- This topic has 3,161 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Mike, on saying that I took a quick look at the link you gave me for the word Autos and it is the KJV concordance. The site that I go to is more to my liking, but, I am done with word study for now! (:
Quote (2besee @ Dec. 26 2012,15:44) 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.
2beesee,Understandable. I myself use conversation to drive my learning.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 26 2012,04:24) 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”.
Mike ………. Yes It would be proper for me to change the word She to and it especially if the word used there can be translated as and it, in fact it would be more accurate, because a car is not a She or a HE , a car is an Item, while the other is a Person. No matter how much you try to make it so, a car is not a Person.Gods word is no a Person of any gender his word is an “IT” Just as your word is. Trying to present you word as a Separate “PERSON” is a false presentation, Why because you word is not a HE or a SHE it is and “IT” , common sense should tell you that Mike.
God and His word are one and the “same” thing Mike rather you Like it or Not. God is not one Person and His word a different Person.
You clamor allot about the translators, uses of Words, but fail to address the issue of the translators biased trinitarian and Preexiences beliefs, which influenced them in there writings. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………………..gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 27 2012,03:14) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 26 2012,04:24) 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”.
Mike ………. Yes It would be proper for me to change the word She to and it especially if the word used there can be translated as and it, in fact it would be more accurate, because a car is not a She or a HE , a car is an Item, while the other is a Person. No matter how much you try to make it so, a car is not a Person.Gods word is no a Person of any gender his word is an “IT” Just as your word is. Trying to present you word as a Separate “PERSON” is a false presentation, Why because you word is not a HE or a SHE it is and “IT” , common sense should tell you that Mike.
God and His word are one and the “same” thing Mike rather you Like it or Not. God is not a Person and His word a different Person.
You clamor allot about the translators, uses of Woods, but fail to address the issue of the translators trinitarian beliefs, which influenced them in there writings. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………………..gene
do you know how to read the context boy???do you know greek better than those translators?
i think you should consult first a doctor. take some vitamins.
why dont you make your own bible and put all there your imaginations
Quote (2besee @ Dec. 26 2012,20:54) Quote (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.
do you believe that one of the names of Christ is THE WORD OF GOD? yes or no?Jammin, please answer the question, page 39…
Quote Hi Jamming. As a trinitarian, do you believe that Arians, or 'Christian Unitarians' or 'Oneness Believers'……….are 'not Christians'?
Thanks!
Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 26 2012,23:17) 2beesee, Understandable. I myself use conversation to drive my learning.
Kerwin, conversation helps, we love it.Quote (jammin @ Dec. 27 2012,05:40) do you believe that one of the names of Christ is THE WORD OF GOD? yes or no?
Jammin, if you mean 'was the word of God one of the names of Jesus of Nazereth' then I would say 'the word of God was in Him' as an answer.Jammin,
Revelation 19:11-16
Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.
His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems; and he has a name inscribed which no one knows but himself.
He is clad in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.This is The Word of God and the ROBE dipped in blood is the body of Jesus which He the Word was in.
And the Word of God is God, as John 1:1 says.
Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 25 2012,21:09) In a manner of speaking the Word must be God because John states “the Word is God…”
Actually, because of the imperfect tense of “en”, it says the Word WAS……. not IS…..Secondly, you should know better than to make the claim John states “the Word is God”, and use that as your “proof”, since you are well aware that “God” is only ONE of the TWO ways that line can be faithfully translated. It is not just the NWT that has “a god” in 1:1c, Kerwin. There are dozens of English translations that have “a god”, or “the Word was divine”, etc. In fact, the first language into which the NT was translated that had an indefinite article was the Coptic language. And in the Coptic Bible, 1:1c says, “and the Word was a god”.
Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 25 2012,21:09) I know it is true that God embodies his Word and so in that way of speaking God is the Word.
Tell me how that explains YOUR understanding that the Word was God Himself, and the light was God Himself, but somehow, the light (God Himself) was IN the Word (God Himself). To me, it is easy to understand that God IS light, while at the same time, there is no darkness IN Him – only light. So for me, God can both BE light, and be FILLED WITH light. Do you agree?I have recently read where you said the Word wasn't FULLY God, and your statement in the quote box above sounds like you're saying the same thing. If the Word wasn't FULLY, 100% God Himself, then in what sense do you think John was saying the logos was THE very god he was with?
Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 25 2012,21:09) In a manner of speaking the light is in the Word because that is what is written.
And can light be said to be IN someone who is also called “light”? For example, Jesus calls his disciples the “light of the world”, yet other places speaks of light being IN them. (Matthew 5:14-16, for one.)Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 25 2012,21:09) Compare John 3:19 to John 1:9.
That seems to be a good thing for YOU to do, Kerwin. In 3:19, it seems pretty evident that Jesus is the light, seeing how 3:16 and 17 are clearly about God sending JESUS into the world – and NOT about God Himself coming into the world.Compare those teachings with John 9:5, 12:35-36, and especially Luke 2:30-32.
Kerwin, is Jesus ever SCRIPTURALLY referred to as “light” that came into the world? YES or NO?
Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 25 2012,21:09) 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.
Neither of those verses speak about ANYTHING ever being created by “light”, or by “the word”. 1:3 says “through him all things were made”, and 1:10 says “the world was made through him”. Don't forget the words of Tertullian: He who creates is one, and he through whom the thing is created is another.Kerwin, you are not even coming close to making a case that “the Word” in verse 1 is NOT “the light” from verse 7.
You originally said you disagree because one thing was said to be IN the other, right? Yet you still think they are both “God”, right? Isn't that a little bit hypocritical of you?
(Please make sure you address my bolded question.)
Quote (2besee @ Dec. 26 2012,03:45) Yes Gene I understand what you are saying 
And you you equally understand my response to Gene, where I told him we can't just go around CHANGING the words that John actually wrote, just because we WANT the logos to be an “IT” instead of a “HIM”?Quote (2besee @ Dec. 26 2012,03:54) 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!
In what way am I CHANGING anything John wrote if 1:1c can be faithfully translated EITHER WAY?Quote (2besee @ Dec. 26 2012,03:54) 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.
I've never claimed that Jesus ever CREATED anything at all. So where exactly is my dilemma if God created all things THROUGH His holy servant Jesus Christ – like the scriptures clearly state in at least 4 places?Quote (2besee @ Dec. 26 2012,03:55) Pray for the spirit of truth to lead us into ALL truth…Amen?
Amen!Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 26 2012,10:14) Mike ………. Yes It would be proper for me to change the word “She” to “it”, especially if the word used there can be translated as “it”………..
No Gene. It would not be proper of you even if there was not a shred of doubt that the thing was an inanimate object.That is even more so the case when you are not sure the thing in question IS an inanimate object – like in the case of the Word in John 1:1.
If Herman Melville wrote “Thar she blows!” in his book Moby Dick, then who are YOU to change his words to “Thar it blows!” ?
Gene, the FACT of the matter is that John called the logos “HIM” in 1:3 – not “IT”. You need to find a way to deal with the words John actually wrote, and stop trying to CHANGE the God-inspired words of scripture.
Quote (2besee @ Dec. 26 2012,15:08) Quote (jammin @ Dec. 27 2012,05:40) do you believe that one of the names of Christ is THE WORD OF GOD? yes or no?
Jammin, if you mean 'was the word of God one of the names of Jesus of Nazereth' then I would say 'the word of God was in Him' as an answer.
So then your DIRECT answer to jammin would be:NO jammin, I don't think “The Word of God” is one of Christ's names in scripture.
That definitely puts you in a VERY SMALL minority, 2B. The vast majority of Christians, whether they be Trinitarian, Oneness, Arian, or other, believe that Jesus is most definitely the one referred to by that name in Rev 19:13.
Quote (2besee @ Dec. 27 2012,08:08) Quote (jammin @ Dec. 27 2012,05:40) do you believe that one of the names of Christ is THE WORD OF GOD? yes or no?
Jammin, if you mean 'was the word of God one of the names of Jesus of Nazereth' then I would say 'the word of God was in Him' as an answer.
therefore your answer is no? is that correct?you do not believe that the WORD OF GOD is the name of Christ?
you are a false teacher boy if that's your belief.
read rev 19.13 very wellRevelation 19:13
New International Version (NIV)
13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
do you understand english???
it says HIS NAME IS THE WORD OF GOD.study hard boy
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 27 2012,10:28) Quote (2besee @ Dec. 26 2012,03:54) 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.
I've never claimed that Jesus ever CREATED anything at all. So where exactly is my dilemma if God created all things THROUGH His holy servant Jesus Christ – like the scriptures clearly state in at least 4 places?
Hi Mike,Who do you believe John 1:10 is speaking of?
He was in the world,
and the world was made by him,
and the world knew him not. (John 1:10)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 27 2012,10:42) Quote (2besee @ Dec. 26 2012,15:08) Quote (jammin @ Dec. 27 2012,05:40) do you believe that one of the names of Christ is THE WORD OF GOD? yes or no?
Jammin, if you mean 'was the word of God one of the names of Jesus of Nazereth' then I would say 'the word of God was in Him' as an answer.
So then your DIRECT answer to jammin would be:NO jammin, I don't think “The Word of God” is one of Christ's names in scripture.
That definitely puts you in a VERY SMALL minority, 2B. The vast majority of Christians, whether they be Trinitarian, Oneness, Arian, or other, believe that Jesus is most definitely the one referred to by that name in Rev 19:13.
Hi Mike,Does popularity in a belief have any bearing to whether it is true or not?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
