- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,23:55) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,22:18) Saying that 'John was man' speaks more to his nature than 'John was a man' although both could mean the same thing. That is what I perceive anyway.
But either way, adding the “a” wouldn't add “confusion, like you said, right? If so, how?
Mike,Enough with all these unlike examples.
The focus on adding the 'a' in John 1:1c has obviously created confusion, otherwise there wouldn't be all this fuss about it. The confusion is cleared up with v. 18. Take the focus off the article or lack thereof. It is an unnecessary confusion. It's like pretending that v. 18 is not there so we can remain uncertain. Why do you want to pretend that v. 18 doesn't bring clarity. Can you get past this? Can we go from point a directly to point b without going on rabbit trails to point c,d and f also?
Please
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 24 2011,08:05) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 23 2011,01:39) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,09:32) Mike,
The verse includes 1:1b with 1:1c to make that distinction.
If we changed the word 'God' to man it would read:
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the man, and the word was man. You don't need an 'a' or a 'the' in the 'c' part of the verse.
Duece!!!!!!!!!
My ol'lady say , Itz don madder any “a” o “the” She say yo al U ned iz Gawd!
Lol Dennison, son, very cute but the next time you call me 'ol'lady'…I'll be sendin' a note home to 'yo mamma'
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 24 2011,18:51) Anything can be made Possible, But Truth is Distinctly a Fact
SF,Exaxtly! Mike is just trying to keep this “possibilities” diversion going to escape the truth.
KJ
Hi Mike,
hehe. I have a thought as to where you are going with this, but, since you are “in the temple” I will wait and see.With Love and Respect,
WispringQuote (Wispring @ Mar. 23 2011,22:01) Hi WJ, Quote Look around Mike… Greek grammar doesn't include [a].
WJ
What was the debate-based reason for this post? The reason I ask is that it has been shown in these threads that this is true and that the insertion of the 'a' in the translation process is up to the translators discernment. It seems to my mind that you are trying to circle the debate process back to this issue which has already been resolved.With Love and Respect,
Wispring
No, Mike insists that it is a fact that all scholars agree that “grammatically” it is possible for John 1:1c to have an [a] yet I have shown him scholars that have insisted it isn't.Now he is being stubborn about my source by claiming “not permissible” does not mean “not possible”. If something is not permissible then it can't be “possible” unless it is grammatically incorrect.
The conclusion of all the scholars is the same. John 1:1c should not have an [a] and I have shown that their reasons are also grammatical as well as contextual and theological.
Mike holds on to the NWT even when it is proven that the translation committee of the NWT who were not Greek or Hebrew scholars at all and who could not read a single verse in Hebrew and Greek, and had miss represented the scholars they quoted.
Almost 40 translations on Biblegateway.com and Blueletterbible.org render the verse anarthrous (without an article). That means that over 1000 scholars signed off their reputations that the correct rendering of John 1:1c is anarthrous.
Here is just a few of the translations….
New International Version Bible – translation committee of 115 scholars.
King James Version – translation committee of 54 scholars.
New King James Version – 119 scholars.
New American Standard Bible – 54 scholars
Contemporary English Version – 100+ scholars
English Standard Version – 100+ scholarsTo say that all these scholars are dishonest, disingenuous or that there was some kind of conspiracy or bias to cover up something that is possible is ludicrous and just a denial of the facts.
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,22:05) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 23 2011,01:39) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,09:32) Mike,
The verse includes 1:1b with 1:1c to make that distinction.
If we changed the word 'God' to man it would read:
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the man, and the word was man. You don't need an 'a' or a 'the' in the 'c' part of the verse.
Duece!!!!!!!!!
My ol'lady say , Itz don madder any “a” o “the” She say yo al U ned iz Gawd!
Lol Dennison, son, very cute but the next time you call me 'ol'lady'…I'll be sendin' a note home to 'yo mamma'WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 24 2011,00:17) Quote “In the beginning was Cain, and Cain was with Adam, and Cain was Adam.” Uggg! Is this going to go on and on because this is not a perfect comparison because the word 'adam' is not the english word for man and this sentence is an English translation, also, the word 'man' when changed to 'Man' doesn't change it from a sense of non-divinity to a sense of divinity. Bottom line, the word was God. God should be capital because that particular word carries a sense of divinity when capitalized and other than divinity when not capitalized, as I would read it.
Hi KathiThe problem with Mikes examples are he switches “titles” and “proper names” around.
Cain is a proper name. Man and God are not proper names.
Your example is right when you said…
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the man, and the word was man.
Mikes model changes the format all together…
“In the beginning was Cain, and Cain was with Man, and Cain was Man.”
Blessings Keith
Mike said to kathi:
Quote Okay, there's some headway. And since “God” is generally used as another name for Jehovah, as in, “God is love”, let's change our Adam/Cain version of 1:1 just a little bit more: “In the beginning was Cain, and Cain was with Adam, and Cain was Adam.”
This doesn't work Mike because “Cain” must correspond the “Word” and “Adam” must correspond to “God.” John 1:1“In the beginning was the Cain, and the Cain was with the Adam, and the Cain was Adam.”
Why didn't you chose Abel?
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 24 2011,10:25) Mike said to kathi: Quote Okay, there's some headway. And since “God” is generally used as another name for Jehovah, as in, “God is love”, let's change our Adam/Cain version of 1:1 just a little bit more: “In the beginning was Cain, and Cain was with Adam, and Cain was Adam.”
This doesn't work Mike because “Cain” must correspond the “Word” and “Adam” must correspond to “God.” John 1:1“In the beginning was the Cain, and the Cain was with the Adam, and the Cain was Adam.”
Why didn't you chose Abel?
JackWhat is amazing is now he is claiming that “God” is a name!
WJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 25 2011,02:25) Mike said to kathi: Quote Okay, there's some headway. And since “God” is generally used as another name for Jehovah, as in, “God is love”, let's change our Adam/Cain version of 1:1 just a little bit more: “In the beginning was Cain, and Cain was with Adam, and Cain was Adam.”
This doesn't work Mike because “Cain” must correspond the “Word” and “Adam” must correspond to “God.” John 1:1“In the beginning was the Cain, and the Cain was with the Adam, and the Cain was Adam.”
Why didn't you chose Abel?
Here is another example I have used before.“In the beginning was the Woman,, and the Woman was with the Adam, and the Woman was Adam.”
Using Mike's formula it goes like this:
“In the beginning was the Adam, and the Adam was with the Woman, and the Adam was Woman.”
The Adam is not Woman. The Woman is Adam.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2011,09:51) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 24 2011,00:17) Quote “In the beginning was Cain, and Cain was with Adam, and Cain was Adam.” Uggg! Is this going to go on and on because this is not a perfect comparison because the word 'adam' is not the english word for man and this sentence is an English translation, also, the word 'man' when changed to 'Man' doesn't change it from a sense of non-divinity to a sense of divinity. Bottom line, the word was God. God should be capital because that particular word carries a sense of divinity when capitalized and other than divinity when not capitalized, as I would read it.
Hi KathiThe problem with Mikes examples are he switches “titles” and “proper names” around.
Cain is a proper name. Man and God are not proper names.
Your example is right when you said…
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the man, and the word was man.
Mikes model changes the format all together…
“In the beginning was Cain, and Cain was with Man, and Cain was Man.”
Blessings Keith
Hi Keith,
Yes, I understand this…I don't think there are any proper nouns in John 1:1 but I think some do. Do you?Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 24 2011,13:41) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 24 2011,09:51) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 24 2011,00:17) Quote “In the beginning was Cain, and Cain was with Adam, and Cain was Adam.” Uggg! Is this going to go on and on because this is not a perfect comparison because the word 'adam' is not the english word for man and this sentence is an English translation, also, the word 'man' when changed to 'Man' doesn't change it from a sense of non-divinity to a sense of divinity. Bottom line, the word was God. God should be capital because that particular word carries a sense of divinity when capitalized and other than divinity when not capitalized, as I would read it.
Hi KathiThe problem with Mikes examples are he switches “titles” and “proper names” around.
Cain is a proper name. Man and God are not proper names.
Your example is right when you said…
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the man, and the word was man.
Mikes model changes the format all together…
“In the beginning was Cain, and Cain was with Man, and Cain was Man.”
Blessings Keith
Hi Keith,
Yes, I understand this…I don't think there are any proper nouns in John 1:1 but I think some do. Do you?
NO.Thats why it has to be “anarthrous”, because it doesn't say…
“The Word was Jesus”, or “The Word was the Father” or “The word was the begotten Son”.
Therefore it leaves us with “theos” in 1:1c as being qualitative, meaning “EVERYTHING” that God was the Word was”.
Thayer states….
One prime example to consider is Thayer’s comments on Colossians 2:9 which states that “…in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form.” In his Greek English Lexicon, Thayer notes that the Greek word for Deity (theotes) used in this verse means “deity i.e. the state of being God, Godhead: Col. ii.9.”11. Source
Blessings Keith
Hi Keith,
You said in the post above this:Quote Therefore it leaves us with “theos” in 1:1c as being qualitative, meaning “EVERYTHING” that God was the Word was”. Was the theos in 1:1b the Heavenly Father?
If He was, then according to your statement that would make the Word the Heavenly Father also.I don't think that 'theos' in 1:1c means “everything” that 'theos' in 1:1b is because the 'theos' in 1:1c is not a Heavenly Father of an only begotten Son. Do you see this?
KathiQuote (Lightenup @ Mar. 24 2011,16:53) Was the theos in 1:1b the Heavenly Father?
KathiNo. But being a Father has nothing to do with being human in nature. I am everything in nature my Father was and is, “man”.
Jesus in nature is everything the Father is, “God”.
“In the beginning was the man and the man was with man and the man was man”.
WJ
Ok Keith, I thought that is what was meant. So the 'everything' pertains to nature only, right?
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 24 2011,17:11) Ok Keith, I thought that is what was meant. So the 'everything' pertains to nature only, right? Kathi
Hi KathiNature, qualities, attributes, being, essence, substance, Yes.
The essence of God (or that which distinguishes God from creation) is “Eternal”.
Jesus is “…the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature”…, (being, essence, substance), the NIV has it “being”“. Heb 1:3
God the Father has never been without the “radiance of His Glory”, has he?
As Thayer states…
One prime example to consider is Thayer’s comments on Colossians 2:9 which states that “…in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form.” In his Greek English Lexicon, “Thayer notes that the Greek word for Deity (theotes) used in this verse means “deity i.e. the state of being God, Godhead: Col. ii.9.”11. Source
So whatever “being”, God is, Jesus is.
WJ
Hi Kathi,
This post is only for clarification purposes. It is quite long, and does not need to be addressed – unless you want to. I will follow up this post with some shorter, to the point “question posts”.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,23:17)
Mike,
I understand what you are saying but I think people look at the typical translation thinking that Jesus is divine and that the book of John shows the 'divinity' of Christ.
I think you are way off base on this one. Moffatt translated 1:1c as “the Word was divine”. How did that go over? How many other translations use those words? ZERO. Why? Because that is NOT what the trinni's are trying to convey. The want the Word to be understood as nothing less the same exact BEING as “THE God” in 1:1b. And that's why they purposely leave out the word “THE” in 1:1b. They don't want people to know that John clearly distinguished one theos from the other theos by using the definite article for only one of them.Origen says: “We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God…. The true God, then, is The God (ho theos).”
It stands to reason, that if these translators wanted people to only understand that Jesus was “divine”, and not THE God of 1:1b, we'd have a lot of translations that follow Moffatt's lead. But we don't, do we?
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,23:17)
I don't believe that I know of anyone that claims that Jesus is the same person that He is with in 1:1b.
Change the word “person” in your quote to “being”, and I'll guarantee you'll find many takers. Which is ludicrous, because just as one PERSON cannot be said to be WITH himself, one BEING also cannot be said to be WITH himself. But such are the illogical things one must accept to become a Trinitarian.Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,23:17)
I think that the [Trinitarian] understanding is like this:
In the beginning was the word (the second person of the trinity), and the word was with God (the first person in the trinity), and the word (the second person of the trinity) was God (divinity).
How many “THE Gods” are there? God is ONE SINGLE BEING. If Jesus, or Moses, or you, or anybody else was said to be WITH that ONE SINGLE BEING OF GOD, then it is absolutely impossible for that person to BE that ONE SINGLE BEING OF GOD. Do you understand this, Kathi? 1:1b doesn't say the Word was with “THE FATHER” or “THE FIRST PERSON OF THE TRINITY”. If it did, then they would at least have something to base their “different persons/same being” philosophy on. But because 1:1b says the Word was with “THE GOD“, and there is only ONE BEING OF GOD, the Word cannot possibly be that Being he was with.Again, this post was only for clarification,
mikeQuote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,23:17)
Regarding this:Quote “In the beginning was Cain, and Cain was with Adam, and Cain was Adam.” Uggg! Is this going to go on and on because this is not a perfect comparison
It's not “PERFECT”?
What a cop out! I was hoping you'd be willing to acknowledge what this exercise teaches us. We started with an IDEA that Cain, who is the son of Adam, was with Adam in the beginning, and was also a member of mankind. He was the son of Adam, not Adam himself. And as Cain's father, Adam was undoubtedly older, smarter, and stronger. But what we ended up with was a confusing sentence that claimed not only that was Cain WITH Adam, but Cain also WAS Adam. Can you not see that? And if you can, can you not acknowledge it?
But let's see…………Adam was A man. Cain was A man. And since we CAN add the indefinite article “a” to the Greek words when needed for clarification, doesn't it convey the original IDEA better to say, “Cain was with THE Adam, and Cain was AN adam”? See? No more confusion about Cain possibly being WITH Adam and BEING Adam at the same time.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,23:17)
Bottom line, the word was God. God should be capital because that particular word carries a sense of divinity when capitalized and other than divinity when not capitalized, as I would read it.
Okay then, I would expect you to use Moffatt's translation any time you quote John 1:1. Because YOU think the theos in 1:1c simply means “divine”, so go ahead and say it that way. Why make pointed statements like, “Bottom line, the word was God” and “God should be capital” when you think that second theos only means divine? If you don't think it refers to “THE God”, then why insist on a wording and a capital “G” that confuses many into thinking it DOES refer to “THE God” of 1:1b?The problem is that what YOU think is not what most trinitarians have been brainwashed to think. They have been brainwashed to think 1:1 is absolute proof that Jesus IS “THE God” mentioned in 1:1b. And this brainwashing has been even more effectively enforced by the additions of words that have no place in John 1:1. It isn't bad enough that they omit the “THE” of 1:1b, omit the much needed “A” of 1:1c, and cap the “G” in the god of 1:1c. No, that's not enough for these twisters of scripture. Now they're starting to add their own words in. The CEV says, “the Word was TRULY God”.
Where did the word “TRULY” come from? The NET says “FULLY God”. Now you know who I'M fighting against………and why. Not someone like you, who understands Jesus is a god who is NOT the Most High God Jehovah, and therefore understands the theos in 1:1c as conveying “divinity”. No, I fight against these butchers of scripture for whom “enough” will never be “enough”. They will just keep butchering and butchering. Check out the NIV. In two years, they've reworded many of their renderings to make their version more “trinity friendly”. Compare a 1980's NIV with the online one of today. What a crock!
mike
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,22:18) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 23 2011,23:55) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,22:18) Saying that 'John was man' speaks more to his nature than 'John was a man' although both could mean the same thing. That is what I perceive anyway.
But either way, adding the “a” wouldn't add “confusion”, like you said, right? If so, how?
Mike,Enough with all these unlike examples.
Please answer the question, Kathi. If I wanted to say that John was a member of the human race, how would “He is a man” be more confusing than “He is man”?Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,23:47)
The focus on adding the 'a' in John 1:1c has obviously created confusion, otherwise there wouldn't be all this fuss about it. The confusion is cleared up with v. 18.
Very good. Let's move on to 1:18, shall we? What does 1:18 tell us? Does it tell us that Jesus is A god who is NOT the Only Unbegotten God?Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,23:47)
Can we go from point a directly to point b without going on rabbit trails
I would like to hear you acknowledge that adding the “a” in 1:1c would NOT add confusion, but actually clear it up. Or else I would like to know HOW it would cause confusion. You see, if 1:18 tells us Jesus is a god who is not THE God, then why not just say that same thing right up front with 1:1? Can you think of any solid reason not to?mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
