- This topic has 3,161 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (2besee @ Jan. 16 2013,08:04) Hi Ed, where did you get the Greek from? Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 16 2013,03:12) Quote (2besee @ Jan. 16 2013,08:04) Hi Ed, where did you get the Greek from?
Ed. J.
I find that information useless as I do understand it.Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 16 2013,02:56) Quote (2besee @ Jan. 16 2013,07:37) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 15 2013,12:08) Hi 2Besee, Sooner or later you “ARE” going to get this.
Equal – having God's motivation in our spirit.God bless
Ed J
Hi Ed,
The RSV and other versions say something quite the opposite, including the Greek.
Hi 2Besee,Phil 2:5-6 (AKJV) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:I already showed you the Greek is exactly the same meaning:
2:5 τουτο γαρ φρονεισθω εν υμιν ο και εν χριστω ιησου
2:6 ος εν μορφη θεου υπαρχων ουχ αρπαγμον ηγησατο το ειναι ισα θεω(Phil 2:5-6) 2:5 This understanding is in you in Christ Jesus:
2:6 In the form that God exists (Spirit), think it not robbery to be considered equal.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
edjQuote (Phil 2:5-6) 2:5 This understanding is in you in Christ Jesus:
2:6 In the form that God exists (Spirit), think it not robbery to be considered equal.you almost have it right ;this way is better,
Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God,( thought it not robbery to be equal with God:)
thought not to rob God and to look to become a god and so challenge God his father for the equal right
this is what I understand that Paul try to convey to his listeners or readers
Quote (2besee @ Jan. 15 2013,15:05) Mike, is a man and his spirit one?
Matthew 26:41
……..the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.Which part above is the man, 2B?
Is it ever said in scripture: the spirit OF man?
If it is (which it is), it is clear evidence that the spirit OF man cannot actually BE the man it is OF.
The word “OF” indicates possession, 2B. Ie: the hair OF Mike cannot actually BE Mike himself.
Do you understand this very simple concept that most kids are taught in grade school?
Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 13 2013,20:47) Hi Kerwin, Here is the Textus Receptus:
http://bibledatabase.net/html/stephanos_1550/index.htmAnd Here is the Strong's Concordance:
http://biblesuite.com/strongs.htmEloheem does not have the identical meaning as “God” does in English.
The word Eloheem means Angels, Judges, magistrates, god's and “God”“God” in English ONLY means GOD.
Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them (in the AKJV Bible) from this generation for ever.
Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue(that is English) will he speak to this people.1Cor.14:27 (AKJV) If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two(Hebrew, Aramaic),
or at the most by three(Greek), and that by course; [and let one (“AKJV Bible”) translate].The “AKJV Bible” we have today was no accident, it's exactly the way GOD wanted it!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
I agree with your post EdJ, except this statement.Quote The “AKJV Bible” we have today was no accident, it's exactly the way GOD wanted it! You would have to argue that the Comma Johanneum was scripture and would also have to assume that the Textus Receptus was accurate while older texts including the Dead Sea Scrolls were not as reliable.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 16 2013,12:46) Quote (2besee @ Jan. 15 2013,15:05) Mike, is a man and his spirit one?
Matthew 26:41
……..the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.Which part above is the man, 2B?
Is it ever said in scripture: the spirit OF man?
If it is (which it is), it is clear evidence that the spirit OF man cannot actually BE the man it is OF.
The word “OF” indicates possession, 2B. Ie: the hair OF Mike cannot actually BE Mike himself.
Do you understand this very simple concept that most kids are taught in grade school?
Yes Mike. You are right, this is basic stuff.It shows that false teaching can skew even the most basic of things.
Quote (2besee @ Jan. 15 2013,14:58) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2013,12:16)
2B, are you so proud that you are willing to add your own words into the scriptures, thereby changing the entire teaching John wrote down for us? Or are you humble enough to let the scriptures teach YOU – instead of the other way around?
Mike, are you so proud that you are willing to add your own words into the scriptures (the word was a god), therby changing the entire teaching “John” wrote down for us? Or are you humble enough to let the scriptures teach YOU – instead of the other way around?
Hmmmmm………….. still trying to justify ADDING a word into scripture by inflammatory means, 2B?Here it is again, from the Greek EXPERTS at NETNotes:
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.1. 2B, how many possibilites are there for the Greek to English translation of John 1:1? One? Two? Three?
2. 2B, is “a god” one of the possibilities? YES or NO?
You are playing games 2B, because you really don't have a valid justification for ADDING the word “IN” into John 1:14. You are trying to compare YOUR addition of the word “IN” to the 7000+ additions of the word “a” in the English Bible. You know you are comparing apples to oranges here, because we've already been through all of this before. Yet here you are, once again making the same apples to oranges comparison, knowing full well it is wrong and below you to do it. But you do it anyway, simply because you have nothing else to offer in the way of a VALID explanation for your ADDITION of the word “IN”.
Let me use part of one of the scriptures you quoted in your post:
1Corinthians 2:11
For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him?Now in Hebrew, this would read: what person knows the thoughts of adam except the spirit of adam, which is in him?
(adam, of course, is the Hebrew word for “man”.)
We all know that Paul is not writing about the first man, Adam, right? Yet the word “a” is not used in the Greek or Hebrew languages. So what should we do to convey the message Paul was teaching to those who speak English? Should we cap the “A”, making it “Adam”, and let people be misled into thinking Paul was writing these words exclusively about the first man, Adam? Or should we, knowing full well that Paul is speaking about ANY man, add the indefinite article that we use in English, but that they didn't use in Greek or Hebrew?
Now, consider the same exact scenario in John 1:1. Should we cap the “G”, making it “God”, and let people be misled into believing the TOTALLY ASININE claim that God could be WITH God in the beginning? Or should we, knowing full well that God Himself cannot possibly be WITH God Himself, add the indefinite article that we use in English, but that they didn't use in Greek or Hebrew?
See 2B? The answer to this last question is what we're trying to arrive at via this discussion. I don't expect you to just up and side with me at a moment's notice, 2B. What I DO expect from you is to LEARN a little bit from what I'm spending my time to TEACH you. And I have TAUGHT you over and over that “a god” IS one of the THREE possible ways to translate the Greek words of John 1:1c into English. You don't have to PREFER that translation. But you DO have to stop PRETENDING as if there is something sneaky, underhanded, or grammatically wrong about that translation. You have to stop PRETENDING that adding the indefinite article “a” into the English scriptures, which is done over 7000 times, is equivalent to adding OTHER WORDS, such as “IN”, into the scriptures.
There is no comparison, since the indefinite article “a” MUST many times be added for the sentence to make sense to us in English. The addition of the word “IN”, on the other hand, is a blatant attempt to force John 1:14 into teaching something it very simply just doesn't teach.
Are we clear yet on the DIFFERENCE between adding the definite article “a” into the Greek and Hebrew scriptures, which is done over 7000 times, and MUST be done so that we can understand the scriptures in English…………… and adding OTHER WORDS into the scriptures as we see fit – in an effort to FORCE the scriptures into teaching what we WANT them to teach?
3. 2B, do you UNDERSTAND the difference between these two, very different things? YES or NO?
(Please directly answer all three bolded questions.)
Quote (2besee @ Jan. 15 2013,14:58) Scriptures tell us that only ONE GOD ALONE existed and that that one God alone created all that we see, therefore, when it says that the Word was with God and the Word WAS God, surely that must be truth.
Scripture teaches that only God has existed from eternity, and that everyone and everything else has had a beginning.Scripture teaches us that all things came FROM God, and all things came THROUGH Jesus.
Now, which part of these teachings does my understanding of John 1:1 contradict?
Hi 2B,
Since you sidestepped my point with that pitiful attempt to equate the addition of the indefinite article “a” with the addition of OTHER words, I will re-direct you to it:
What would happen if you read 1:14 the way it was actually written – without adding in your own word?
How would your understanding change if you were not allowed to ADD your own word into John 1:14, 2B?
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the only begotten, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
What can we learn from reading it AS IT WAS WRITTEN?
1. The Word actually BECAME flesh. Does that fit your “Holy Spirit” scenario? Because it sure fits Jesus.
2. The Word dwelt among mankind. That fits Jesus as well.
3. They saw his glory. Does the Holy Spirit have any glory of its own? If so, in what scripture can I read about the glory of the Holy Spirit? On the other hand, these words fit Jesus to a “t”. John even writes in 2:11 about the first time the disciples saw Jesus' glory.
4. The glory the Word had was “the glory of the only begotten from the Father”. Again, this fits Jesus to a “t”. In fact, I can't think of any other being in existence that would have the glory of the only begotten of the heavenly Father – because the heavenly Father only has ONE only begotten. Since there is no other only begotten of the Father, there is likewise no other being or thing that could have that glory. But how about the Holy Spirit, 2B? Is the Holy Spirit OF God also the only begotten Son OF God?
Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 14 2013,21:32) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2013,10:47) What Paul says in 1 Cor 8:5 is, For even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many gods and many lords)………… Paul says nothing about “so-called gods” or “false gods”. Those phrases are the inventions of men who think they have to protect the Bible from itself.
Hi Mike,A 'called god' “IS” a 'so called god',
because there is only one “GOD”, JEHOVAH!
Ed,Perhaps you could name one of these gods in heaven that Paul wrote about in the scripture above? Or do you say Paul was lying?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 16 2013,06:14) Hi 2B, Since you sidestepped my point with that pitiful attempt to equate the addition of the indefinite article “a” with the addition of OTHER words, I will re-direct you to it:
What would happen if you read 1:14 the way it was actually written – without adding in your own word?
How would your understanding change if you were not allowed to ADD your own word into John 1:14, 2B?
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the only begotten, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
What can we learn from reading it AS IT WAS WRITTEN?
1. The Word actually BECAME flesh. Does that fit your “Holy Spirit” scenario? Because it sure fits Jesus.
2. The Word dwelt among mankind. That fits Jesus as well.
3. They saw his glory. Does the Holy Spirit have any glory of its own? If so, in what scripture can I read about the glory of the Holy Spirit? On the other hand, these words fit Jesus to a “t”. John even writes in 2:11 about the first time the disciples saw Jesus' glory.
4. The glory the Word had was “the glory of the only begotten from the Father”. Again, this fits Jesus to a “t”. In fact, I can't think of any other being in existence that would have the glory of the only begotten of the heavenly Father – because the heavenly Father only has ONE only begotten. Since there is no other only begotten of the Father, there is likewise no other being or thing that could have that glory. But how about the Holy Spirit, 2B? Is the Holy Spirit OF God also the only begotten Son OF God?
Mike,You keep saying with your mouth that the Word became flesh but you do not even believe in your heart that the Word literally became flesh.
Instead you are redefining both the Word and flesh in order to make a messenger transform into a human being.
Do you understand what I mean if I state a woman is hope made flesh?
The “a” you choose to insert in John 1:1 is allowed by the language because is not a 1:1 translation to English.
The “in” that bothers you is answering the how the Word was made flesh and not part of the actual statement.
Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 16 2013,09:09) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 16 2013,03:12) Quote (2besee @ Jan. 16 2013,08:04) Hi Ed, where did you get the Greek from?
Ed. J.
I find that information useless as I do understand it.
Hi Kerwin,The new Testament was written in Greek.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ Jan. 16 2013,10:18) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 13 2013,20:47) Hi Kerwin, Here is the Textus Receptus:
http://bibledatabase.net/html/stephanos_1550/index.htmAnd Here is the Strong's Concordance:
http://biblesuite.com/strongs.htmEloheem does not have the identical meaning as “God” does in English.
The word Eloheem means Angels, Judges, magistrates, god's and “God”“God” in English ONLY means GOD.
Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them (in the AKJV Bible) from this generation for ever.
Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue(that is English) will he speak to this people.1Cor.14:27 (AKJV) If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two(Hebrew, Aramaic),
or at the most by three(Greek), and that by course; [and let one (“AKJV Bible”) translate].The “AKJV Bible” we have today was no accident, it's exactly the way GOD wanted it!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
I agree with your post EdJ, except this statement.Quote The “AKJV Bible” we have today was no accident, it's exactly the way GOD wanted it! You would have to argue that the Comma Johanneum was scripture and would also have to assume that the Textus Receptus was accurate while older texts including the Dead Sea Scrolls were not as reliable.
Hi T8,No, I would argue that it is in there for a purpose.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 16 2013,11:17) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 14 2013,21:32) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2013,10:47) What Paul says in 1 Cor 8:5 is, For even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many gods and many lords)………… Paul says nothing about “so-called gods” or “false gods”. Those phrases are the inventions of men who think they have to protect the Bible from itself.
Hi Mike,A 'called god' “IS” a 'so called god',
because there is only one “GOD”, JEHOVAH!
Ed,Perhaps you could name one of these gods in heaven that Paul wrote about in the scripture above? Or do you say Paul was lying?
Hi Mike,How would I know who Paul was referring to? …do you?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Jan. 17 2013,01:16) Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 16 2013,09:09) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 16 2013,03:12) Quote (2besee @ Jan. 16 2013,08:04) Hi Ed, where did you get the Greek from?
Ed. J.
I find that information useless as I do understand it.
Hi Kerwin,The new Testament was written in Greek.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J.Perhaps, but I am not literate in that language.
I do better with the transliteration, the definition of it, the part of speech, and the context.
I believe you have given me a source of these already but if you would choose to do so again I would appreciate it. Thank you.
Hi Kerwin,
Here's the Strong's Concordance on-line:
http://biblesuite.com/strongs.htm
Is this what you're wanting?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Jan. 17 2013,10:24) Hi Kerwin, Here's the Strong's Concordance on-line:
http://biblesuite.com/strongs.htm
Is this what you're wanting?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
You can take the “Textus Receptus” and translate it
directly to English using Google translations too…Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 17 2013,10:27) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 17 2013,10:24) Hi Kerwin, Here's the Strong's Concordance on-line:
http://biblesuite.com/strongs.htm
Is this what you're wanting?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
You can take the “Textus Receptus” and translate it
directly to English using Google translations too…
Though this site uses the currupt “Nestle Text”,
you can hover the mouse over the words and it
will give you the definitions of the words in English:http://www.biblewebapp.com/reader/
Use this site where the Google translator fails
(to translate the “Textus Receptus” completely)
you don't need corrupt Versions, only the “AKJV Bible”.Good luck in your studies brother!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (kerwin @ Jan. 15 2013,20:00) Mike, You keep saying with your mouth that the Word became flesh but you do not even believe in your heart that the Word literally became flesh.
Instead you are redefining both the Word and flesh in order to make a messenger transform into a human being.
Those two statements are in opposition to each other, Kerwin. Of course I realize that as “The Word”, Jesus was a SPOKESMAN of God, and not LITERALLY a word that God spoke. Likewise, I realize that as a “mouth” for Moses, Aaron was a SPOKESMAN for him, and not LITERALLY a huge, man-sized mouth.And yes, “became flesh” is a very easy-to-understand way of saying “became human”. Consider these two versions of the same scripture:
Romans 1:3 King James Version
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;Romans 1:3 NIV
regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,Doesn't it seem sensible to you that the phrase “according to the flesh” means the same thing as “as to his human nature”?
Why then, would “became flesh” not sensibly mean “became of human nature”?
This is not even a stretch, Kerwin. In fact, Phil 2 explains John 1:14……… Jesus was existing in the form of God in the beginning, and then was made in the likeness of a human being.
Jesus (The Word/Spokesman of God) was existing with God in the beginning. All things were made through him. In fact, he had much glory alongside his God before the world was created through him. Then he “became flesh” (ie: “was made in the likeness of a human being”), and dwelled on earth with the glory of God's only begotten.
Why did the Word dwell among mankind with the glory of God's only begotten, Kerwin? Because the Word WAS God's only begotten. And we all know the common name of God's only begotten, don't we?
Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 15 2013,20:00) The “a” you choose to insert in John 1:1 is allowed by the language because is not a 1:1 translation to English.
I don't know what you are saying here. Perhaps a typo?Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 15 2013,20:00) The “in” that bothers you is answering the how the Word was made flesh and not part of the actual statement.
No it's not, Kerwin. The word “IN”, that you guys ADD to 1:14 (against all commands to the contrary), does not explain HOW God made His spokesman (Word) flesh. What that word does is entirely CHANGE the teaching John wrote down for us.If I write, Mike became the President, you can't just go ADDING the word “IN”, and make it say Mike came to be IN the President, without making a serious CHANGE in the teaching. So why do you think it's okay for you to ADD the word “IN” into 1:14, thereby seriously CHANGING John's teaching?
Kerwin, I've noticed your silence on this thread since we made it to the end of my verse by verse questionaire. I noticed that you didn't address any of the 4 points I made to 2B in the post you answered here.
There are many more points I have to make to 2B on this issue, but in my next post, I will try to get us all nailed down to the TRUTH of 1:14. Then I can move forward with this discussion.
John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the only begotten,who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.Kerwin and 2B, let's discuss this one scripture for a minute. We'll work it back to front:
……full of grace and truth.
1. Who was full of “grace” and “truth”? (John 1:17 might help you to answer this one.)….who came from the Father……..
2. Who “came from the Father”? (John 16:28 will help you with this one.)We have seen his glory, the glory of the only begotten……..
3. Whose glory did John and the others see? (John 2:11)
4. Who is the ONLY one in existence that would have the glory of the only begotten of God? (Please answer this one.)
5. Who do we all know is the only begotten of God? (John 3:16, etc.)6. Does “Jesus Christ” fit perfectly as the answer to all 5 previous questions? YES or NO?
7. Does the answer “Holy Spirit” fit all 5? YES or NO?
8. Does the answer “God Himself” fit all 5? YES or NO?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
