- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 10 2012,16:48) Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 10 2012,08:09) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 10 2012,15:05) Hi T,
For us there is one God and one Lord.
nickbut are they different beings
Hi T,
We can commune with both.
Nickagreed
Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 09 2012,15:28) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 10 2012,06:43) The following info is from NETNotes, comprised from 25 Trinitarian scholars, who would like nothing more than for John 1:1c to really say “the Word was God” – meaning Jesus is God Himself. Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb.
Can we all see that there are THREE grammatically correct possibilities for the translation of John 1:1c? They are as follows:
1. God
2. a god
3. qualitatively god, as in “of the god species”, or “godlike”, “divine”, etc.That is lesson #2. Any questions? Any disputes?
Hi Mike,“Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.” (Isaiah 44:8)
So then Isaiah 44:8 disqualifies “B” as a 'viable' possibility; do you agree?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
No Ed,Because there are MANY gods and lords, both in heaven and on earth.
You must use your God-given, human wisdom and logic here, despite what Nick claims.
If scripture says God is the ONLY savior, yet we know there were OTHERS, then what kind of statement is “only savior”? Isn't it more a statement of God being the “Savior OF saviors”, or the “Ultimate Savior” – rather than being a literal statement meaning God is literally the only one?
We must also use this understanding for Is 44:8, for God Himself callled those to whom the word of God came “gods”.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 10 2012,16:59) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 09 2012,15:28) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 10 2012,06:43) The following info is from NETNotes, comprised from 25 Trinitarian scholars, who would like nothing more than for John 1:1c to really say “the Word was God” – meaning Jesus is God Himself. Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb.
Can we all see that there are THREE grammatically correct possibilities for the translation of John 1:1c? They are as follows:
1. God
2. a god
3. qualitatively god, as in “of the god species”, or “godlike”, “divine”, etc.That is lesson #2. Any questions? Any disputes?
Hi Mike,“Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.” (Isaiah 44:8)
So then Isaiah 44:8 disqualifies “B” as a 'viable' possibility; do you agree?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
No Ed,Because there are MANY gods and lords, both in heaven and on earth.
You must use your God-given, human wisdom and logic here, despite what Nick claims.
If scripture says God is the ONLY savior, yet we know there were OTHERS, then what kind of statement is “only savior”? Isn't it more a statement of God being the “Savior OF saviors”, or the “Ultimate Savior” – rather than being a literal statement meaning God is literally the only one?
We must also use this understanding for Is 44:8, for God Himself callled those to whom the word of God came “gods”.
Mikeit is because you want to answer EDJ that you have to use your mind, but the scriptures have answered you already ? right ? yes
but some people like to ask questions and questions but never apply or come to the truth and true understanding ,
so the question would be why you have the understanding and not the other ?
Pierre
Pierre,
And if we play that game, where will it leave us? We will have Nick trying to pass unscriptural things as truth, saying, “You must be guided by the spirit to understand it”.
We will have you and I saying the same thing to prove the OPPOSITE of what Nick believes.
We will have the Trinitarians saying, “I know it doesn't make sense to the carnal mind, you must have it revealed to you by spirit.”
Everyone will be disagreeing, but instead of using the mind God gave us to read, understand, and teach what the scriptures actually say, we will become a group of people standing around saying, “You're wrong, because the spirit told ME this”. And the other will say, “YOU'RE wrong, because the spirit told ME something else”.
In my experience, the only people who ever say, “You must have it revealed to you by spirit” are people whose doctrines aren't taught in the scriptures.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 10 2012,09:59) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 09 2012,15:28) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 10 2012,06:43) The following info is from NETNotes, comprised from 25 Trinitarian scholars, who would like nothing more than for John 1:1c to really say “the Word was God” – meaning Jesus is God Himself. Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb.
Can we all see that there are THREE grammatically correct possibilities for the translation of John 1:1c? They are as follows:
1. God
2. a god
3. qualitatively god, as in “of the god species”, or “godlike”, “divine”, etc.That is lesson #2. Any questions? Any disputes?
Hi Mike,“Is there 'a God' beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.” (Isaiah 44:8)
So then Isaiah 44:8 disqualifies “B” as a 'viable' possibility; do you agree?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
No Ed,Because there are MANY gods and lords, both in heaven and on earth.
You must use your God-given, human wisdom and logic here, despite what Nick claims.
If scripture says God is the ONLY savior, yet we know there were OTHERS, then what kind of statement is “only savior”? Isn't it more a statement of God being the “Savior OF saviors”, or the “Ultimate Savior” – rather than being a literal statement meaning God is literally the only one?
We must also use this understanding for Is 44:8, for God Himself callled those to whom the word of God came “gods”.
Hi Mike, Isaiah 44:8 is pretty clear to me!So you choose to go against what Scripture teaches; well it is your choice to make.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Feb. 09 2012,19:06) So you choose to go against what Scripture teaches; well it is your choice to make.
Did Paul go against scripture in 1 Cor 8:6? Did God go against scripture when He spoke of other gods?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 09 2012,19:04) Hi MB,
You speak as if you have stopped learning.
Is that what you think?
Nick,Which exact words did I use that would lead you to that conclusion? Put your money where your big mouth is for once. Stand and defend the smart-ass quips you go around making to everyone here – as if you are more “spiritually led”, or more “scripturally knowledgable”.
SHOW ME THE WORDS THAT CAUSED YOU TO THINK I HAVE “STOPPED LEARNING”.
I'm waiting for you to post the exact words I spoke that caused you to say:
You speak as if you have stopped learning.
Hi MB,
I am sure you can review recent posts as well as anyone.
Just an impression, perhaps a wrong one.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 10 2012,12:09) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 09 2012,19:06) So you choose to go against what Scripture teaches; well it is your choice to make.
Did Paul go against scripture in 1 Cor 8:6? Did God go against scripture when He spoke of other gods?
Hi Mike,Anyone can place anything above YHVH, but that don't make it or them an actual god?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgSo when the God OF gods (that means there are more than one of them, Ed) said “ye are gods”, He was lying?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 09 2012,19:25) Hi MB,
I am sure you can review recent posts as well as anyone.
Just an impression, perhaps a wrong one.
Nick,Show me what exact words I spoke that made you conclude I had stopped learning.
You cannot, can you? I only took this as far as I did to shove your flippant remark right back down your own throat.
Remember that the next time you think about making a smart-ass remark to me.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 10 2012,13:31) So when the God OF gods (that means there are more than one of them, Ed) said “ye are gods”, He was lying?
Hi Mike,אלהים ĔL-ō-Hêêm in Hebrew is not as stringent as the English word “GOD”.
Perhaps you have forgotten this fact or instead choose to ignore it?Now all of a sudden you want the word אלהים ĔL-ō-Hêêm
to be definitive when you know it is not definitive.“ye are even my witnesses.
Is there 'a God' beside me?
yea, there is no God; I know not any.”Isaiah 44:8 cannot be nullified through your rudimentary logic. (see Col.2:8)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 10 2012,13:33) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 09 2012,19:25) Hi MB,
I am sure you can review recent posts as well as anyone.
Just an impression, perhaps a wrong one.
Nick,Show me what exact words I spoke that made you conclude I had stopped learning.
You cannot, can you? I only took this as far as I did to shove your flippant remark right back down your own throat.
Remember that the next time you think about making a smart-ass remark to me.
Hey MikeYou have to learn to ignore Nick, he's the same as before, annoying.
Georg
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
