JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 13 2012,02:17)

Quote (jammin @ Aug. 11 2012,20:23) paul did not say form of nature. I agree. Paul said “form of God“, right?  And what did Paul mean by “God”?  Did he mean a species of beings?  Or did he mean an individual being?

Hi Mike,

How many times has Jammin 'ignored' this question now?

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

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 13 2012,02:41)

Quote (Wakeup @ Aug. 11 2012,23:23) You are right,the word pacha should have been translated as pass over. But at that time,it was easter they are celebrating. They have corrupted the passover celebration.Therefore it was translated as easter,which is still not correct. That's all I'm trying to point out, Wakeup.  I'm not trying to slam the KJV translation – only trying to point out that the KJV, like all translations, was made by flawed men doing the best they could with what they had to work with at the time. They made a mistake in this case, and the NKJV has remedied that mistake. But consider the argument you just made concerning “easter”.  You sort of “justify” the blatant mistranslation by saying, Well, they meant easter, so the KJV is not really at fault. Now, imagine you were a Trinitarian scribe back in the 5th or 6th century, translating 1 Tim 3:16.  It would have been just as easy for you to say in your mind, Well, I know that Jesus is God Almighty who came in the flesh, and so the words, “who came in the flesh” really mean “God came in the flesh”, so it's not really a “mistranslation” if I just change the word “who” to “God”, is it? This is what happened with 1 Tim 3:16.  A well-meaning Trinitarian scribe ALTERED the text from “who” to “God”, based on his “justifiable personal beliefs”.  And since “God” was such a tantalizing translation to the Trinitarians, they just decided to keep “God” and forget all about the original text, which said “who”. In this case, it was not the KJV translators who altered the text, for they were just translating from mss that had already been altered to “God”.  But we now know that the older mss had “who”, and that the word “who” was later ALTERED to “God” in that verse.  And since we now know this to be the case, as much as the newer Trinitarian translations would love to have “God” in 1 Tim 3:16, they just can't justify using that altered word in the face of so much evidence against it. peace, mike

NO,

The text is clearly referencing Herod, not the Jewish passover.

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

[Ed J]

Quote (carmel @ Aug. 13 2012,02:46)

So they would be as angels, and angels have no sex!!!

Hi Charles,

Genesis 6:1-2 suggests differently.

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

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 13 2012,02:53)

Quote (Devolution @ Aug. 12 2012,06:40) I am worried for you. I rarely do this “interpretation” game, but you on the other hand are soaked in it up to your neck. So WHY have YOU not come across this simple answer and yet i have? How many more errors are you sprouting AGAINST Gods only true & PRESERVED written word? Hi Devo, While I appreciate your concern for my soul, the simple fact of the matter is that the Greek word “pascha” means “passover”, and should be translated as such. The NKJV has corrected the faulty translation of the KJV in this case. It seems from your post that you are unaware of the fact that the KJV is simply one of many English translations made by flawed men doing the best they could. Plus, I don't believe you answered me about those in the world who have never spoken a word of English in their lives. How does the KJV (“Gods only true & PRESERVED written word”) help them? Are only English speaking people allowed to have the “real truth” of the scriptures? Devo, get over it man. The KJV is but one of many good English translations of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scriptures. It is not some magical talisman designed to unlock God's secrets.

Hi Mike,

The AKJV Bible society has translated it into “ALL” the major languages of the world.

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

[Ed J]

Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 13 2012,04:07)

Hi Mike Do you understand what this is saying? Leviticus 23:5   In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord's passover. Leviticus 23:6   And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. Confirmed again Numbers 28:16   And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the Lord. Numbers 28:17   And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.   The above is what we should address. and this below. Acts 12:3   And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread) Acts 12:4   And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him for to the people. The passover happens on the 14th, the very next day (15th) is the feast of unleavened bread.  This goes on for 7 days. They were in the days of unleavened bread, so the passover has already finished. So it can only mean one thing, that the Romans celebrated easter (Oestre) according to their tradition (goddess worship) And this word Easter was not mistranslated, for we know the roots of this pagan celebration existed before Christ. The evidence comes from the bible itself, do you agree? And if the word should be pascha meaning passover, then why would he wait until after pascha when pascha has already finished?

Hi Georgie,

Simple to anyone who has studied the matter. But
some people reject truth without checking it out first.

Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 12 2012,18:07)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 13 2012,02:17) Quote (jammin @ Aug. 11 2012,20:23) paul did not say form of nature. I agree. Paul said “form of God“, right?  And what did Paul mean by “God”?  Did he mean a species of beings?  Or did he mean an individual being? Hi Mike, How many times has Jammin 'ignored' this question now? God bless Ed J

Oh, about 97 times, I'd guess.    (Probably more like 12)

But jammin apparently can't be bothered with OUR questions, because he's too busy asking more and more of his own.

[journey42]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 13 2012,05:29)

From Barnes: Intending after Easter – There never was a more absurd or unhappy translation than this. The original is simply after the Passover (μετὰ τὸ πάσχα meta to pascha. The word “Easter” now denotes the festival observed by many Christian churches in honor of the resurrection of the Saviour. But the original has no reference to that, nor is there the slightest evidence that any such festival was observed at the time when this book was written. The translation is not only unhappy, as it does not convey at all the meaning of the original, but because it may contribute to foster an opinion that such a festival was observed in the time of the apostles. The word “Easter” is of Saxon origin, and is supposed to be derived from “Eostre,” the goddess of Love, or the Venus of the North, in honor of whom a festival was celebrated by our pagan ancestors in the month of April (Webster). Since this festival coincided with the Passover of the Jews, and with the feast observed by Christians in honor of the resurrection of Christ, the name came to be used to denote the latter. In the old Anglo-Saxon service-books the term “Easter” is used frequently to translate the word “Passover.” In the translation by Wycliffe, the word “paske,” that is, “Passover,” is used. But Tyndale and Coverdale used the word “Easter,” and hence, it has very improperly crept into our King James Version. From Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary: intending after Easter-rather, “after the Passover”; that is, after the whole festival was over. (The word in our King James Version is an ecclesiastical term of later date, and ought not to have been employed here). The term “passover” could refer to the entire, week-long passover celebration.  It did not always refer only to the first night of the Passover Festival. journey, the KJV translators made a mistake in this case.  The mistake has been subseqently rectified by the NKJV, and virtually every English translation that followed the KJV. Now that you know the KJV is not “infallible”, are you ready to put aside tradition in favor of truth?

Hi Mike

So you are saying it is no way possible that the Romans celebrated Oestre during these days?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 12 2012,18:14)

NO, The text is clearly referencing Herod, not the Jewish passover.

What does that even mean?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 12 2012,19:44)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 13 2012,05:29) From Barnes: Intending after Easter – There never was a more absurd or unhappy translation than this. The original is simply after the Passover (μετὰ τὸ πάσχα meta to pascha. The word “Easter” now denotes the festival observed by many Christian churches in honor of the resurrection of the Saviour. But the original has no reference to that, nor is there the slightest evidence that any such festival was observed at the time when this book was written. The translation is not only unhappy, as it does not convey at all the meaning of the original, but because it may contribute to foster an opinion that such a festival was observed in the time of the apostles. The word “Easter” is of Saxon origin, and is supposed to be derived from “Eostre,” the goddess of Love, or the Venus of the North, in honor of whom a festival was celebrated by our pagan ancestors in the month of April (Webster). Since this festival coincided with the Passover of the Jews, and with the feast observed by Christians in honor of the resurrection of Christ, the name came to be used to denote the latter. In the old Anglo-Saxon service-books the term “Easter” is used frequently to translate the word “Passover.” In the translation by Wycliffe, the word “paske,” that is, “Passover,” is used. But Tyndale and Coverdale used the word “Easter,” and hence, it has very improperly crept into our King James Version. From Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary: intending after Easter-rather, “after the Passover”; that is, after the whole festival was over. (The word in our King James Version is an ecclesiastical term of later date, and ought not to have been employed here). The term “passover” could refer to the entire, week-long passover celebration.  It did not always refer only to the first night of the Passover Festival. journey, the KJV translators made a mistake in this case.  The mistake has been subseqently rectified by the NKJV, and virtually every English translation that followed the KJV. Now that you know the KJV is not “infallible”, are you ready to put aside tradition in favor of truth? Hi Mike So you are saying it is no way possible that the Romans celebrated Oestre during these days?

Apparently, your answer to my question is “Not yet, Mike.”

What I'm saying is that Herod was not going to bring Peter out before the ROMANS, but before the JEWS. It was the JEWS he was trying to please:

Acts 12
2 He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. 3 When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also.

Now, surely the JEWS were not too busy celebrating OESTRE to have Peter brought out to them, right? But they WERE busy celebrating THEIR OWN festival – the Passover Festival, right?

journey, the fact of the matter is that the Greek word actually MEANS “passover”. The word NEVER means “Easter”. It was a mistranslation. It has since been fixed.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 12 2012,18:22)

Hi Mike, The AKJV Bible society has translated it into “ALL” the major languages of the world.

Translated WHAT? The Hebrew and Greek texts? Or their English translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts?

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 13 2012,12:45)

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 12 2012,18:14) NO, The text is clearly referencing Herod, not the Jewish passover.   What does that even mean?

Hi Mike, that means…

Herod was referring to the pagan 'Ishtar Celebration'  –  NOT the Jewish “Passover”.

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

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 13 2012,12:56)

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 12 2012,18:22) Hi Mike, The AKJV Bible society has translated it into “ALL” the major languages of the world. Translated WHAT?  The Hebrew and Greek texts?  Or their English translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts?

Hi Mike,

The English translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts.

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

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 12 2012,20:05)

Herod was referring to the pagan 'Ishtar Celebration'  –  NOT the Jewish “Passover”. God bless Ed J

I wasn't aware that Herod wrote the book of Acts. And if it wasn't Herod doing the writing, then it wasn't Herod who was “referring” to anything at all.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 12 2012,20:15)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 13 2012,12:56) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 12 2012,18:22) Hi Mike, The AKJV Bible society has translated it into “ALL” the major languages of the world. Translated WHAT?  The Hebrew and Greek texts?  Or their English translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts? Hi Mike, The English translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts. God bless Ed J

So you're saying that when the AKJV Bible Society translated the scriptures into, say, Spanish, they didn't use the Hebrew and Greek texts, but just re-translated their English translation into Spanish?

Are you sure?

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 13 2012,13:36)

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 12 2012,20:05) Herod was referring to the pagan 'Ishtar Celebration'  –  NOT the Jewish “Passover”. God bless Ed J I wasn't aware that Herod wrote the book of Acts.    And if it wasn't Herod doing the writing, then it wasn't Herod who was “referring” to anything at all.

Hi Mike,

That is certainly an odd comment?  
Is this verse not speaking of Herod's intentions?

“intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.” (Acts 12:4)

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

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 13 2012,13:41)

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 12 2012,20:15) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 13 2012,12:56) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 12 2012,18:22) Hi Mike, The AKJV Bible society has translated it into “ALL” the major languages of the world. Translated WHAT?  The Hebrew and Greek texts?  Or their English translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts? Hi Mike, The English translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts. God bless Ed J So you're saying that when the AKJV Bible Society translated the scriptures into, say, Spanish, they didn't use the Hebrew and Greek texts, but just re-translated their English translation into Spanish? Are you sure?

Hi Mike,

I believe that is the case.

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

[jammin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 13 2012,02:15)

Quote (jammin @ Aug. 11 2012,20:22) by nature, just like your father?? yes or no? Yes jammin, By nature..

tnx for answering that you and your father have THE SAME NATURE AND THAT IS YOUR HUMAN NATURE.

why cant you accept that Christ has the same nature just like his father.

you do not want truth mike. you want doctrines from men and not from God

[jammin]

mike,

you are insisting individual being in phil 2.6

can you read any translation that says individual being in phil 2.6

ill wait mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 12 2012,20:45)

Is this verse not speaking of Herod's intentions? “intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.” (Acts 12:4) God bless Ed J

Well,

If Luke, who wrote Acts, was intending to say that Herod was going to bring Peter out after HE was done celebrating Easter, then Luke most likely would have used a Greek word that MEANT “Easter”.  Instead, he used the Greek word that meant “Passover”, and so was obviously referring to Herod (who pretended to be a faithful Jew to appease the Jews) bringing Peter out after the PASSOVER celebration was finished.

Use your Google translator and tell us all what Greek word means “Easter”.  

And then ask yourself why you would spend so much time and effort trying to defend a mistranslated word in one of many English Bibles.  Because the bottom line is that it doesn't really matter what any of us THINK was meant – it only matters that the Greek word used was “pascha”, and that word means “passover”.

I'm starting to get the feeling that some of you guys hold the KJV up as another god or something. It is simply one of THOUSANDS of English translations of the scriptures. There is nothing special or magical or spiritual about this particular translation, Ed. In fact, it has many flaws.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 12 2012,20:47)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 13 2012,13:41) So you're saying that when the AKJV Bible Society translated the scriptures into, say, Spanish, they didn't use the Hebrew and Greek texts, but just re-translated their English translation into Spanish? Are you sure? Hi Mike, I believe that is the case. God bless Ed J

Hmmmm………..

That simply doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps you should check into it and find out the truth before making the claim?

[Author]

Posts