- This topic has 3,161 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Mike………Can't you see the translators changed the wording 2besee has clearly shown you that . Why try dodge his explanation ? Are you afraid it throughs your points you trying desperately to make off?
Now deal with his points instead of just dancing around them OK?Hear is what you are doing , you are trying to make us follow your rasinalitions from your prospectives. It like a person who see something wrong and goes about desperately try to get people to see it from his perspective , that is why all the “ONLY” yes ,no, stuff , you are trying to form our rationalizations to meet yours. Not understanding your whole concept of and who Jesus is in error in the first place. You do not see Jesus as a non preexistent being as purely human being as we do. Your using texts that have been forced by Trinitarians translators to meet their false teachings of the Preexistence of Jesus.
So now try to deal with what 2besee has written if you can. Did the. Translators swItch. Word to force the text to their own views? I have shown you this before in the use of the word through and by . The Greek language is Easley manipulated by so many, different meanings in the words the translators used. IMO
Peace and love to you and yours……………………..gene
Enough playing games.
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God………We have all already agreed that the word of God was with God in the beginning.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
Gene and 2B have already agreed that verse 2 is STILL talking about the same “word of God” that was mentioned in verse 1.
3 Through him all things were made……….
Is John STILL talking about the same subject, ie: the word of God from verse 1? The only truthful answer to the question is “YES, John is STILL talking about the word.”
4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men
Is John STILL talking about the same word? YES, John is STILL talking about the same word from verse 1.
The ONLY way I will be DIVERTED from this line of questioning is if one of you three can right now make the claim, No Mike, John has SWITCHED subjects, and is NO LONGER speaking about the word from verse 1.
Can any of you make that claim?
Tick tock, tick, tock………………..
I didn't think so. Now we can move on WITHOUT all these unnecessary distractions.
6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John.
7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.
It should be obvious to all that verse 6 does NOT talk about the word itself, but introduces a different subject named “John”. It should be equally obvious to all that verse 7 then speaks about this new subject, “John”, and how this new subject came to testify concerning the ORIGINAL subject, “the Word”. In other words, after a short break to introduce John in verse 6, we are right back to talking about the Word in verse 7.
Are we agreed that “the light” in verse 7, about whom John came to testify, is the very same “Word” from verse 1?
If not, then please BRIEFLY explain who this light is, and why you don't think it is the Word that has been the subject up to this point. (Keep in mind that if you think the “light” is God, and you think the “Word” is God, then you AGREE that we ARE back to the same subject in verse 7 that we started discussing in verse 1.)
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 24 2012,12:22) Mike………Can't you see the translators changed the wording 2besee has clearly shown you that . Why try dodge his explanation ? Are you afraid it throughs your points you trying desperately to make off?
Now deal with his points instead of just dancing around them OK?
Gene,Let me try my best to explain this to you as simply and slowly as I can – so YOU can then know what it is you're even talking about.
There is a Greek word “autos”. When that Greek word is written in the neuter form, the word means “it”.
When that same Greek word is written in the feminine form, it means “she”.
When that same Greek word is written in the masculine form, it means “he”.
What 2B has pointed out is that the Greek word “autos”, CAN, SOMETIMES mean “it”. The word means “it” WHEN, AND ONLY WHEN it is written in the Greek neuter form.
It is NOT written in the Greek neuter form in John 1:2 or 1:3. Therefore, it is not to be translated as “it”.
It is NOT written in the Greek feminine form in John 1:2 or 1:3. Therefore it is not to be translated as “she”.
It IS, however, written in the Greek MASCULINE form in John 1:2 and 1:3. Therefore, it IS to be translated as “he”.
Gene, can you grasp this knowledge? Are you now beginning to get a clue as to what we're even talking about?
Please answer these last two questions, so I know that you are beginning to understand the subject in question.
So you CAN argue that the word “logos”, in and of itself, is a masculine word in the Greek language, and therefore the masculine pronouns “him” and “he” don't necessarily mean the logos is a male PERSON.
What you CAN'T honestly argue is that the translators and I are “dancing around” or “dodging” anything simply because we ACCEPT the Greek words in the very form John actually wrote them.
In other words, Gene, the words in 1:2 and 1:3 actually and technically ARE “he” and “him”. Neither I, nor any English translator, is doing any “dodging” or “dancing around” by accepting those words as they were actually written. Do you understand this?
It is like the times the Holy Spirit is called “he”. I don't have to believe that the Holy Spirit is a male PERSON. But I must, if I am to be faithful to the words written, understand that the translation of “he”, concerning that Holy Spirit, is accurate and correct, because that IS the way it was written in the Greek scripture.
Mike, 'Autos' is 'The Same' not 'It'. It can be either 'He, She, They, or Same'. Please read my post a page back and see the links that can be clicked on. Not 'it' but 'the same'.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 25 2012,07:24) 6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.
It should be obvious to all that verse 6 does NOT talk about the word itself, but introduces a different subject named “John”. It should be equally obvious to all that verse 7 then speaks about this new subject, “John”, and how this new subject came to testify concerning the ORIGINAL subject, “the Word”. In other words, after a short break to introduce John in verse 6, we are right back to talking about the Word in verse 7.
Are we agreed that “the light” in verse 7, about whom John came to testify, is the very same “Word” from verse 1?
Yes…Agreed! Of Course.Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 25 2012,05:09) As 2beesee pointed out even Jesus was created by the Word. God was not. The Word was not created by Jesus. “Through him all things were made” is specifically true about the Word and cannot be specifically true about Jesus unless he is non-created.
Notice John is speaking about the Word until the transition to speaking of the light occurs in verse 4.
That was Gene Kerwin
I think..Quote (2besee @ Dec. 24 2012,19:50) Quote (jammin @ Dec. 24 2012,16:48) true christians believe Christ is the son of God.
Is there anybody here who does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God?Quote they believe he is God just like his father. So, as a Trinitarian do you believe that there are two (three) Gods?
But those two (three) Gods make up one God, right?
Christians believe that the father and the son “HAVE” the same nature, and that is nature God.
they are one in nature, God.example is you and your father. you are ONE in nature and that is your HUMAN nature.
Christ and his father are ONE in nature and that is nature God.
Philippians 2:6
New International Version (NIV)
6 Who, being in very nature God,
do you agree that you and your father have the same NATURE/FORM?
yes or no?Quote (2besee @ Dec. 25 2012,01:11) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 25 2012,07:24) 6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.
It should be obvious to all that verse 6 does NOT talk about the word itself, but introduces a different subject named “John”. It should be equally obvious to all that verse 7 then speaks about this new subject, “John”, and how this new subject came to testify concerning the ORIGINAL subject, “the Word”. In other words, after a short break to introduce John in verse 6, we are right back to talking about the Word in verse 7.
Are we agreed that “the light” in verse 7, about whom John came to testify, is the very same “Word” from verse 1?
Yes…Agreed! Of Course.
2beesee,I disagree as John already wrote the light is in the Word. The Word is not Love but it gives the gift of Love to those that believe and the reward of receiving the gift is eternal life.
Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 25 2012,17:38) Quote (2besee @ Dec. 25 2012,01:11) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 25 2012,07:24) 6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.
It should be obvious to all that verse 6 does NOT talk about the word itself, but introduces a different subject named “John”. It should be equally obvious to all that verse 7 then speaks about this new subject, “John”, and how this new subject came to testify concerning the ORIGINAL subject, “the Word”. In other words, after a short break to introduce John in verse 6, we are right back to talking about the Word in verse 7.
Are we agreed that “the light” in verse 7, about whom John came to testify, is the very same “Word” from verse 1?
Yes…Agreed! Of Course.
2beesee,I disagree as John already wrote the light is in the Word. The Word is not Love but it gives the gift of Love to those that believe and the reward of receiving the gift is eternal life.
Hi Kerwin,Yes, I disagree as well.
Good of you to point that out.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (2besee @ Dec. 25 2012,06:07) Mike, 'Autos' is 'The Same' not 'It'. It can be either 'He, She, They, or Same'. Please read my post a page back and see the links that can be clicked on. Not 'it' but 'the same'.
2besee…………….if I say it is a rainy day, I am meaning the day and the it are the same thing. IT always meaning the same as the subject matter in a sentence. So if I say the car got in a wreck ,”it” was hit by another car. The term “it” used there means the car. I see no difference between the word it meaning the same thing as the subject matter. But the term it can not mean the same as a her or a she in a sentence as far as I know.What mike is saying is like this, the car “she” or “he” got in a wreck
So we still are in agreement on the word “it” carrying a meaning as the (same thing), as I see it.
peace and love to you and yours…………………..gene
Quote (2besee @ Dec. 24 2012,13:07) Mike, 'Autos' is 'The Same' not 'It'. It can be either 'He, She, They, or Same'. Please read my post a page back and see the links that can be clicked on. Not 'it' but 'the same'.
2B,According to James Strong, “autos” can be translated as “the same” when it is preceeded by the definite article “the”.
This is the case in John 1:2, for the word “houtos” is the combination of “ho”, the definite article, and “autos”. But keep in mind that even in 1:2, the word “houtos”, which is itself a feminine Greek word, is written by John in the masculine form. So while the KJV is within its rights to translate it as “The same”, most translations adhere to the masculine form in which the word was originally written, and are EQUALLY within their rights to translate it as “He”.
You'll notice that in 1:3, the definite article is lacking, and therefore “HIM” is the only proper translation – just like the KJV translates it.
Most of the translations of “the same” occur when the word is written in its neuter form, not its masculine form. (Matthew 5:46 and 47 are two examples of the neuter form of “autos” being translated as “the same”.)
In fact, here you can see for yourself all of the 33 times the KJV renders “autos” as “the same”. You can see for yourself that all of these that are written in the Greek masculine form can, and usually are, rendered as “he” in virtually all English translations, including the NKJV.
(Compare a few of these KJV translations of “the same” with the NKJV, or any other English Bible to see what I mean.) Here is just one example:
John 3:26 KJV
And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.Compare the KJV's use of “the same” in John 3:26 with the other English Bibles, which generally say “HE is baptizing”:
NET ©
…..see, he is baptizing…..NIV ©
….well, he is baptising……..NASB ©
….behold, He is baptizing………MSG ©
….He's baptizing, too………NRSV ©
…..here he is baptizing……..NKJV ©
……behold, He is baptizing………..Anyway, the fact that the KJV translates 1:2 as “the same” doesn't eliminate the fact that John wrote it in the Greek masculine form, and that it is properly translated as “HE”.
Nor does the fact that the KJV translates 1:2 as “the same” save you from 1:3, in which the Word is described as “HIM” in all translations – including the KJV.
Face it………. the Word is a “HIM”, not an “IT”.
Quote (2besee @ Dec. 24 2012,13:11) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 25 2012,07:24) 6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.
It should be obvious to all that verse 6 does NOT talk about the word itself, but introduces a different subject named “John”. It should be equally obvious to all that verse 7 then speaks about this new subject, “John”, and how this new subject came to testify concerning the ORIGINAL subject, “the Word”. In other words, after a short break to introduce John in verse 6, we are right back to talking about the Word in verse 7.
Are we agreed that “the light” in verse 7, about whom John came to testify, is the very same “Word” from verse 1?
Yes…Agreed! Of Course.
Okay 2B,We agree so far.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 25 2012,10:54) What mike is saying is like this, the car “she” or “he” got in a wreck.
And if I wrote concerning that car, and said “She was smashed up from bumper to bumper”, and somebody 2000 years from now was discussing my writing, would it be right of them to CHANGE the word “she” that I actually wrote, to “it”?This is what you're trying to do, Gene. Because you believe in your own mind that the car (or Word) is an “it”, you are CHANGING the words John actually wrote to make them conincide with your pre-conceived belief.
If I originally wrote “she” 2000 years ago, then please keep my words as they were written. Don't go CHANGING them because of your own beliefs that the car was an “it”.
Similarly, since John originally wrote “him”, then please keep John's words as they were written. Don't go CHANGING them because of your own beliefs that the Word was an “it”.
Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 25 2012,06:45) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 25 2012,17:38) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 25 2012,07:24)
Are we agreed that “the light” in verse 7, about whom John came to testify, is the very same “Word” from verse 1?I disagree as John already wrote the light is in the Word.
Hi Kerwin,Yes, I disagree as well.
Okay Kerwin and Ed,This is good, because now we can start to get to the bottom of our disagreements about the Word.
It seems to me that you both think “the Word” is God. And you both think “the light” is God.
So, to use Kerwin's own argument against him, how can the light be God when John already wrote that the light was in God?
Mike,
In a manner of speaking the Word must be God because John states “the Word is God…”
I know it is true that God embodies his Word and so in that way of speaking God is the Word.
In a manner of speaking the light is in the Word because that is what is written.
Jesus teaches us that there are certain individuals who love darkness and therefore will not come into the light.
That leads me to believe that the light is righteousness and darkness is wickedness.
Righteousness is the salvation of humanity.Compare John 3:19 to John 1:9.
John 1:10 that speaks of the light gives it credit for creating the world just as John 1:3 gives the same credit to the Word.
Quote (jammin @ Dec. 25 2012,15:59) Quote (2besee @ Dec. 24 2012,19:50) Quote (jammin @ Dec. 24 2012,16:48) true christians believe Christ is the son of God.
Is there anybody here who does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God?Quote they believe he is God just like his father. So, as a Trinitarian do you believe that there are two (three) Gods?
But those two (three) Gods make up one God, right?
Christians believe that the father and the son “HAVE” the same nature, and that is nature God.
they are one in nature, God.example is you and your father. you are ONE in nature and that is your HUMAN nature.
Christ and his father are ONE in nature and that is nature God.
Philippians 2:6
New International Version (NIV)
6 Who, being in very nature God,
do you agree that you and your father have the same NATURE/FORM?
yes or no?
Hi Jamming.As a trinitarian, do you believe that Arians, or 'Christian Unitarians' or 'Oneness Believers'……….are 'not Christians'?
Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 25 2012,19:38) Quote (2besee @ Dec. 25 2012,01:11) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 25 2012,07:24) 6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.
It should be obvious to all that verse 6 does NOT talk about the word itself, but introduces a different subject named “John”. It should be equally obvious to all that verse 7 then speaks about this new subject, “John”, and how this new subject came to testify concerning the ORIGINAL subject, “the Word”. In other words, after a short break to introduce John in verse 6, we are right back to talking about the Word in verse 7.
Are we agreed that “the light” in verse 7, about whom John came to testify, is the very same “Word” from verse 1?
Yes…Agreed! Of Course.
2beesee,I disagree as John already wrote the light is in the Word. The Word is not Love but it gives the gift of Love to those that believe and the reward of receiving the gift is eternal life.
Hi Kerwin, I am going to do some more studying.Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 26 2012,05:54) Quote (2besee @ Dec. 25 2012,06:07) Mike, 'Autos' is 'The Same' not 'It'. It can be either 'He, She, They, or Same'. Please read my post a page back and see the links that can be clicked on. Not 'it' but 'the same'.
2besee…………….if I say it is a rainy day, I am meaning the day and the it are the same thing. IT always meaning the same as the subject matter in a sentence. So if I say the car got in a wreck ,”it” was hit by another car. The term “it” used there means the car. I see no difference between the word it meaning the same thing as the subject matter. But the term it can not mean the same as a her or a she in a sentence as far as I know.What mike is saying is like this, the car “she” or “he” got in a wreck
So we still are in agreement on the word “it” carrying a meaning as the (same thing), as I see it.
peace and love to you and yours…………………..gene
Yes Gene I understand what you are sayingQuote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 26 2012,06:24) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 25 2012,10:54) What mike is saying is like this, the car “she” or “he” got in a wreck.
And if I wrote concerning that car, and said “She was smashed up from bumper to bumper”, and somebody 2000 years from now was discussing my writing, would it be right of them to CHANGE the word “she” that I actually wrote, to “it”?This is what you're trying to do, Gene. Because you believe in your own mind that the car (or Word) is an “it”, you are CHANGING the words John actually wrote to make them conincide with your pre-conceived belief.
If I originally wrote “she” 2000 years ago, then please keep my words as they were written. Don't go CHANGING them because of your own beliefs that the car was an “it”.
Similarly, since John originally wrote “him”, then please keep John's words as they were written. Don't go CHANGING them because of your own beliefs that the Word was an “it”.
But Mike, YOU tell GENE not to change the Words which “John” Wrote……….Yet YOU WANT the words to say………THE WORD WAS A gOD!Even though the SCRIPTURES tell us that only ONE GOD created. Which you agree with. Yet to you, God's own word is a god.
To me it just does not SEEM right.
…….The Spirit of truth leads us into all truth, correct? Well, I have found that 'word studies' do us no good. We need to seek the spirit of truth.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
