- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (2besee @ Dec. 20 2012,02:57) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 13 2012,12:38)
Oops, there it goes again……… that pesky little word “IN”, that you guys must ADD into John 1:14 to make the scriptures come out your own way.Yes — as you do when you add that 'pesky little letter' a, believing that the word was a god…..
2B,Your statement above is what is called “an inflammatory statement”. There is no reason or rule to it, and it is said just to create thoughts and emotions that are NOT based on solid facts.
You have already acknowledged, along with ALL Greek scholars, that we in English can either ADD the definite article “the”, making it “the Word was God”……….. OR………we can ADD the indefinite article “a”, making it “the Word was a god”.
EITHER WAY, we in English are ADDING an article so that it makes sense to us in our language. I have also pointed out to you that EACH AND EVERY one of the over 7000 times the word “a” is in the English Bible, it was ADDED – because the Hebrew and Greek languages do not use an indefinite article, while the English language does.
Surely you understand this, because you've already acknowledged your understanding of it to me in the other thread.
It is below you to make such inflammatory statements, and rely on a “bandwagon” approach to discussing scriptures. I hope I won't see such behavior from you again.
Quote (2besee @ Dec. 20 2012,02:57) Anyway, 'becoming flesh' and 'being in flesh' do mean the same thing, do they not? What is the difference??
Hmmmm……………..1. Barak Obama BECAME the President.
2. Barak Obama CAME TO BE IN the President.
Are you sure you can't see a difference?
It is, however, very telling that your doctrine of Jesus relies on ADDING the word “IN” into John 1:14, thereby completely altering the teaching that John actually wrote.
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 20 2012,04:51) Origen wrote in the early 200′s A.D and was well versed in the finer points of Koine Greek. “We next notice John’s use of the article [“the”] 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 Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only.
He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos.”
Well 2B? Do you agree with Origen's observation that John surely knew how the Greek language worked? Do you agree with him that there must have been some reason John used the definite article before “theos” in part b, but DIDN'T use it before “theos” in part c?(t8, as a sidenote for Kathi, it seems Origen was under the impression that John originally wrote his gospel in Koine Greek, and not in Aramaic.
)Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 20 2012,07:18) Quote (2besee @ Dec. 20 2012,18:41) 1Peter 1:22-25.
why would you believe Peter and not Paul
I am also curious to know the answer to this question.2B,
I've thought of a better example to use to show you the difference between adding an “a” into the Greek scriptures, and adding the word “IN” where it does not belong.
1 Corinthians 15:45
Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.Both of the underlined indefinite articles are ADDED into the English versions. They are NECESSARY for our understanding, because the Greek language does not use indefinite articles.
On the other hand, to add the word “IN” into Paul's statement, making it say “the first Adam CAME TO BE IN a living being”, or “the last Adam CAME TO BE IN a life-giving spirit” – would completely change the meaning of the teaching.
So you can see that the addition of “a” is many times (over 7000) necessary for our understanding of the scriptures. On the other hand, the addition of other, context-changing words, which are used to FORCE the scriptures to teach what we WANT them to teach, is simply inexcusable.
So YES, we CAN add the “a” when the context dictates we should. But NO, we CANNOT just go around adding the word “IN” where it does not belong – just so the scripture suits our doctrine.
And the context of John 1:1 either says that our one Almighty God was WITH HIMSELF, or it says he was with a DIFFERENT person who is also called a god. Knowing that Jesus IS called a god in other scriptures, and knowing that the being of God cannot possibly be with the being of God, it should be an easy decision to add the “a” in part c.
But we can continue that discussion in the “Beginning” thread.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 21 2012,15:30) (t8, as a sidenote for Kathi, it seems Origen was under the impression that John originally wrote his gospel in Koine Greek, and not in Aramaic. )
Correct. But Kathi even corrects Jesus.Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 21 2012,02:18) Quote (2besee @ Dec. 20 2012,18:41) 1Peter 1:22-25.
why would you believe Peter and not Paul
I follow Jesus and my Father is God. Paul I also listen to but when it comes to Internet debates (or even discussions with Family and freinds) the words of Jesus take precedence whenever there is any conflict of understanding, and often there is. Do you now understand me T?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 21 2012,14:21) 2B, Your statement above is what is called “an inflammatory statement”. There is no reason or rule to it, and it is said just to create thoughts and emotions that are NOT based on solid facts.
You have already acknowledged, along with ALL Greek scholars, that we in English can either ADD the definite article “the”, making it “the Word was God”……….. OR………we can ADD the indefinite article “a”, making it “the Word was a god”.
EITHER WAY, we in English are ADDING an article so that it makes sense to us in our language. I have also pointed out to you that EACH AND EVERY one of the over 7000 times the word “a” is in the English Bible, it was ADDED – because the Hebrew and Greek languages do not use an indefinite article, while the English language does.
Surely you understand this, because you've already acknowledged your understanding of it to me in the other thread.
It is below you to make such inflammatory statements, and rely on a “bandwagon” approach to discussing scriptures. I hope I won't see such behavior from you again.
Mike, regardless of what has been done to other parts of scriptures, the spirit of truth is what leads us into all understanding not some dictionary and not some commentary and not some other mans opinion and not Greek Scholars. You have to put together all of the scriptures and I have given you scriptures from the OT which show you that only one God created it all through his own word and his own spirit.Who knows the mind of a man but the spirit which is in him. Who likewise knows the mind of God but the spirit which is in him (1Cor 2:11). Who knows the Father but the Son and whomever he wants to reveal him to(Matt 11:27).
The Son is the Holy Spirit. Not “another god”.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 21 2012,14:30) Quote (t8 @ Dec. 20 2012,04:51) Origen wrote in the early 200′s A.D and was well versed in the finer points of Koine Greek. “We next notice John’s use of the article [“the”] 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 Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only.
He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos.”
Well 2B? Do you agree with Origen's observation that John surely knew how the Greek language worked? Do you agree with him that there must have been some reason John used the definite article before “theos” in part b, but DIDN'T use it before “theos” in part c?(t8, as a sidenote for Kathi, it seems Origen was under the impression that John originally wrote his gospel in Koine Greek, and not in Aramaic.
)
No, I do not agree with this.
Do YOU agree with every single “Church Fathers” writings that YOU read? If so, then how come there is so much disagreement between them all? If you agree with all of them, then how come you disagree, or choose not to see, what Irenaus wrote?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 21 2012,14:57) So YES, we CAN add the “a” when the context dictates we should. But NO, we CANNOT just go around adding the word “IN” where it does not belong – just so the scripture suits our doctrine. And the context of John 1:1 either says that our one Almighty God was WITH HIMSELF, or it says he was with a DIFFERENT person who is also called a god. Knowing that Jesus IS called a god in other scriptures, and knowing that the being of God cannot possibly be with the being of God, it should be an easy decision to add the “a” in part c.
Quote But we can continue that discussion in the “Beginning” thread. Okay (:
Hebrews 9:14
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
Don't you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me does his work through me.
Quote
On the other hand, to add the word “IN” into Paul's statement, making it say “the first Adam CAME TO BE IN a living being”, or “the last Adam CAME TO BE IN a life-giving spirit” – would completely change the meaning of the teaching.God bless.
Quote (2besee @ Dec. 21 2012,03:31) You have to put together all of the scriptures and I have given you scriptures from the OT which show you that only one God created it all through his own word and his own spirit.
Truer words have not been spoken, 2B. We must put ALL of the scriptures together, like Rev 19:13, where it is clear to all that the “Word of God” is none other than Jesus.And scriptures, like Col 1:16 and 1 Cor 8:6, where it is clear to all that all things, in heaven and on earth, were created through that very Word of God, otherwise known as “Jesus”.
But like I said, we can continue this discussion in the “Beginning” thread. Right now, I'm awaiting a couple of “YES” or “NO” answers from you, Kerwin, and Gene.
Quote (2besee @ Dec. 21 2012,03:35) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 21 2012,14:30) Quote (t8 @ Dec. 20 2012,04:51) Origen wrote in the early 200′s A.D and was well versed in the finer points of Koine Greek. “We next notice John’s use of the article [“the”] 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 Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only.
He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos.”
Well 2B? Do you agree with Origen's observation that John surely knew how the Greek language worked? Do you agree with him that there must have been some reason John used the definite article before “theos” in part b, but DIDN'T use it before “theos” in part c?
No, I do not agree with this.
Do YOU agree with every single “Church Fathers” writings that YOU read?
No 2B, I absolutely DON'T agree with MOST of the things written by the so-called “early church fathers”.But in this case, what exactly is it that you don't agree with?
A. That John uses the definite article in front of only one mention of “theos”?
B. That there is a REASON for John doing this?
Which one?
Quote (2besee @ Dec. 21 2012,04:53) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) On the other hand, to add the word “IN” into Paul's statement, making it say “the first Adam CAME TO BE IN a living being”, or “the last Adam CAME TO BE IN a life-giving spirit” – would completely change the meaning of the teaching. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
Don't you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me does his work through me.
God bless.
Huh?Are you trying to use scriptures that legitimately have the word “IN” in them to “prove” that it's okay to ADD the word “IN” into other scriptures, that don't have it?
I don't understand this post. Are you saying that 1 Cor 15:45 SHOULD say, “the last Adam came to be IN a life-giving spirit”?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 23 2012,06:11) Quote (2besee @ Dec. 21 2012,03:31) You have to put together all of the scriptures and I have given you scriptures from the OT which show you that only one God created it all through his own word and his own spirit.
Truer words have not been spoken, 2B. We must put ALL of the scriptures together, like Rev 19:13, where it is clear to all that the “Word of God” is none other than Jesus.
Revelation 19:11-16And now I saw heaven open, and a white horse appear –
This is the Word, the Holy Spirit.
– its rider was called Trustworthy and True; in uprightness he judges and makes war.
His eyes were flames of fire, and he was crowned with many coronets; the name written on him was known only to himself,
his cloak was soaked in blood.
This is the Body Of Jesus (The Cloak)
– He is known by the name, The Word of God.
Behind him, dressed in linen of dazzling white, rode the armies of heaven on white horses.
From his mouth came a sharp sword with which to strike the unbelievers; he is the one who will rule them with an iron sceptre, and tread out the wine of Almighty God's fierce retribution.
On his cloak and on his thigh a name was written: King of kings and Lord of lords.
Jesus is called the King of kings and the Lord of lords.
Quote
But like I said, we can continue this discussion in the “Beginning” thread. Right now, I'm awaiting a couple of “YES” or “NO” answers from you, Kerwin, and Gene.Yes okay.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 23 2012,06:18) Quote (2besee @ Dec. 21 2012,04:53) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) On the other hand, to add the word “IN” into Paul's statement, making it say “the first Adam CAME TO BE IN a living being”, or “the last Adam CAME TO BE IN a life-giving spirit” – would completely change the meaning of the teaching. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
Don't you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me does his work through me.
God bless.
Huh?Are you trying to use scriptures that legitimately have the word “IN” in them to “prove” that it's okay to ADD the word “IN” into other scriptures, that don't have it?
I don't understand this post. Are you saying that 1 Cor 15:45 SHOULD say, “the last Adam came to be IN a life-giving spirit”?
No, that was in response to this:Quote Hmmmm…………….. 1. Barak Obama BECAME the President.
2. Barak Obama CAME TO BE IN the President.
Are you sure you can't see a difference?
It is, however, very telling that your doctrine of Jesus relies on ADDING the word “IN” into John 1:14, thereby completely altering the teaching that John actually wrote.
Mike, your question doesn't make sense?
Anyway… other thread!The Word of God is GOD, the Holy Spirit is God. God came into the World through his Holy Spirit.
Who knows the mind of man but the Spirit that is in him? Who also knows the mind of GOD but the Spirit?
The Spirit was Spirit . The spirit was the eternal Spirit. Jesus was perfection he was the only perfect flesh alive. he was the SECOND ADAM PRAISE GOD THAT SUCH A ONE EXISTED.
He was in the World and the Holy Spirit descended on him like a Dove and the Father dwelt in Him. The Father spoke through Him. The Father worked in Him. The Fathers words were what He spoke and through Him all of the World can be saved.
When He died, God raised Him up from the dead, therefore he was the firsborn over all of creation.
And through him we are all saved.
We have the words of God. We have the truth of God and we have the light if we walk in the light. We are saved for our sins and we are saved form our darkness thanks be to God…
Quote (2besee @ Dec. 23 2012,03:39) And now I saw heaven open, and a white horse appear – This is the Word, the Holy Spirit.
On his cloak and on his thigh a name was written: King of kings and Lord of lords.
Jesus is called the King of kings and the Lord of lords.
So Jesus actually IS the Holy Spirit?Quote (2besee @ Dec. 23 2012,04:07) The Word of God is GOD, the Holy Spirit is God.
Obviously, you haven't done the test I asked you to do.If the word OF actually God IS God, then we should be able to swap out “word of God” for “God Himself” in ANY scripture, right? Can we?
If the Holy Spirit OF God actually IS God, then we should be able to swap out “Holy Spirit” for “God Himself” in ANY scripture, right? Can we?
Quote (2besee @ Dec. 23 2012,03:53) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) 1. Barack Obama BECAME the President. 2. Barack Obama CAME TO BE IN the President.
Are you sure you can't see a difference?
Mike, your question doesn't make sense?
My example was in response to YOU saying there wasn't a difference between “BECAME” and “CAME TO BE IN“.Can you see the difference the word “IN” makes in my example? YES or NO?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
