JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 15 2012,07:34)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 15 2012,06:35)

Hi ED,
The KJV version is so obtuse and bizzare.
It seems to reverse the meaning in modern prose.

Hi Nick,

Why do you got your mind made up,
that the “AKJV Bible” is(?) faulty?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Hi Ed,
We do not speak ye olde englishe.
Of all the KJV verses this is least able to be understood.

March 15, 2012 at 3:29 am#284990

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 15 2012,08:38)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 13 2012,21:15)

Hi MB,
No-Christ Jesus
No-Christ Jesus
No-Christ Jesus.

Please be more disciplined and seek accuracy.

Oh. So the Word had the name “Jesus” even before it “merged with” Jesus of Nazareth?

Be more disciplined, Nick.

Hi MB,
I am glad you understand that the Word became one with Jesus who became the anointed one, the Christ.

The point I was making was that you used the word JESUS instead of what is written[CHRIST JESUS] when you discussed Phil 2.5f.

March 15, 2012 at 3:35 am#284991

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 15 2012,13:23)

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 14 2012,19:41)

Hi Mike,

Scenarios do portray ideas, but don't prove them.

So then you have no problem whatsoever with us using them, right?

Hi Mike,

Not at all, to illustrate their idea.
But what I see instead is that people
think that using them proves their case,
which it clearly doesn't; that's the difference.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

March 15, 2012 at 3:47 am#284994

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 15 2012,14:13)

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 15 2012,07:34)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 15 2012,06:35)

Hi ED,
The KJV version is so obtuse and bizzare.
It seems to reverse the meaning in modern prose.

Hi Nick,

Why do you got your mind made up,
that the “AKJV Bible” is(?) faulty?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Hi Ed,
We do not speak ye olde englishe.
Of all the KJV verses this is least able to be understood.

Hi Nick,

That's a false assumption, the “AKJV Bible” is written on a fifth grade level. Some of the more modern
versions are written: some on a sixth, some a seventh, and still others on an eighth grade level.

English as we speak today, uses PAST, PRESENT, and FUTURE tenses expressed separately; this is not so with the 1611 King’s English.
It seemed, therefore that since GOD isn’t limited by time or space, the old English from the King James era was perfect for translating
“word for word”. Just as the arts embrace Shakespearian writings for their intrinsic value and superior prose, the King James translation
has some of these qualities, being romantic and poetic as well. Words from the King James era also have multiple tenses built
right into them for a more exact “word for word” translation.

Let’s take a look at a few examples of multiple tense words: holpen, meetest and saith. Saith means: “is said and says”,
meetest means: “is met, meets, and will meet”, and holpen means: “is helped and will help”. The original texts have
many instances modern vernacular lacks the clarity of single words containing past, present, or future tenses combined.

In modern English, the word “you” lacks exactness of meaning and is rarely used in the AKJV Bible.
Modern usage of the word “you” could mean “an individual”, “a couple of people”, or even
“a large group of people”. 1611 lexicon is more precise with words such as “Ye” used
for a group and “Thou” for an individual. Also words like thy, thee, and thine are
among many such words used in the AKJV Bible. Without understanding
of the originally written texts, the current reader wanting a modern
word for word translation usually overlooks these “technicalities”.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

March 15, 2012 at 4:29 am#285000

jammin

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 15 2012,05:11)

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 13 2012,23:50)

Hi Jammin,

the glory as of the only begotten of the Father (John 1:14)
compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. (Romans 8:18)

The Word of the oath, which was since the law,
maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. (Hebrews 7:28)

1Pet.1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by “The Word” of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Of his own will begat he us with “The Word” of truth,
that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18)

God bless
Ed J

Hi Jammin,

I guess the answer to your thread escapes you then, huh? (1Cor.2:11-14)

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

im not picking translations

i want the verse to be clear to you.

do you know what you are doing? when you read the word “word” ,you refer it to john1.1. but that is not the right meaning of the verse you posted.
you should study hard.

better luck next time.

March 15, 2012 at 5:19 am#285008

Participant

Hi Jammin,

Are you now the judge of God's word? Along with
believing that you are the authority of truth?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

March 15, 2012 at 5:27 am#285009

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 13 2012,23:50)

Hi Jammin,

the glory as of the only begotten of the Father (John 1:14)
compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. (Romans 8:18)

The Word of the oath, which was since the law,
maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. (Hebrews 7:28)

1Pet.1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by “The Word” of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Of his own will begat he us with “The Word” of truth,
that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18)

God bless
Ed J

Hi Jammin,

“The Word”(Ho Logos) is God's “HolySpirit”,
Father of all the Sons of God! (Eph.4:4-6)

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

March 15, 2012 at 8:04 am#285053

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 15 2012,04:11)

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 13 2012,21:43)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64)

1. Does Phil 2 teach that Jesus was existing in the form of God? YES or NO?

The answer is no. The reason is the Greek verb is a present participle active and you are using the past tense.

Hmmmm………….. So there's no possibility that it is an historical present? Let's find out.

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 13 2012,21:43)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64)

Does Phil 2 teach that Jesus then emptied himself of this existence? YES or NO?

Obviously not since he is presently and will be continually in it. That is another no.

Hmmm………….. I'm almost afraid to ask, but what do YOU suppose verse 7 is talking about then? The Greek words refer to “emptying himself” or “making himself of no account”. It is in the aorist tense, which is almost always translated into English as a simple past tense. In fact, all of the following phrases are in the Greek aorist tense:

………did not consider equality with God…………..

……but emptied himself………

………..and took upon him the form of a servant…………

…………and was made into the likeness of a human being……….

………and being found as a man………..

……….he humbled himself………..

……….and became obedient unto death………..

Kerwin, what you are doing is equivalent to what the Trinitarians do with John 8:58. The Trinitarian scholars are well aware of the idioms associated with translating Greek into English. They are well aware that the present tense of “I am” in 8:58 should be translated as “I have been”, just like all of them translate the same present tense “I am” in John 14:9. The Greek words in 14:9 are the present tense “I am with you”. But, being aware of the idioms, the Trinitarian scholars translate as “I have been with you”. As Greek expert Jason BeDuhn comments, “The majority of translations recognize these idiomatic uses of ‘I am’, and properly integrate the words into the context of the passages where they appear. Yet when it comes to 8:58, they suddenly forget how to translate.”

You are attempting to do the same thing here. You are willing to throw the entire context of the passage out the window because of a present tense “loophole” you've found.

So let's look at your “present tense” understanding. You assert that verse 6 teaches that Jesus IS NOW in the form of God?

So then does verse 7 teach us that Jesus WILL BE emptying himself and WILL BE made into a human being? Because verse 8 is going to cause you some trouble if that is your understanding. (Unless of course you think Jesus WILL BE dying on a cross for us someday in the future.)

Start with your present tense “IS NOW in the form of God”, and convey to me what the next two verses are telling you.

Mike,

You write a lot and I can only look up so much with the time I have available. Here is the whole sentence we are addressing as translated in the New American Standard Bible.

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

The first clause is “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus” and the only literal verb in the sentence is “have this attitude” and is a present imperative active meaning it is a command that is to be habitually and continually followed. The second verb “was” is implied from the context and is not written down in the Greek and is therefore its existence and all that infers are highly subject to bias. The idea expressed is, “be like Jesus Christ in your attitude,”

The second idea expressed is “who being in the form of God,”. The third clause has an aorist indicative”, which “is occasionally used to present a timeless, general fact.” In such cases it is often translated to a simple present. The idea express therefore becomes “does not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,” Once more in the fourth clause the verb is an aorist indicative and so the idea expressed is “but empties himself,”.

The fifth clause has an “Aorist participle”, which “usually suggest antecedent time to that of the main verb”. I have not yet determined what the main verb of the sentence is. The last clause also uses an “Aorist participle” but with a middle instead of active voice. I believe both Aorist participles are properly translated to past tense but the later one is recursive.

My main sources are here and here.

March 15, 2012 at 8:44 am#285054

Participant

Hi Jammin,
Yes Jesus Christ refers to his brothers as his children.[Jn 21.5]
But the source of his Spirit is God.

March 15, 2012 at 6:01 pm#285083

jammin

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 15 2012,16:27)

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 13 2012,23:50)

Hi Jammin,

the glory as of the only begotten of the Father (John 1:14)
compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. (Romans 8:18)

The Word of the oath, which was since the law,
maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. (Hebrews 7:28)

1Pet.1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by “The Word” of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Of his own will begat he us with “The Word” of truth,
that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18)

God bless
Ed J

Hi Jammin,

“The Word”(Ho Logos) is God's “HolySpirit”,
Father of all the Sons of God! (Eph.4:4-6)

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

read in john 1.1 that the Word refers to the HOLY SPIRIT.

stop making stories. you should be ashamed of yourself.

March 15, 2012 at 6:03 pm#285084

jammin

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 15 2012,19:44)

Hi Jammin,
Yes Jesus Christ refers to his brothers as his children.[Jn 21.5]
But the source of his Spirit is God.

nick the topic is about john 1.1

who is the WORD. and that is Christ.

better luck next time boy

March 15, 2012 at 6:39 pm#285089

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 15 2012,06:03)

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 14 2012,17:20)

A servant that has the form of God and the likeness of mankind but who does not see equality with God something to be grasped.

What the freak does that even mean, Kerwin?

This is why I now avoid the long, drawn out discussions with you. You are willing to post complete nonsense to save your flawed doctrine.

And I just don't have the patience to argue against crazy anymore. Consider jammin's “great and logical” responses of “it says so in this flawed translation where they ADDED words into scripture, so therefore it must be true”. Your argument here is equally as logical that that one he made.

Neither one of them are worth the space on this site that they take up.

Mike,

I figured that would be clear to those with spiritual understanding as they know that Jesus is still a servant in the form of God's Spirit and the likeness of mankind's body.

March 15, 2012 at 6:45 pm#285091

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 15 2012,05:45)

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 15 2012,10:25)

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 15 2012,03:51)

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 15 2012,08:42)

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 15 2012,01:22)

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 15 2012,05:31)

Pierre,

I am sure of what I stated I was sure of but not those things I stated I was not.

These words are all one sentence according to your translation.

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

According to the underling Greek “attitude should be”, “being”, and part of “equality” are all present tense. The rest of the verbs are aorists.

So what I know is that we are instructed to currently be like minded with Christ who currently has the form of God and currently doesn't consider equality with God something to be grasped. This tells me he did not empty himself of being in the form of God when he took on the form of a servant and was found in the likeness of mankind.

Hi Kerwin,

It would help you to understand the verse if the Greek
was translated correctly; here is what the verse actually says…

Philippians 2:5-6 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Ed J

Ed J.

It appears translators had difficulties with very basic language concepts.

The King James translates the Greek into a longer sentence than Pierre's choice.

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

The words “thought it not robbery to be equal with God:” looks hokey though it may have been fine for the time it was translated. Others disagree on sentence structure of the words and I know too little of the Greek to say which is the correct translation. I favor the one that is more consistent with what Scripture elsewhere tells me.

Hi Kerwin,

Which is what exactly?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Ed J.

Jesus called Yahweh his God and therefore did not see equality with God something to be grasped.

Hi Kerwin, but, that is NOT what the verse is saying?

Christ Mind(117) = “Spirit of God”(117) = “God The Father”(117) = (117)”יהוה האלהים”

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:” (Phil 2:5)
“thought it not robbery to be equal with God:” (Phil 2:6)

God's Signature
Proof of God=117
GOD(26) → The Bible(63) → AKJV Bible(74) → The LORD JEHOVAH(151)

יהוה=26 (God's Name: YHVH pronounced YÄ-hä-vā)
YHVH=63 (God's Name יהוה translated into English)
Jesus=74 (God's Son's name in English is: “Joshua”)
HolySpirit=151 (“FATHER: The Word”: in all believers)
God The Father=117 (Representing “GOD”: יהוה האלהים)

(26)יהוה = “GOD”(26)

Fact #1. GOD's NAME, [יהוה], Theomatically matching “GOD”=26!
Fact #2. The Short Form of God's Name, [יה], is pronounced “YÄ”=26.
Fact #3. Man being created in YHVH's Image is first mentioned in Gen.1:26.
Fact #4. “GOD”=26: matches the number of letters in the English alphabet, 26.
Fact #5. “God's”, the possessive form of GOD, the number of times written is 26.
Fact #6. “Spirit OF God”, the possessive phrase, the number of times written is 26.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
(LINK to the thread THAT PROVES GOD’s EXISTENCE)

Ed J.

I am sorry but I do not comprehend what you believe “”thought it not robbery to be equal with God:” means. Please paraphrase them. Thank you.

March 15, 2012 at 6:49 pm#285093

Participant

Hi,
Human wisdom says that the Word being with God excludes the Word being God.
Conventional theological “wisdom” fails us.

It is only when we define the WORD as a BEING in the beginning because we perceive behaviours we would normally associate with a BEING displayed.

But God can relate to and love and be loved by and send what is yet of Him as His Spirit – the Word.

Get over it.

March 15, 2012 at 6:53 pm#285097

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 16 2012,00:49)

Hi,
Human wisdom says that the Word being with God excludes the Word being God.
Conventional theological “wisdom” fails us.

It is only when we define the WORD as a BEING in the beginning because we perceive behaviours we would normally associate with a BEING displayed.

But God can relate to and love and be loved by and send what is yet of Him as His Spirit – the Word.

Get over it.

Nick,

Good point!

March 15, 2012 at 6:55 pm#285099

terraricca

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 16 2012,12:39)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 15 2012,06:03)

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 14 2012,17:20)

A servant that has the form of God and the likeness of mankind but who does not see equality with God something to be grasped.

What the freak does that even mean, Kerwin?

This is why I now avoid the long, drawn out discussions with you. You are willing to post complete nonsense to save your flawed doctrine.

Neither one of them are worth the space on this site that they take up.

Mike,

I figured that would be clear to those with spiritual understanding as they know that Jesus is still a servant in the form of God's Spirit and the likeness of mankind's body.

Kerwin

Quote

I figured that would be clear to those with spiritual understanding as they know that Jesus is still a servant in the form of God's Spirit and the likeness of mankind's body.

would this mean that you are the only one that his spiritual ??

or the also the ones who agree with you are

this answer is typical to all false religions

Quote

A servant that has the form of God and the likeness of mankind but who does not see equality with God something to be grasped.

a servant + form of God + likeness of mankind = the Anointed one ??

tell how could something like that ;see equality with God something to be grasped ???

are you not playing with configurations ???

March 15, 2012 at 7:22 pm#285112

Participant

Pierre,

It is just a matter of thinking in spiritual ways. Jesus is the Son of David as of his body and the Son of God as of his Spirit. Anyone familiar with the good news knows that.

Romans 1
King James Version (KJV)

1Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

March 15, 2012 at 7:53 pm#285119