- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 5 days, 2 hours ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 19 2012,08:50) Mike, The Greek verbs forms do not parallel English verb forms and thus the grammar may seem awkward to some. We see the same thing occur when one that grew up speaking a foreign language learns to speak English.
The experts attempt to adjust for that using various solutions.
I seek such knowledge because I like intellectual puzzles.
Hi Kerwin,That is why 1611 English is a better fit.
Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 19 2012,09:37) Hi MB,
You say
“God cannot be WITH God”Why argue with Scripture??
Hi:How about In the beginning God had a plan and this plan was with God, and this plan demonstrated God's character.
Quote Hbr 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2012,00:21) No, Ed. A part of one cannot be said to be with that one. You don't say, “I'm going to the store, and I'm going to take my brain, spirit, feet, and soul with me.”
Mike,If I state my soul is going to the store then where is my body and spirit going?
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 19 2012,03:56) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 19 2012,08:50) Mike, The Greek verbs forms do not parallel English verb forms and thus the grammar may seem awkward to some. We see the same thing occur when one that grew up speaking a foreign language learns to speak English.
The experts attempt to adjust for that using various solutions.
I seek such knowledge because I like intellectual puzzles.
Hi Kerwin,That is why 1611 English is a better fit.
Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J,The AKJV is not in 1611 English. They used “f” for “t” and other things to make it hard to understand. Never the less you may be correct that the grammar was closer to Greek.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 18 2012,12:46) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2012,05:09) God cannot be WITH God, Nick. The Word was a god who was with THE God in the beginning. This is how John wrote it, and that is what it means.
Hi MB,
You understand this much about God??
Or this little??Put away the theology textbooks
Nick,This is the kind of response that brings out the “bile” from people like me and Pierre. What exactly did you hope to gain from that post?
It is a smart-assed way to AVOID the point in question. You do it often, and it makes YOU a fool, not us.
The POINT is that John wrote THE theos only once in 1:1. He did not write, the Word was with THE theos and was THE theos. He called only one of the two theos mentioned “THE theos”.
You are always harping about being scripturally accurate, Nick. Put your money where your mouth is. In John 1:1, one was THE God, and the other was not THE God, or John would have wrote the word “THE” before BOTH “theos”, like he wrote it before both “logos”. He wrote the definite article before only ONE of the theos for a reason, Nick.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 18 2012,15:50) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 17 2012,21:08) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 15 2012,23:28) Be like Jesus Christ in your attitude, who being in the form of God, does not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but empties himself, having taken the form of a bond-servant, having been made in the likeness of mankind.
Kerwin,Do you see how the transition from present to past tense in your translation makes no sense?
You told me that even as the NASB translates it, it still doesn't say Jesus pre-existed. Then why would you take it upon yourself to re-translate almost 2000 years worth of Bibles that were produced from EXPERTS in the Greek language? Why would you produce your own nonsensical sentence structure if the CORRECT translation doesn't hurt your non-preexistent doctrine anyway?
In other words, why make yourself out to be one who can't understand simple grammar for nothing?
Mike,The Greek verbs forms do not parallel English verb forms and thus the grammar may seem awkward to some. We see the same thing occur when one that grew up speaking a foreign language learns to speak English.
The experts attempt to adjust for that using various solutions.
I seek such knowledge because I like intellectual puzzles.
That's right, Kerwin.Take the present tense “I am” in John 14:9 for example:
Young's Literal Translation
Jesus saith to him, 'So long time am I with you, and thou hast not known me, Philip?New International Version (©1984)
Jesus answered: “Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?Young actually translates it with the Greek present tense. You can liken it to a foreign man who says, “I am married to my wife for 15 years now.” Of course, in English it makes more sense to say, “I have been married to my wife for 15 years now.”
That is why the NIV I quoted above, and virtually every other English translation, renders “ego eimi” in John 14:9 as “I have been” instead of “I am”. They just don't like to follow that same logic in John 8:58, because they want it to seem like Jesus was oddly claiming to be his own God.
But let's switch out “eimi” in 14:9 for “huparcho”, another word meaing “to be” – and the word used in Phil 2:6. Imagine Jesus telling Philip, “I existing with you for such a long time.” That would fit the Greek present tense, but would not flow smoothly in English. So, unless there was some docrinal bias being played out (like the Trini's with 8:58, or like you with 2:6), the verse would undoubtedly be translated into English as, “I have existed with you for such a long time.”
Kerwin, if you are happy using what you know is a lame present tense loophole you've found in Phil 2, and making your ONE sentence switch tenses right in the middle, then go for it.
Just don't try to convince anyone here that your translation makes any sense, or that it was what Paul was conveying to us. We can see the bias and the reaching from a mile away.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2012,11:46) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 18 2012,12:46) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2012,05:09) God cannot be WITH God, Nick. The Word was a god who was with THE God in the beginning. This is how John wrote it, and that is what it means.
Hi MB,
You understand this much about God??
Or this little??Put away the theology textbooks
Nick,This is the kind of response that brings out the “bile” from people like me and Pierre. What exactly did you hope to gain from that post?
It is a smart-assed way to AVOID the point in question. You do it often, and it makes YOU a fool, not us.
The POINT is that John wrote THE theos only once in 1:1. He did not write, the Word was with THE theos and was THE theos. He called only one of the two theos mentioned “THE theos”.
You are always harping about being scripturally accurate, Nick. Put your money where your mouth is. In John 1:1, one was THE God, and the other was not THE God, or John would have wrote the word “THE” before BOTH “theos”, like he wrote it before both “logos”. He wrote the definite article before only ONE of the theos for a reason, Nick.
Hi MB,
Is it wise to call others fools?Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 18 2012,17:13) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2012,00:21) No, Ed. A part of one cannot be said to be with that one. You don't say, “I'm going to the store, and I'm going to take my brain, spirit, feet, and soul with me.”
Mike,If I state my soul is going to the store then where is my body and spirit going?
That is EXACTLY my point, Kerwin. So while you attempt to be against me, you actually help me. You are like Gene in this respect.
Your soul is never SEPARATED from “YOU” because it is but one PART OF you. Therefore you soul cannot sometimes be WITH you and sometimes not. You don't have the choice to leave your body or spirit at home while just your soul goes to the store. All parts of what makes up “YOU” are neither “with” you, nor “away from” you. They are parts of you.
Hi MB,
Face the fact that none of us know much about God.It is vanity is to imagine so.
Unless God reveals Himself to us we are casting about in the dark trying to define him from Theology.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 18 2012,19:09) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2012,11:46) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 18 2012,12:46) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2012,05:09) God cannot be WITH God, Nick. The Word was a god who was with THE God in the beginning. This is how John wrote it, and that is what it means.
Hi MB,
You understand this much about God??
Or this little??Put away the theology textbooks
Nick,This is the kind of response that brings out the “bile” from people like me and Pierre. What exactly did you hope to gain from that post?
It is a smart-assed way to AVOID the point in question. You do it often, and it makes YOU a fool, not us.
The POINT is that John wrote THE theos only once in 1:1. He did not write, the Word was with THE theos and was THE theos. He called only one of the two theos mentioned “THE theos”.
You are always harping about being scripturally accurate, Nick. Put your money where your mouth is. In John 1:1, one was THE God, and the other was not THE God, or John would have wrote the word “THE” before BOTH “theos”, like he wrote it before both “logos”. He wrote the definite article before only ONE of the theos for a reason, Nick.
Hi MB,
Is it wise to call others fools?
How about you address the info in the post, Nick?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 19 2012,19:12) Hi MB,
Face the fact that none of us know much about God.It is vanity is to imagine so.
Unless God reveals Himself to us we are casting about in the dark trying to define him from Theology.
NI assume you talking for yourself and no one else because I know my Maker and master
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2012,05:09) God cannot be WITH God, Nick. The Word was a god who was with THE God in the beginning. This is how John wrote it, and that is what it means.
An God is not the brain, or christians would get up the morning an go to work before the brain could work out why it did that?
An Im sure IF jESUS did say.. whoever loves God, is my mother brother an sister! Any also one that wants to save him from the roman bible.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 18 2012,19:14) How about you address the info in the post, Nick? Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 18 2012,19:12) Hi MB,
Face the fact that none of us know much about God.Nick, if you admit you don't know much about God, then shouldn't you remain silent? Why do you try to teach that which you do now know?
Hi MB,
Is it wise to boast?It is wonderful to learn of God by listening to His Son.
After rebirth from above Jesus Christ revealed much about his Father from the time as the Word.
Two as one in the Spirit from eternity separated in place only when partaking of the flesh in Jesus, the amazingly compliant and good man, and remaining one forever with Jesus's soul.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2012,07:06) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 18 2012,15:50) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 17 2012,21:08) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 15 2012,23:28) Be like Jesus Christ in your attitude, who being in the form of God, does not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but empties himself, having taken the form of a bond-servant, having been made in the likeness of mankind.
Kerwin,Do you see how the transition from present to past tense in your translation makes no sense?
You told me that even as the NASB translates it, it still doesn't say Jesus pre-existed. Then why would you take it upon yourself to re-translate almost 2000 years worth of Bibles that were produced from EXPERTS in the Greek language? Why would you produce your own nonsensical sentence structure if the CORRECT translation doesn't hurt your non-preexistent doctrine anyway?
In other words, why make yourself out to be one who can't understand simple grammar for nothing?
Mike,The Greek verbs forms do not parallel English verb forms and thus the grammar may seem awkward to some. We see the same thing occur when one that grew up speaking a foreign language learns to speak English.
The experts attempt to adjust for that using various solutions.
I seek such knowledge because I like intellectual puzzles.
That's right, Kerwin.Take the present tense “I am” in John 14:9 for example:
Young's Literal Translation
Jesus saith to him, 'So long time am I with you, and thou hast not known me, Philip?New International Version (©1984)
Jesus answered: “Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?Young actually translates it with the Greek present tense. You can liken it to a foreign man who says, “I am married to my wife for 15 years now.” Of course, in English it makes more sense to say, “I have been married to my wife for 15 years now.”
That is why the NIV I quoted above, and virtually every other English translation, renders “ego eimi” in John 14:9 as “I have been” instead of “I am”. They just don't like to follow that same logic in John 8:58, because they want it to seem like Jesus was oddly claiming to be his own God.
But let's switch out “eimi” in 14:9 for “huparcho”, another word meaing “to be” – and the word used in Phil 2:6. Imagine Jesus telling Philip, “I existing with you for such a long time.” That would fit the Greek present tense, but would not flow smoothly in English. So, unless there was some docrinal bias being played out (like the Trini's with 8:58, or like you with 2:6), the verse would undoubtedly be translated into English as, “I have existed with you for such a long time.”
Kerwin, if you are happy using what you know is a lame present tense loophole you've found in Phil 2, and making your ONE sentence switch tenses right in the middle, then go for it.
Just don't try to convince anyone here that your translation makes any sense, or that it was what Paul was conveying to us. We can see the bias and the reaching from a mile away.
Mike,The message Paul is conveying is to be like minded with Christ. The present tense verbs he used demonstrate the mind he is speaking of. The past tense are actions that have stemed from that mindset or were made by God.
I do not know much about the dramatic verbs except that there are both aorist and present tense dramatic and that the aorist indicative can be used as a dramatic.
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 18 2012,14:09) Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 18 2012,14:00) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 18 2012,19:53) Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 18 2012,12:48) N and edj so you both believe that Christ did not came from God his father has he as said right ?
PIERRE,Bearing 'false witness' is a sin; did you not know that?
Ed J
edjyou could have answered the question but even their you blind
PIERRE,I never said that, and what would cause to believe that anyway?
God bless
Ed J
PIERRE,No, No, NO!
Now, will you PLEASE answer my question!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2012,05:09) God cannot be WITH God, Nick. The Word was a god who was with THE God in the beginning. This is how John wrote it, and that is what it means.
Hi Mike,Greek does not have “indefinite articles” SO JOHN COULD NOT HAVE WROTE THAT;
are you lying or misinformed? …or perhaps you just made a mistake? …which is it?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
