My credence is establsihed in the truth of my post. Or do you not know what “credential” means? It is that which establishes credence.

Test my post against the scriptures, and point out my errors, do not just parrot commentaries and doctrines of men and creeds to me. Tell me “It is wrong because…” and give me the reason it is wrong, instead of this sophomoric whining.

As for all that “stuff” you list asking about Greek words, I can sit here with a Greek grammar and a lexicon and play your “Scholarship” game all day long and you will have succeeded in sidetracking my argument. I will not add to your truancy.

Either respond to the issues, or do not. I really do not care which you do. It is just that I would spare you the humiliation you are doing to yourself, but it is up to you.

As for your remark about Paul's credentials, it was Paul who thanked God for putting this treasure in earthen vessels. and Peter and James and John certainly had no “scholarship credentials.” They had a common inspiration. And it is the same inspiration people have today who are in the spirit and power of the Holy Spirit, which was promised to all those who seek God's truth.

Instead of “fussin” over scholarship which is contrary to proper exegesis, why don't you deal with the issues?

Do I “exalt myself to their status of being able to pen scriptures?” No! The Holy Spirit exalts me to the status of being able to comprehend scripture when I read and study it with prayer and humility. Do you have a problem with that?

June 6, 2009 at 12:46 am#132580

Participant

Hi PD

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2009,12:36)

Sorry you see it as an attack. I guess I have my answer.

Quote (Paladin @ June 05 2009,09:38)

Would you mind telling me what YOU think it is, if it is not an attack?

My clues are:

Quote

“So since you think you know more… “
“Otherwise you are just another Arian apologist who thinks…”
“they are always someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about… “
“These apologists just bring us more of the same with variations of their false teachings while claiming that they are the ones speaking the truth and the Biblical experts are deceiving or do not know what they are talking about.”

And you don't see this as an attack? I certainly do not want to accuse you unjustly. It still looks like an attack to me.

Is there something untrue about what I said? Is it any more of a personal attack than your own statements…

To Thinker

Quote (Guest @ June 02 2009,05:35)

The problem you are having, is divorcing yourself from all those doctrines of men that make claims based on pronouns, that have no reality in the grammar of the Greek testament.

They are arguing from the standpoint of a translation, not from scripture. I am simply showing how rediculous it all is.

Trinity arguments get even sillier than that, but trinitarians won't even consider that fact, as they cling to what they “clearly perceive” in reading scriptures, and commentaries, and books about the bible.

Quote (Paladin @ June 03 2009,08:55)

Have you learned NOTHING?

Rather insulting isn’t it?

Quote (Paladin @ June 05 2009,09:38)

I gave you a simple example of where the commentators are wrong, with their use of “pros ton” followed by an accusative, and you totally ignore it, make no effort to deny, explain, or otherwise enlighten my alleged ignorance, just attack the messenger.

You haven’t given an example of anything that proves that the “commentators” are wrong, or we should say 100s of Greek scholars that disagree with you since you are talking about Greek translation. I am not ignoring anything for I do not claim to be a Biblical Greek scholar. I am simply pointing out that every translation on blueletterbible.org and Biblegateway.com disagrees with your translation of the pronouns in John 1, and therfore that means you are disagreeing with the scriptures.

All you have stated is…””pros ton” followed by an accusative” in John 1:1 is not proof of the Trinitarian faith. But you have not given any grammatical reasons for your hypothesis. All you have done is quoted an example of Jesus and a donkey which is proof of nothing except that …””pros ton” followed by an accusative” can be used in another place in a different context. Yet when you make your assumptions you are failing to mention the fact that the same “masculine noun” for the Word in John 1:1c is the same “masculine noun” used in John 1:1b for YHWH. Don’t you think that has some relevance?

So why don’t you offer proof that “pros ton with the accusative” cannot be used grammatically to express a relationship between persons.

Also no learned Trinitarian would argue that John 1:1 is proof of the Trinity. There is other “Unambiguous” scripture calling Jesus God.

So, as usual non-Trinitarians going back to the Greek language in John 1 offer no proof that the English translation below is incorrect.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

Quote (Paladin @ June 05 2009,09:38)

To make it worse, you deny it is an attack, then try to use subtlety to turn it to your own purpose with “I guess I have my answer.”

What was the question? Why was it not posted? You are making it up as you go along, and trying to make me look bad because you cannot deal with the issues raised in my post.

The question was there, but you turned into a question of the credentials of the Apostles being ignorant and unlearned men. So you were evading the question when I said…

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 02 2009,11:13)

So since you think you know more than the 100s or even thousands of Hebrew, Greek scholars, Theologians, and Commentators, then please at least tell us what credentials you have, or what Theological Degrees, Biblical Greek or Hebrew degrees do you have.

Otherwise you are just another Arian apologist who thinks that he knows more than anyone else.

Why should we believe you?

Then you said…

Quote (Paladin @ June 03 2009,08:48)

Can't deal with the message, attack the messenger? I do hope you do not think that is original!

I have at least the same credentials as those whom God chose to present his word in the first place. They were “unlearned and ignorant men.”

So the answer I got was that you do not have any Hebrew or Greek credentials for translating the text and disagreeing with the Translations or the Translators.

Quote (Paladin @ June 05 2009,09:38)

I addressed this above. However your claim that it is an empty argument c
omes back to you for wanting to argue it by giving us your assumptions with no real proof as to why the translations should be changed. At best you are just presenting your non-trinitarian bias. The debate has been going on for centuries and it is unlikely you or anyone else except for Jesus when he returns will stop it.

Quote (Paladin @ June 05 2009,09:38)

Instead of responding to the issue, you question my credentials. My credence is establsihed in the truth of my post.

You presented your apologetic argument that lacks any grammatical facts or proof that John 1:1-3 should be translated your way.

Quote (Paladin @ June 05 2009,09:38)

Or do you not know what “credential” means? It is that which establishes credence.

Maybe it is you who does not know what “credentials” mean.

Credentials

Cambridge International Dictionary of English
the abilities and experience which make someone suitable for a particular job or activity, or proof of someone's abilities and experience:

Wiktionary
documentary evidence of someone's right to credit or authority, especially such a document given to an ambassador by a country

Cambridge Dictionary of American English
documents that state the abilities and experience of a person and show that they are qualified for a particular job or activity

Dictionary.com
Usually, credentials. evidence of authority, status, rights, entitlement to privileges, or the like, usually in written form: Only those with the proper credentials are admitted. Source

You have a right to your assumptions, but what right or authority do you have to change the translations without any Biblical Hebrew or Greek credentials for translation?

Quote (Paladin @ June 05 2009,09:38)

I have tested it against scriptures, and the Translators do not translate the “pronouns” in John 1 as “it”. Therefore the “why” the scriptures should be translated as you say is a task that you have to prove, and you haven’t done that have you? In your own mind you have, but so far that is only your opinion which does not agree with the written scriptures.

Quote (Paladin @ June 05 2009,09:38)

Sure you could. But all that “stuff” you call it is what goes into the Translation of the scriptures, and unless you know how to use that “stuff” or have the skills to read and write Greek and understand grammatical rules of translation then you have no right to change the translations and then make remarks like…

Quote (Guest @ June 02 2009,05:35)

They are arguing from the standpoint of a translation, not from scripture. I am simply showing how rediculous it all is.

You want us to believe you over the experts. Who is being ridiculous?

Quote (Paladin @ June 05 2009,09:38)

Either respond to the issues, or do not. I really do not care which you do. It is just that I would spare you the humiliation you are doing to yourself, but it is up to you.

Condescending aren’t we? Humiliation is denying the written scriptures that we have brought to us by men who know what they are talking about.

Quote (Paladin @ June 05 2009,09:38)

This is circular because as far as I know everyone here is claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit. Yea I see how you have inferred that the word “Logos” is in Col 4:7, but then you deny that the same Logos was with God and was God “Or God was the Logos”.

Quote (Paladin @ June 05 2009,09:38)

Instead of “fussin” over scholarship which is contrary to proper exegesis, why don't you deal with the issues?

You don’t get it do you? If someone is going to be on the same playing field they have to play by the same rules. So when anyone claims corruption or bias by the Translators then it is anybody’s game and you can make up the rules as you go. Waste of time! Because every time I or you do not like the way a scripture reads, well we can just claim corruption and change it and then claim that we are right and the experts are wrong. I will not waste much of my time with people like you who think they know more than the Translators.

Quote (Paladin @ June 05 2009,09:38)

Do I “exalt myself to their status of being able to pen scriptures?” No!

But you have exalted yourself above the Translators, and every Bible translation that has any credibility.

Quote (Paladin @ June 05 2009,09:38)

The Holy Spirit exalts me to the status of being able to comprehend scripture when I read and study it with prayer and humility. Do you have a problem with that?

No problem here, except when you read the scriptures remember you are reading them through the eyes of the experts and unless you can read Hebrew and Greek then you had best accept what the scriptures say. I do not think the Holy Spirit will contradict the scriptures, do you?

Ble
ssings WJ

June 6, 2009 at 6:40 am#132614

Participant

Hi PD

The following is a post that I was working on before your last post and stopped this one to answer your last one because of your tone.

Quote (Paladin @ June 02 2009,05:35)

But I am not changing anything in scripture, just direct quotes with all the little pronouns in their correct place. Also showing how little those theologians are who do not take all the scriptures into account.

Those are the guys that make arguments about “pros ton followed by accusative” in John 1:1 and claim it means a close personal intimate relationship between two entities; Jesus and his father.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 02 2009,11:13)

Otherwise you are just another Arian apologist who thinks that he knows more than anyone else.

Why should we believe you?

Quote (Paladin @ June 04 2009,08:31)

If you did believe me you would be a first-class fool. What you SHOULD do is search the scriptures. If what I tell you is found to be truth, obey it. If not, God will prevail.

I thought we had already covered this. Your statement is true about God prevailing, and I have searched the scriptures, the ones that the Translators, the experts in Hebrew and Greek languages brought to us, and I have found that your rendering of the Greek pronouns is false.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 02 2009,11:13)

Quote (Paladin @ June 04 2009,08:31)

So when Jesus questioned the teachings of the Pharisees, he did not know what he was talking about? The Pharisees not only interpreted the law, they sometimes retranslated it to include their own version of morality. Jesus stopped them with his “redirection.”

First of all Jesus addressed them in person and knew them. This is not the same thing for you are attacking the works of hundreds of Hebrew and Greek scholars without any expertise in Hebrew or Greek grammar or Biblical translation.

No comparison.

Secondly Jesus never attacked or criticized even once the Torah or Tanakh or the translations!

He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. Luke 24:44

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Matt 5:17

Jesus quoted from 24 different books in the OT. He never once cast a shadow of doubt towards the then known canon which he very likely read which was probably the LXX or Septuagint. The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek by some 70 Hebrew scholars about 200 years before Christ. Jesus.

Quote (Paladin @ June 04 2009,08:31)

When the law said not to go beyond a Sabbath-day's journey on the sabbath, the Pharisees translated that to mean “go nowhere.”

Exactly, he criticized their “interpretation” of the scriptures, but where is the translation that says “Go nowhere”? Jesus constantly rebuked them for their hypocrisy and their “Oral Law” which was simply their interpretation of the “Written law”.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 02 2009,11:13)

Just as when God told the Jews not to take his name in vain, they said “o.k., we won';t take it at all, and began to
“translate” the Hebrew name for “God” into “Lord” and refuse EVEN TO THIS DAY, to pronounce his holy name. Would YOU teach them any different? I would, just as Jesus did, and I would still be called a heretic for my efforts.

Well then I suppose you should rebuke Jesus also, because not once did Jesus mention the Fathers name either did he?

Now you are making the argument of a JW. Are you a JW? Your argument is a red herring, because regardless of what the Hebrews did then, no one knows the exact pronunciation of the Tetragammation “YHWH”. So this is a mute point. We know God by many names. So for the Translators to use “LORD” instead of YHWH makes no difference since the exact pronunciation of the name was lost.

Quote (Paladin @ June 04 2009,08:31)

When the Emperor Constantine took over the church and brought in trinitariansim, the teachers feared for their lives. That is why there were 1800 bishops worldwide invited to the Nicean Council in 325 a.d., but only 250 to 318 attended. The number is uncertain because three different counts were recorded by those present.

Eusebius of Caesarea counted 250, Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318, and Eustathius of Antioch counted 270 (all three were present at the council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300, and Evagrius, Hilarius, Jerome and Rufinus recorded 318.

When Constantine made his pronouncement, they capitulated, but the controvery was still going on at the second council in 385 a.d.

This is the historical point at which creeds were introduced, and it has been the tradition ever since.

Yadayadayada. First of all, either they didn’t have enough gas money to attend the council, or they didn’t care, or they were just cowards and were not willing to die for what they believed. I do not see the early Apostles hunkering down to false teachings or the attempts of the gainsayers to stop them from preaching the truth, but in fact stared it right in the face. For instance, Paul the Apostle heads straight to Rome without even flinching knowing he was going to his death. Pau
l encourages his son in the Faith Timothy in the face of persecution to be strong, for God had not given him a Spirit of fear but of power and of love and of a sound mind. (2 Tim 1:7)

Its amazing to me how that the followers of the Arian group bring up Constantine and yet leave out the killing of many Trinitarians by the warlords of Constantius II

“History shows that Constantius II and Valens who were Arians contributed atrocities against many Trinitarians as well”.

While Arianism continued to dominate for several decades even within the family of the Emperor, the Imperial nobility and higher-ranking clergy, in the end it was Trinitarianism which prevailed politically and thus theologically in the Roman Empire at the end of the 4th century. Arianism, which had been taught by the Arian missionary Ulfilas to the Germanic tribes, was dominant for some centuries among several Germanic tribes in western Europe, especially Goths and Lombards (and significantly for the late Empire, the Vandals), but ceased to be the mainstream belief by the 8th century.

However to minimize the extent of Arianism ignores the fact that extremely prominent Emperors such as Constantius II, the first Christian Emperor, and Valens were Arians, as well as prominent Gothic, Vandal and Lombard warlords both before and after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and that none of these groups were out of the mainstream of the Roman Empire in the 4th century.

Arianism

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 02 2009,11:13)

Quote (Paladin @ June 04 2009,08:31)

But you see, WJ, I make no such claim. I say simply I am compelled to post the information. What you do with it is on YOUR conscience, but mine is free of guilt on this behalf.

Not so, you claim that you know more than they. You said with your own words…

Quote (Paladin @ June 02 2009,05:35)

Those are the guys that make arguments about “pros ton followed by accusative” in John 1:1 and claim it means a close personal intimate relationship between two entities; Jesus and his father.

You may not think so, but while you are changing all those little pronouns and putting them in what you think is their correct place you are changing the meaning of the Translations which flies in the face of the Translators. Which means that you think you know better than they though you have no formal expertise to do such?

Quote (Paladin @ June 04 2009,08:31)

Does it matter to me what you do with it? Very much so. Is there any way I can persuade you? Doubtful. But I have to try. Yea, woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel of Christ.

The Gospel of Christ or do you mean the Gospel of God? Nevertheless, you are right; you will never be able to persuade me to accept another Jesus than the one I have received.

Quote (Paladin @ June 04 2009,08:31)

My only suggestion to you is, print out my post, compare it with scripture, and decide for yourself. The only reason I suggest a printout is because it is easier to read from the hand, than switching back and to on the computer.

I have which I addressed in my previous post. Your post contradicts the scriptures, in all of the English translations that we have that have any credibility.

Quote (Paladin @ June 04 2009,08:31)

If you honestly want to understand the gospel message, you should consider all events to be possible

.
No offence, but I have been studying the scriptures for 35 years and as of yet I have heard no Biblical arguments to convince me to deny my Lord and God Jesus. That is a Biblical profession you know. Jesus, “The Lord of me and the God of me”.

Quote (Paladin @ June 04 2009,08:31)

When you check my position, against the chronology of the written account, you will see that Paul established the meaning of “Logos of God” long before John ever wrote of it.

The problem with your chronology theory is that no one knows for sure who had what information or writings unless they were quoted in their own writings. All we can go by is the information in the text. Chronology is a slippery slope to build a doctrine on. But humor us anyway and show us where Paul or any of the Apostles explicitly says “Jesus is the Logo of God”.

Quote (Paladin @ June 04 2009,08:31)

But I begin to repeat myself. You already have this information. Do with it what you will, but understand one thing. You will NOT rebut it successfully.

I am sure in your mind I will not rebut it successfully no more than you have convinced me. And as far as your claim that Col 1:25-27 says that Jesus is the Logos, well that is also ambiguous.

Col 1:25

KJV
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word [Logos] of God;

NLT
God has given me the responsibility of serving his church by proclaiming his message in all its fullness to you Gentiles.

NASB
Of {this church} I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the {preaching of} the word of God,

NET
I became a servant of the church according to the stewardship from God – given to me for you – in order to complete the word of God,

The NET commentates…

See BDAG 828 s.v. πληρόω 3. The idea here seems to be that the apostle wants to “complete the word of God” in that he wants to preach it to every person in the known world (cf. Rom 15:19). See P. T. O’Brien, C
olossians, Philemon (WBC), 82.Source

Adam Clarke writes..

Whereof I am made a minister – Having received especial commission from God to preach salvation to the Gentiles. According to the dispensation – · According to the Gospel economy or institution; the scheme or plan of salvation by Christ crucified. To fulfill the word of God – The Greek may be translated, fully to preach the doctrine of God. See Romans 15:19, and the note there. Were we to take the word in its common meaning, it might signify to accomplish the purpose of God, as predicted by the prophets.

Barnes' Notes
According to the dispensation of God – The arrangement which God has made. That is, he designed that the gospel should be preached to the Gentiles, and, in accordance with that arrangement, he has called me to be a minister. Notes, Ephesians 3:2.
To fulfil the word of God – Margin, “fully to preach.” The Greek is, “to fill up the word of God;” the meaning is, “fully to teach and promulgate the gospel;” compare the notes at Romans 15:19.
Source

So Paul being a minister of the Gospel and fulfilling the Logos of God by preaching the Logos does not equate to Jesus being the Logos or a spoken word.

Years later John the Revelator saw the vision of Jesus having the name “the Logos of God”, after that he penned John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-3. It is more likely that John saw Jesus as the “Word” that was with God and was God.

Quote (Paladin @ June 04 2009,08:31)

And that is not because I am smarter than you, it is because the historical record is already in print forever, and the Holy Spirit WILL protect his work from destruction.

With that I agree, but why do you seek to change the meaning of the English translations?

Blessings Keith

June 6, 2009 at 4:37 pm#132652

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Quote (Paladin @ June 06 2009,01:38)

To make it worse, you deny it is an attack, then try to use subtlety to turn it to your own purpose with “I guess I have my answer.”

What was the question? Why was it not posted? You are making it up as you go along, and trying to make me look bad because you cannot deal with the issues raised in my post.

Either respond to the issues, or do not. I really do not care which you do. It is just that I would spare you the humiliation you are doing to yourself, but it is up to you.

Instead of “fussin” over scholarship which is contrary to proper exegesis, why don't you deal with the issues?

Paladin………..Amen brother. Please don't get discouraged here, there are those brothers and sisters who do agree with you here and those who are learning from you posts, you are strengthening the true brothers and sisters, let the spirit continue to speak through you. IMO

peace and love to you and yours…………………..gene

June 7, 2009 at 12:06 am#132694

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 06 2009,18:40)

[/quote]
Hi PD

Paladin,June wrote:

(WJ) I have searched the scriptures, the ones that the Translators, the experts in Hebrew and Greek languages brought to us, and I have found that your rendering of the Greek pronouns is false.

And I say you lie.
I posted the scripture references to you on Page 1 and they have not changed.

Page – 1 Guest Unregistered – Posted: May 29 2009,08:18

Quote

(Paladin) If you will really concentrate on what it is John is saying you will get an entirely different understanding. He begins by telling us something about the logos. John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.” So far, John has said nothing about “HE” or “HIM” because the logos is articulated, and has not been personalized. For almost fifteen hundred years, it was understood that the logos was “IT.”

The Tyndale Bible (1525); “the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it.”

Great Bible (1539); “the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it.”

Geneva Bible (1560); “the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it.”

Bishops' Bible (1568) “the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it.”

Douay Rheims (1582) has “This was in the beginning with God, all things were made by him” Which violates the rules of Greek grammar, as you well know. It changes the reference from “it” to “Him” without an entecedent person.

KJV (1611); RV (1881) (which became ASV 1901) has it “the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him;” making the same error the Catholics did, to accomodate a doctrinal bias.

Finally, the RSV (1946) changes it to read “He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him” changing the referent “it” to “he” in verse two instead of waiting till verse three. It is only a matter of time till some translation comes out that says “created” by him. But it is not in the Greek.

I then posted quotes from the King James Version to demonstrate the use of the pronoun “it” in John's writings, as well as in the bible as a whole. I did not change anything. If you had checked the King James Bible, you would find this to be so.

WorshippingJesus,June wrote:

(P)
Just as when God told the Jews not to take his name in vain, they said “o.k., we won't take it at all, and began to
“translate” the Hebrew name for “God” into “Lord” and refuse EVEN TO THIS DAY, to pronounce his holy name. Would YOU teach them any different? I would, just as Jesus did, and I would still be called a heretic for my efforts.

(WJ) Well then I suppose you should rebuke Jesus also, because not once did Jesus mention the Fathers name either did he?

(Paladin)
Sure he did. Strange you should introduce the Septuagint into the fray and never read it.

Exo 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai [(theos)God Almighty], but by my name (kurios) JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Isa 42:5 Thus saith El Jehovah [God the LORD], he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of [theos] (God) Almighty, but by my name [kurios] (JEHOVAH) was I not known to them.

Psalm 22:1 My [theos] (God), my [theos] (God), why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? [theos = nominative case]

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My [thee] (God), my [thee] (God), why hast thou forsaken me? [thee = theos/ vocative case (direct address)]

Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My [theos] (God), my [theos] (God), why hast thou forsaken me?[theos = nominative case]

June 7, 2009 at 1:33 pm#132726

Participant

Paladin said to WJ:

Quote

And I say you lie.

Hi WJ,
So you're a liar now. It appears that all Paladin has left in his arsenal is slander.

thinker

June 7, 2009 at 2:27 pm#132729

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ June 08 2009,01:33)

Paladin said to WJ:

Quote

And I say you lie.

Hi WJ,
So you're a liar now. It appears that all Paladin has left in his arsenal is slander.

thinker

You also lie, thinker. You also have said repeatedly that I have translated the pronouns wrongly.

No evidence. no proof. just stupid assertions. Lies all.

Chrck the translations I listed in page one, and you will see tha tthey remain to this day, still translating autos and outos “it” in John 1:1-3

And that is only slander if not true. With you and WJ, it remains truth. Both of you have piled on lie after lie in an effort to shut me up. The translations still stand, the lessons are still there to learn, and your lies all fall by the fact that those translations remain available to be checked by any HONEST opponent.

June 8, 2009 at 7:10 am#132809

Participant

Hi PD

Quote (Paladin @ June 06 2009,20:06)

Quote (Paladin @ June 02 2009,05:35)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 06 2009,18:40)

I have searched the scriptures, the ones that the Translators, the experts in Hebrew and Greek languages brought to us, and I have found that your rendering of the Greek pronouns is false.

And I say you lie.

First of all your own words you quote above was not followed up with the quote of mine above, so you are obviously pulling my words out of context and then you call me a liar.

My response to your words above is here…

Is this a normal practice of debate for you?

Secondly when a person lies most of the time they know it is a lie, and when you are accusing someone of lying then you should have proof of the same.

So I am going to do what you didn’t do and give you the benefit of the doubt by apologizing to you for not making my self clearer when I say… “I have searched the scriptures, the ones that the Translators, the experts in Hebrew and Greek languages brought to us, and I have found that your rendering of the Greek pronouns is false.”

I assumed you understood the reference point for my above statement when I have clearly made statements like the following clarifying my position.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 01 2009,11:25)

If not, then why should we believe you over the hundreds of translators and commentators on BibleGateway.com or Blueletterbible.org?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2009,12:36)

That’s why you do not see the NWT or any of the other questionable translations on “BLUELETTERBIBLE.ORG OR BIBLEGATEWAY.COM”.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2009,12:36)

But you have exalted yourself above the Translators, and “EVERY BIBLE TRANSLATION THAT HAS ANY CREDIBILITY”.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 05 2009,20:46)

You haven’t given an example of anything that proves that the “commentators” are wrong, or we should say 100s of Greek scholars that disagree with you since you are talking about Greek translation. I am not ignoring anything for I do not claim to be a Biblical Greek scholar. I am simply pointing out that every translation on “BLUELETTERBIBLE.ORG AND BIBLEGATEWAY.COM” disagrees with your translation of the pronouns in John 1, and therefore that means you are disagreeing with the scriptures.

Hopefully, you are truly reading my post and not just glossing over them. Again, I take the blame for not clarifying my statement above, because I should have said… I have searched the scriptures, the ones that the Translators, the experts in Hebrew and Greek languages brought to us on Biblegatewat.com and Blueletterbible.org, and every other “credible” translation and I have found that your rendering of the Greek pronouns is false”.

Please forgive me for not clarifying my position. This is the reason I say…

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2009,12:36)

So you stick with your isolated and questionable translations and the hand full of scholars that translated them and I will stick to the “many” translations translated by the many 100s of scholars.

Quote (Paladin @ June 06 2009,20:06)

So what does that prove? Are you trying to tell us that the word “autos” should always be translated as “it”, if so then please explain grammatically using the Greek as to why the scriptures in John 1:1-3 should be translated as “it”. Because contextually it cannot be translated as “it” unless you say God is an “It”.

Quote (Paladin @ June 06 2009,20:06)

Just as when God told the Jews not to take his name in vain, they said “o.k., we won't take it at all, and began to
“translate” the Hebrew name for “God” into “Lord” and refuse EVEN TO THIS DAY, to pronounce his holy name. Would YOU teach them any different? I would, just as Jesus did, and I would still be called a heretic for my efforts.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 06 2009,02:40)

Well then I suppose you should rebuke Jesus also, because not once did Jesus mention the Fathers name either did he?

Now you are making the argument of a JW. Are you a JW? Your argument is a red herring, because regardless of what the Hebrews did then, no one knows the exact pronunciation of the Tetragammaton “YHWH”. So this is a mute point. We know God by many names. So for the Translators to use “LORD” instead of YHWH makes n
o difference since the exact pronunciation of the name was lost.

Quote (Paladin @ June 06 2009,20:06)

Sure he did. Strange you should introduce the Septuagint into the fray and never read it.

Exo 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai [(theos)God Almighty], but by my name (kurios) JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of [theos] (God) Almighty, but by my name [kurios] (JEHOVAH) was I not known to them.

Psalm 22:1 My [theos] (God), my [theos] (God), why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? [theos = nominative case]

First of all it seems you are bearing false witness by claiming that I never read the Septuagint.

But anyway, this is called a diversion because you fail to address the point that no one knows the exact pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton “YHWH”, not even in Jesus day.

Then you try to make it look like Jesus pronounced the name YHWH, When Jesus did no such thing but referred to the Father as “theos” the Greek word brought over from the Hebrew word “'elohiym”.

Also you might want to consider that the translators of the Hebrew to Greek in the LXX use the word “Kurios:” for YHWH, yet that same word is used the Majority of the time in the NT Greek scriptures for Yahshua which means” YHWH is salvation”, so to make the claim that Jesus refered to the Father as YHWH is a moot point.

Don't you think if the Apostles knew the Fathers name by YHWH through Jesus confession then the name would have been restored?

Not even the Apostles Knew the exact pronunciation of YHWH.

So are you a JW?

Blessings WJ

June 8, 2009 at 7:23 am#132810

Participant

Quote (Paladin @ June 08 2009,02:27)

Quote (thethinker @ June 08 2009,01:33)

Paladin said to WJ:

Quote

And I say you lie.

Hi WJ,
So you're a liar now. It appears that all Paladin has left in his arsenal is slander.

thinker

You also lie, thinker. You also have said repeatedly that I have translated the pronouns wrongly.

No evidence. no proof. just stupid assertions. Lies all.

Chrck the translations I listed in page one, and you will see tha tthey remain to this day, still translating autos and outos “it” in John 1:1-3

Paladin,
All you have left in your arsenal is slander as I said. Your words are in accord with your view that God is not a person. For if you were walking in the presence of a personal God you would hesitate to slander people.

So the translations you offer remain until today. So what? The grammatical rule is that pronoun and antecedent MUST AGREE IN GENDER. Therefore, the “translations” you offer are not really translations but are actually a butcher and hatchet job on the Word of God by men without hope.

We were not made in the image of a non-personal “it”. My God is a Being I can KNOW PERSONALLY. Your view is totally asinine. It's a wonder why you even care at all. You have nothing else to do except overthrow the faith of people who believe that God is a Personal Being. My guess is that you want some company to share in your hopelessness.

How can your translations “stand” as you say when they can't even make it past the test of common sense?

thinker

June 8, 2009 at 7:29 am#132811

Participant

Quote (Paladin @ June 07 2009,10:27)

Quote (thethinker @ June 08 2009,01:33)

Paladin said to WJ:

Quote

And I say you lie.

Hi WJ,
So you're a liar now. It appears that all Paladin has left in his arsenal is slander.

thinker

You also lie, thinker. You also have said repeatedly that I have translated the pronouns wrongly.

No evidence. no proof. just stupid assertions. Lies all.

Chrck the translations I listed in page one, and you will see tha tthey remain to this day, still translating autos and outos “it” in John 1:1-3

Hi PD

Again, you have not proven anything by using Greek grammer for changing the pronouns to “it” in John 1.

Please tell us how grammatically using the Greek that John 1:1-3 should not be translated…

Otherwise you are just blowing hot air in the wind and at best are just giving us your oppologetic opinions based on some obscure tranlations. Can you claim “unambiguously” that those translations are correct?

You have that right, but to claim that we are liars because we do not agree with your theology is not “Honest” at all, and really a sad commentary on you.

June 8, 2009 at 9:23 am#132814

Participant

Paladin said:

Quote

Both of you have piled on lie after lie in an effort to shut me up.

Would you like a little cheese with your whine?

thinker

June 8, 2009 at 10:03 am#132818

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ June 08 2009,19:23)

Quote (Paladin @ June 08 2009,02:27)

Quote (thethinker @ June 08 2009,01:33)

Paladin said to WJ:

Quote

And I say you lie.

Hi WJ,
So you're a liar now. It appears that all Paladin has left in his arsenal is slander.

thinker

You also lie, thinker. You also have said repeatedly that I have translated the pronouns wrongly.

No evidence. no proof. just stupid assertions. Lies all.

Chrck the translations I listed in page one, and you will see tha tthey remain to this day, still translating autos and outos “it” in John 1:1-3

How can your translations “stand” as you say when they can't even make it past the test of common sense?

thinker

Hi TT,
So you know your trinity God in person?
Which person?

June 8, 2009 at 1:16 pm#132821

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 08 2009,19:10)

Hi PD

Quote (Paladin @ June 06 2009,20:06)

Quote (Paladin @ June 02 2009,05:35)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 06 2009,18:40)

I have searched the scriptures, the ones that the Translators, the experts in Hebrew and Greek languages brought to us, and I have found that your rendering of the Greek pronouns is false.

And I say you lie.

First of all your own words you quote above was not followed up with the quote of mine above, so you are obviously pulling my words out of context and then you call me a liar.

My response to your words above is here…

Is this a normal practice of debate for you?

Secondly when a person lies most of the time they know it is a lie, and when you are accusing someone of lying then you should have proof of the same.

I assumed you understood the reference point for my above statement when I have clearly made statements like the following clarifying my position.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 01 2009,11:25)

If not, then why should we believe you over the hundreds of translators and commentators on BibleGateway.com or Blueletterbible.org?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2009,12:36)

That’s why you do not see the NWT or any of the other questionable translations on “BLUELETTERBIBLE.ORG OR BIBLEGATEWAY.COM”.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2009,12:36)

But you have exalted yourself above the Translators, and “EVERY BIBLE TRANSLATION THAT HAS ANY CREDIBILITY”.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 05 2009,20:46)

You haven’t given an example of anything that proves that the “commentators” are wrong, or we should say 100s of Greek scholars that disagree with you since you are talking about Greek translation. I am not ignoring anything for I do not claim to be a Biblical Greek scholar. I am simply pointing out that every translation on “BLUELETTERBIBLE.ORG AND BIBLEGATEWAY.COM” disagrees with your translation of the pronouns in John 1, and therefore that means you are disagreeing with the scriptures.

Please forgive me for not clarifying my position. This is the reason I say…

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2009,12:36)

Quote (Paladin @ June 06 2009,20:06)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 06 2009,02:40)

Well then I suppose you should rebuke Jesus also, because not once did Jesus mention the Fathers name either did he?

Now you are making the argument of a JW. Are you a JW? Your argument is a red herrin
g, because regardless of what the Hebrews did then, no one knows the exact pronunciation of the Tetragammaton “YHWH”. So this is a mute point. We know God by many names. So for the Translators to use “LORD” instead of YHWH makes no difference since the exact pronunciation of the name was lost.

Quote (Paladin @ June 06 2009,20:06)

Sure he did. Strange you should introduce the Septuagint into the fray and never read it.

Exo 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai [(theos)God Almighty], but by my name (kurios) JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of [theos] (God) Almighty, but by my name [kurios] (JEHOVAH) was I not known to them.

Psalm 22:1 My [theos] (God), my [theos] (God), why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? [theos = nominative case]

First of all it seems you are bearing false witness by claiming that I never read the Septuagint.

But anyway, this is called a diversion because you fail to address the point that no one knows the exact pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton “YHWH”, not even in Jesus day.

Don't you think if the Apostles knew the Fathers name by YHWH through Jesus confession then the name would have been restored?

Not even the Apostles Knew the exact pronunciation of YHWH.

So are you a JW?

Blessings WJ

Hello WJ. Thank you for taking the time to respond with kindness. I understand now, that when you render an answer below the quote, it is not necessarily an answer TO the quote.

This is what I was going by.

Quote

(WJ) – Posted: June 06 2009,18:40

Hi PD

The following is a post that I was working on before your last post and stopped this one to answer your last one because of your tone.

Quote (Paladin @ June 02 2009,05:35)
But I am not changing anything in scripture, just direct quotes with all the little pronouns in their correct place. Also showing how little those theologians are who do not take all the scriptures into account.

Those are the guys that make arguments about “pros ton followed by accusative” in John 1:1 and claim it means a close personal intimate relationship between two entities; Jesus and his father.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 02 2009,11:13)
So since you think you know more than the 100s or even thousands of Hebrew, Greek scholars, Theologians, and Commentators, then please at least tell us what credentials you have, or what Theological Degrees, Biblical Greek or Hebrew degrees do you have.

Otherwise you are just another Arian apologist who thinks that he knows more than anyone else.

Why should we believe you?

Quote (Paladin @ June 04 2009,08:31)

If you did believe me you would be a first-class fool. What you SHOULD do is search the scriptures. If what I tell you is found to be truth, obey it. If not, God will prevail.

It still looks to me as though your final paragraph covers my opening statement, since my opening statement is about the pronouns issue; but since you say it does not I'll accept your response.

I apologize form my language.

I also expect you to aknowledge that the oldest translations in English show John 1:1-3 to render “it” instead of “He,” since you stated –

Quote

I have searched the scriptures, the ones that the Translators, the experts in Hebrew and Greek languages brought to us, and I have found that your rendering of the Greek pronouns is false.

You have not searched –
The Tyndale bible (1525); “the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it.”

Great bible (1539); “the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it.”

Geneva bible (1560); “the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it.”

Bishops' bible (1568) “the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it.”

Rheims (1582) has “This was in the beginning with God, all things were made by him” Which violates the rules of Greek grammar, as you well know. It changes the reference from “it” to “Him” without an entecedent person.

Finally, the RSV (1946) change it to read “He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him” changing the referent “it” to “he” in verse two instead of waiting till verse three.

and found anything at all consisting of “my” rendering the Greek pronouns, because I did not render anything. I showed the original English renderings, which were changed without any evidence offered for the justification for the changes. Yet you expect me to justify changing “him” to “it.” Why does no one question why Duay-Rhiems changed “it” to “him?”

There was no prior reference to “He” or “Him, yet the Catholic translators, trinitarians all, saw fit to change the translation with no explanation, knowing their followers would not question it. And the King James translators were so busy trying to disenfranchise the oversight of Rome, they did not take the time to check the translation for themselves. This is a matter of historical record.

You want scholarship reason for saying “it.” You have it in the above informa
tion. I want scholarship reason for the change. You do not have it.

What I do not understand is why, when you were given the above list of translations, you claim to prove them wrong by using online bibles which do not even reference those earlier translaitons. My point was simple, that the earliest English translaitons have “it,” until the Duay-Rhiems changed it in 1582. Refering to a modern translation will do nothing toward resolving an issue about early translations, not even for “scholars” and “big leaguers.”

Your reference to “any bible translation that has any credibility” shows a bias toward your use of ONLY those translations that agree with your biases. Because the earliest English translations certainly had “credibility” in their own generation.

June 8, 2009 at 1:39 pm#132823

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Paladin…….I agree with you evaluation given for the Pronoun (IT) being changed to (HE) by translators. But to me if a person just reads John 1:1 and use the words written there you can easily understand John was not talking about Jesus at all. I do agree with you though trinitarian influences are in many places in our texts, or obviously we would not have so many different translations. There is a book called (the misquoting of Jesus) that brings out many of these changes and additions to our present texts. Most changes were to try to shore up the trinitarian ideologies. Sometimes we can all be so biased and especially if we are indoctrinated over many years. But the truth is most important in developing our understandings. IMO

peace and love to you and yours………………………………..gene

June 8, 2009 at 2:51 pm#132832

Participant

Quote (Gene @ June 09 2009,01:39)

peace and love to you and yours………………………………..gene

Gene,
You're not paying attention to what Paladin is saying. He is saying that God Himself is not a personal being and not just the Word.

thinker

June 8, 2009 at 4:54 pm#132842

Participant

Hi PD

Quote (Paladin @ June 08 2009,09:16)

Hello WJ. Thank you for taking the time to respond with kindness. I understand now, that when you render an answer below the quote, it is not necessarily an answer TO the quote.

This is what I was going by.

Quote

(WJ) – Posted: June 06 2009,18:40

Hi PD

The following is a post that I was working on before your last post and stopped this one to answer your last one because of your tone.

Those are the guys that make arguments about “pros ton followed by accusative” in John 1:1 and claim it means a close personal intimate relationship between two entities; Jesus and his father.

Otherwise you are just another Arian apologist who thinks that he knows more than anyone else.

Why should we believe you?

Quote (Paladin @ June 04 2009,08:31)

If you did believe me you would be a first-class fool. What you SHOULD do is search the scriptures. If what I tell you is found to be truth, obey it. If not, God will prevail.

It still looks to me as though your final paragraph covers my opening statement, since my opening statement is about the pronouns issue; but since you say it does not I'll accept your response.

I apologize form my language.

I also expect you to aknowledge that the oldest translations in English show John 1:1-3 to render “it” instead of “He,” since you stated –

Quote

I have searched the scriptures, the ones that the Translators, the experts in Hebrew and Greek languages brought to us, and I have found that your rendering of the Greek pronouns is false.

I accept your apologies, so lets move on. I also acknowedge that the tranlations that you quote render the pronouns “it” by a few anti-trinitarians in contrast to 100s of scholars who translated the modern translations who were not all Trinitarians.

Quote (Paladin @ June 08 2009,09:16)

You have not searched –
The Tyndale bible (1525); “the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it.”

Great bible (1539); “the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it.”

Geneva bible (1560); “the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it.”

Bishops' bible (1568) “the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it.”

I have read those translations, but It seems to me that since the discussion is about John 1 and you had already posted their rendering of John 1:2,3 then what was there to search?

That is why I was not talking about your referenced translations when I was saying I have searched them. So now that we understand where we are coming from, we can move on.

As far as the “Rheims”, who cares, all that does is prove some earlier translations were corrupted.

Quote (Paladin @ June 08 2009,09:16)

But what about the many other modern translations that followed the KJV, are you saying that they all are in error and that the hundreds of Greek and Hebrew scholars were being disingenuous to accommodate a doctrinal bias, if so what proof do you have?

Even the NWT which obviously is not Trinitarian doesn’t translate the pronouns in John 1:2, 3 as “IT”.

Quote (Paladin @ June 08 2009,09:16)

It seems to me that trying to build a case based on the earlier translations that contradicted one another (Primarily the Duay-Rhiems) to prove that the modern translations are all wrong, is circular. The many translations found on Biblegateway.com and Blueletterbible org were not translated from those earlier translations, not even the AV, but from the original Greek text.

Quote (Paladin @ June 08 2009,09:16)

Seriously, you are making an argument about something that went on 3-400 years ago. We are not in the 15 or 1600s. The modern translations have nothing to do with “Catholicism”.

Besides, you want to talk about Trinitarian bias, how about the fact that some of the Translators and supporters of the Bibles you quote from the 1500s were anti-trin
itarian.

Quote (Paladin @ June 08 2009,09:16)

You want scholarship reason for saying “it.” You have it in the above information. I want scholarship reason for the change. You do not have it.

LOL, you have what, , five obscure translations that history itself shows that some of the supporters of those versions pitted against one another.

Quote (Paladin @ June 08 2009,09:16)

What I do not understand is why, when you were given the above list of translations, you claim to prove them wrong by using online bibles which do not even reference those earlier translaitons.

Exactly, because the translators of the online translations went to the original manuscripts and didn’t have to reference the works of a few obscure versions. And its pretty obvious they do not agree with the obscure few.

Quote (Paladin @ June 08 2009,09:16)

My point was simple, that the earliest English translaitons have “it,” until the Duay-Rhiems changed it in 1582. Refering to a modern translation will do nothing toward resolving an issue about early translations, not even for “scholars” and “big leaguers.”

Who cares about the Duay-Rhiems? It is circular to make the argument that somehow because the Duay-Rhiems corrupted the translation that somehow that reflects on the modern credible translations found on Biblegateway.com and Blueletterbible.org.

As I said the “NWT” which is not Trinitarian does not refer to God as an impersonal “it” and translate John 1 with impersonal pronouns. So you are making a circular argument and not giving any “grammatical” reasons as to why you think the modern translations are wrong.

In fact most of the anti-trinitarians posting on this sight disagree with your rendering of the pronouns.

Quote (Paladin @ June 08 2009,09:16)

Now the Pot is calling the kettle black. Your bias is also evident, so what does this all mean? Its back to square one, you have not “proved” anything and given us a reason that John 1:1-3 should not be translated…

BTW here is an interesting debate on John 1:1. The debater (Isa 1:18) gives some sound evidence that favours Trinitarianism.

Click here

Blessings WJ

June 8, 2009 at 7:08 pm#132850

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ June 09 2009,02:51)

Quote (Gene @ June 09 2009,01:39)

peace and love to you and yours………………………………..gene

Gene,
You're not paying attention to what Paladin is saying. He is saying that God Himself is not a personal being and not just the Word.

thinker

Hi TT,
You say you can know God personally.
Which person of your trinity God are you speaking of?

June 8, 2009 at 10:46 pm#132878