- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 1 day, 7 hours ago by
.
- Posts
Hi KW,
Did scripture say they required SHELTER?
Was it not from the thoughts of men the idea originated?
Why add?Hi KW,
To receive from those other to yourself is to receive nonsense?
When did you become the arbiter of truth?Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 19 2012,12:25) Hi Jammin,
So when was he anointed?
nick,can you read that he became Christ at the jordan river or not?
well if you cant read your opinion, you better start planting trees. by doing this, you can help your country LOL
Quote (Ed J @ April 19 2012,12:32) Hi Jammin, In the beginning: the HolySpirit was with God and was God; God's HolySpirit is now given to us.
“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out MY SPIRIT upon all flesh;” (Joel 2:28)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
edj,
that's not what the bible says
make your own version LOLQuote (kerwin @ April 19 2012,12:35) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 19 2012,05:07) Hi KW,
You are confident in your understandings.Where did I make that claim?
Nick,You would have seen a man, just like me, and just like me the man would read the signs you chose not to.
One is the type of the other.
Read the signs of Scripture and interpret them by the power of God's righteousness.
Peter obviously believed that Elijah and Mosses required shelter but you have been taught nonsense by men, that lacked understanding, and so do not believe.
Hi KW,
Should you build so much of your opinion into teachings and then castigate others for unbelief if they look askance?Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 19 2012,09:35) Quote (kerwin @ April 19 2012,12:35) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 19 2012,05:07) Hi KW,
You are confident in your understandings.Where did I make that claim?
Nick,You would have seen a man, just like me, and just like me the man would read the signs you chose not to.
One is the type of the other.
Read the signs of Scripture and interpret them by the power of God's righteousness.
Peter obviously believed that Elijah and Mosses required shelter but you have been taught nonsense by men, that lacked understanding, and so do not believe.
Hi KW,
Should you build so much of your opinion into teachings and then castigate others for unbelief if they look askance?
To all,This conversation has been moved to a new thread about the ascension of Moses' body and his resurrection in heaven in the Truth and Traditions forum.
Quote (jammin @ April 19 2012,09:32) Quote (Ed J @ April 19 2012,12:32) Hi Jammin, In the beginning: the HolySpirit was with God and was God; God's HolySpirit is now given to us.
“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out MY SPIRIT upon all flesh;” (Joel 2:28)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
edj,
that's not what the bible says
make your own version LOL
Jammin,Since when have you questioned that the Spirit of God is God?
The first few verses of Genesis do say the Spirit and God are both there.
Quote (kerwin @ April 19 2012,15:15) Quote (jammin @ April 19 2012,09:32) Quote (Ed J @ April 19 2012,12:32) Hi Jammin, In the beginning: the HolySpirit was with God and was God; God's HolySpirit is now given to us.
“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out MY SPIRIT upon all flesh;” (Joel 2:28)God bless
Ed J
edj,
that's not what the bible says
make your own version LOL
Jammin,Since when have you questioned that the Spirit of God is God?
The first few verses of Genesis do say the Spirit and God are both there.
Hi Kerwin,Jammin must turn his back to truth in an attempt to establish a false truth.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgedj,
you said:
In the beginning: the HolySpirit was with God and was God;but john the apostle said
John 1:1English Standard Version (ESV)
The Word Became Flesh1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Wordwas with God, and the Word was God.
john did not say HS but the WORD
who is the Word?
let us read again what john said
Revelation 19:13English Standard Version (ESV)
13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in[a] blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.
john said that the Word is the son of GOD. the Word of God is the name of Christ our LORD.
John 1:14
English Standard Version (ESV)
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
that is very clear in the bible. i believe what john said.
sorry but your doctrine is not in the bible. study hard boy
Quote (kerwin @ April 19 2012,15:15) Quote (jammin @ April 19 2012,09:32) Quote (Ed J @ April 19 2012,12:32) Hi Jammin, In the beginning: the HolySpirit was with God and was God; God's HolySpirit is now given to us.
“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out MY SPIRIT upon all flesh;” (Joel 2:28)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
edj,
that's not what the bible says
make your own version LOL
Jammin,Since when have you questioned that the Spirit of God is God?
The first few verses of Genesis do say the Spirit and God are both there.
you words are useless.i believe what john said.
Revelation 19:13Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
13 And he was clothed in a cloak sprinkled with blood; and the name of him was called The Son of God. [And he was clothed in a cloth sprinkled with blood; and the name of him was called The word, or Son, of God.]study hard boy
Quote (kerwin @ April 19 2012,15:11) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 19 2012,09:35) Quote (kerwin @ April 19 2012,12:35) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 19 2012,05:07) Hi KW,
You are confident in your understandings.Where did I make that claim?
Nick,You would have seen a man, just like me, and just like me the man would read the signs you chose not to.
One is the type of the other.
Read the signs of Scripture and interpret them by the power of God's righteousness.
Peter obviously believed that Elijah and Mosses required shelter but you have been taught nonsense by men, that lacked understanding, and so do not believe.
Hi KW,
Should you build so much of your opinion into teachings and then castigate others for unbelief if they look askance?
To all,This conversation has been moved to a new thread about the ascension of Moses' body and his resurrection in heaven in the Truth and Traditions forum.
Bodies go missing when they don't want in any railing accusations made against the final destination of their leader.I still think america shouldn't have made the traditional respect of deal… to dump Osama BinLaden's Body in the sea..they should have bought it home an announced they would put it right next to the mosque..Ground zero! ..so their is no advantage for any further confusion … not convinced the Iran government new where he was hiding…which may as well be acknowledgement in agreeance…
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 19 2012,19:48) Hi Jammin,
You could learn much more if you put down your machine gun and had a cup of tea with us.
nick,it is very obvious that your doctrine is from men
2 Peter 2:1
BUT ALSO [in those days] there arose false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among yourselves, who will subtly and stealthily introduce heretical doctrines (destructive heresies), even denying and disowning the Master Who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.Quote (kerwin @ April 19 2012,15:11) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 19 2012,09:35) Quote (kerwin @ April 19 2012,12:35) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 19 2012,05:07) Hi KW,
You are confident in your understandings.Where did I make that claim?
Nick,You would have seen a man, just like me, and just like me the man would read the signs you chose not to.
One is the type of the other.
Read the signs of Scripture and interpret them by the power of God's righteousness.
Peter obviously believed that Elijah and Mosses required shelter but you have been taught nonsense by men, that lacked understanding, and so do not believe.
Hi KW,
Should you build so much of your opinion into teachings and then castigate others for unbelief if they look askance?
To all,This conversation has been moved to a new thread about the ascension of Moses' body and his resurrection in heaven in the Truth and Traditions forum.
kerwin,I'm not interested in participating in that thread, since it is quite obvious that you are intermingling Greek mythological thought with Hebrew in accordance with your response to me on this matter.
Quote (jammin @ April 19 2012,19:11) Quote (kerwin @ April 19 2012,15:15) Quote (jammin @ April 19 2012,09:32) Quote (Ed J @ April 19 2012,12:32) Hi Jammin, In the beginning: the HolySpirit was with God and was God; God's HolySpirit is now given to us.
“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out MY SPIRIT upon all flesh;” (Joel 2:28)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
edj,
that's not what the bible says
make your own version LOL
Jammin,Since when have you questioned that the Spirit of God is God?
The first few verses of Genesis do say the Spirit and God are both there.
you words are useless.i believe what john said.
Revelation 19:13Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
13 And he was clothed in a cloak sprinkled with blood; and the name of him was called The Son of God. [And he was clothed in a cloth sprinkled with blood; and the name of him was called The word, or Son, of God.]study hard boy
jammin,Quite interesting that you brought up the John Wycliffe translation of Revelation 19:13, since the original John Wycliffe English translation reads:
“And he was clothid in a cloth spreynt with blood; and the name of hym was clepid The sone of God.”
Note that the words in brackets indicate that these words were not in the original John Wycliffe English translation, but were later added by another person. The majority of the translations of this verse read:
“He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God” (Revelation 19:13).
Makes one wonder if this name/title that Yahshua is said to be called by should have been more accurately translated “Son of *Yahweh” or “Word of *Yahweh”, since it is quite obvious that the English words 'son' and 'word' have two completely different meanings altogether!
BTW, It is YOUR words that you have posted in this forum that I find quite USELESS, but the source that you posted I have found quite telling.
Did Yahshua Create Or Pre-exist His Birth?
…
Frank,
I wonder if it did truly say “his name is called the Son of God”, would people like Marty still try to claim that he isn't actually the Son of God, it's just that his name is CALLED that – like they do with “Word of God”?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 20 2012,10:34) Frank, I wonder if it did truly say “his name is called the Son of God”, would people like Marty still try to claim that he isn't actually the Son of God, it's just that his name is CALLED that – like they do with “Word of God”?
Mike,Well, your reasoning can not stand, since the difference certainly would be that Yahshua is most certainly said to be the son of Father Yahweh in the so-called “New Testament” as a whole. Just to point out only one fact in relation to this truth, Yahshua is frequently recorded in the so-called “New Testament” as referring to His and our Father Yahweh by the word “Father” which would most certainly give clear evidence that he is His son. Even Father Yahweh is recorded in this same section of Scripture as referring to Yahshua as His son that He is very well pleased with.
Unfortunately, perhaps the greatest tragedy in the translation of the Word of God on this topic is the seemingly harmless translation of the pronoun that refers to the LOGOS. The Greek pronoun AUTOS can be translated either “him” or “it” depending on the noun that it is referring to. In KOINE Greek, there were not multiple pronouns used for each type of noun, they did not have a “he”, “she” and an “it” as we have in English. They simply had one pronoun, AUTOS, which was used as a placeholder for all three of these noun types. If referring to a man, AUTOS would be translated “he” or “him,” but if referring to an inanimate object like the LOGOS, “life” or the “light,” then “it” is more accurate. In “The Challenge of Bible Translation” Mark L. Strauss, Professor of New Testament at Bethel Seminary in San Diego confirms:
“Grammatically, pronouns follow their antecedents; they do not govern them…In beginning Greek we teach our students that a pronoun replaces a noun (its antecedent) and gets its meaning from that noun—not vice versa!…We should not impose the male connotations of ‘he’ onto AUTOS unless we are sure they are there. And in most generic contexts, there is no evidence that they are there. Indeed, when AUTOS is preceded by a true generic term, we must assume it, too, is a true generic. It does not mean ‘he’…What some English speakers have trouble comprehending is that, because Greek pronouns such as AUTOS were used for all masculine nouns—whether animate or inanimate—in many contexts this pronoun sounded exactly like ‘it’ sounds to English ears.”-Strauss, Mark L. “The Challenge of Bible Translation”, p128, 130
Although I do agree that it is very difficult to assign an inanimate neutral pronoun like “it” to the living, breathing, active, penetrating truth that is the LOGOS of God, it probably is the most accurate translation of the term AUTOS as it relates to the personified, but still inanimate object of the LOGOS; and that is how AUTOS has been translated every other place the LOGOS is found to be with a pronoun in Scripture. Referring to the LOGOS as a “him” brings with it a large presupposition that potentially was not the original intent of John, and in the process essentially reshapes our entire perception of probably the primary proof text for the deity of Jesus in all of Scripture! The fact that AUTOS is translated “he” and “him” in the Prologue of John numerous times gives us insight into the paradigms and agendas of the translators. It proves that they are speculating that the LOGOS is used interchangeably by John for the term “Jesus,” and you’ll even hear this verse quoted as “obvious” or “certain” evidence that Jesus was in fact referred to as “God.” Whereas the vast majority of scholars obviously presume that it is appropriate to translate AUTOS as “him” rather than “it” in the Prologue of John because the LOGOS is in fact Jesus in their minds, the same scholars would consider it ludicrous to propose the translation of the term LOGOS to the English name “Jesus” because they would consider this a drastic and unacceptable departure from the original words of John. But this is exactly what is inferred with the current speculative translation of the generic pronoun AUTOS. By translating AUTOS “he” and “him” in the Prologue, we are making an implied argument that John uses the term LOGOS as a placeholder for the proper name of IESOUS, which means “Jesus.” They are now no longer “translating” the original Greek, but rather “speculating” based on a theologically based set of paradigms that does not align precisely with the text. I’d rather presume that John references the inanimate LOGOS in his Prologue for a reason. If in fact he meant that “Jesus” was “God,” he would have said IESOUS, not LOGOS. And the LOGOS, in its true inanimate sense, as with the many verses of the Prologue and exclusively throughout the rest of Scripture, it is not a “him,” it is an “it.”
And before you claim this alleged translation bias is an argument from silence because it has little support from the current academic community, if you were to reread John 1:1-5 & 14 the way the primary original translator of the Bible into English and the principal source for many of our modern translations interpreted it in William Tyndale’s first version of the New Testament translated in 1525, our current perception of the verse would be drastically different:
1In the beginning was that word, and that word was with god, and god was that word. 2The same was in the beginning with god. 3All things were made by it, and without it, was made no thing, that made was. 4In it was life, and life was the light of men 5and the light shineth in the darkness, and darkness comprehended it not…14And that word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw the glory of it, as the glory of the only begotten son of the father, which word was full of grace, and verity.-John 1:1-5, 14 {TYNDALE}
And as most are already aware, all modern translators since the KJV retranslate the pronoun AUTOS as “he” or “him” rather than agreeing with Tyndale and translating the term “it.” But now we know that they did so in spite of previously accepted translations rather than because of them. Look how drastic the translation of this one pronoun changes the meaning of a verse, and potentially the “central” doctrine of our religion! But the interesting thing to note, once again, is that even though the above verses seem irregular to us now, the current translations that we have were, at the time they were translated, an intentional deviation from the norm! At the time that the KJV was being translated, the two primary Bibles used were Tyndale’s New Testament and the Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible translated by John Calvin’s brother-in-law, William Whittingham, both of which chose to translate AUTOS as “it” rather than “him” here in John’s Prologue. And this is significant for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that John Wyclif’s Bible, which is the only English version that preceeded Tyndale’s, translated this pronoun as “he” and “him” throughout the Prologue. So the translation of this term to “it” by both Tyndale and the Geneva Bible must have been an intentional deviation from Wyclif. But the translators subsequent to Tyndale and Calvin are telling us that, even though they choose to use the vast majority of Tyndale’s words identically as he translated them, they disagreed with him almost exclusively with this pronoun and the correct order of the phrase KAI THEOS EN HO LOGOS or “and god was the word.” They speculated that AUTOS should rather be translated “him” because they believed that the LOGOS was in fact a “him” in the beginning prior to it “becoming flesh” where it was presumed to be referring to Jesus. But if AUTOS is by default an “it” unless its antecedent forces it into a gender specific pronoun, these translators are no longer acting as translators, but rather as interpreters that are presuming a meaning that is injected into the words chosen by John. This primary unbiased interpretation is unfortunately only evidenced when we review our earliest English translations prior to our modern interpretive deviations.
But rather than having a disagreement on the correct translation of the pronoun AUTOS, let’s instead, just read the verses using the noun or antecedent that the pronoun AUTOS is intended to replace, so we can remove the bias of interpretation from either side:
1In the beginning was [the LOGOS], and [the LOGOS] was with God, and [the LOGOS] was God. 2 [the LOGOS] was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through [the LOGOS], and apart from [the LOGOS] nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In [the LOGOS] was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5The Light shines in the da
rkness, and the darkness did not comprehend [the light]… 14And [the LOGOS] became flesh, and dwelt [EN] us, and we saw [the LOGOS]’s glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.-John 1:1-5, 14 {NASB}These verses look very different when they are not overloaded with the heavy burden of the translators’ speculative interpretations. Now, for those of you skeptics who are currently accusing me of taking our earliest version of the English Bible and using it as support to prove my interpretation of the original rendering of John. Remember, Tyndale was the father of the English Reformation and all current Bibles relied heavily if not almost exclusively on his interpretation of the original intent of the authors of Scripture. And as already stated, multiple Bibles actually translated AUTOS as “it” prior to the KJV, so it wasn’t only Tyndale who originally interpreted the verse this way.
SOURCE
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
