- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 11 2013,10:41) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 11 2013,06:37) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 10 2013,19:58) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 10 2013,10:07) T, All creation was divine, an archetype of the holy land that was merely credited with it. There was no corruption until the serpent decided to tempt Eve.
Kdi·vine [dih-vahyn] Show IPA adjective, di·vin·er, di·vin·est, noun, verb, di·vined, di·vin·ing.
adjective
1.
of or pertaining to a god, especially the Supreme Being.
2.
addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred: divine worship.
3.
proceeding from God or a god: divine laws.
4.
godlike; characteristic of or befitting a deity: divine magnanimity.
5.
heavenly; celestial: the divine kingdom.so,nothing is divine unless it is in heaven ;and only Christ is the ONLY true divine son of GOD almighty ,all others was created through him ;right
yesho·ly [hoh-lee] Show IPA adjective, ho·li·er, ho·li·est, noun, plural ho·lies.
adjective
1.
specially recognized as or declared sacred by religious use or authority; consecrated: holy ground.
2.
dedicated or devoted to the service of God, the church, or religion: a holy man.
3.
saintly; godly; pious; devout: a holy life.
4.
having a spiritually pure quality: a holy love.
5.
entitled to worship or veneration as or as if sacred: a holy relic.
Relevant Questions
What Is Holiness?
What Is The Holy Book Of Buddhism?
What Is Holy?
What Happened On Holy Thursday?
What Is Holi?
What Is The Holy Book Of Hinduism?
noun
8.
a place of worship; sacred place; sanctuary.
Origin:
before 900; Middle English holi, Old English hālig, variant of hāleg, equivalent to hāl whole + -eg -y1 ; cognate with Dutch, German heilig, Old Norse heilagrCan be confused: holey, holy, wholly.
Synonyms
1. blessed. Holy, sacred, consecrated, hallowed imply possession of a sanctity that is the object of religious veneration. Holy refers to the divine, that which has its sanctity directly from God or is connected with Him: Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Something that is sacred while sometimes accepted as entitled to religious veneration, may have its sanctity from human authority: a sacred oath. Something that is consecrated is specially or formally dedicated to some religious use: a life consecrated to service. Something that is hallowed has been made holy by being worshiped: a hallowed shrine. 4. spiritual.so how is this fit with your view
T,Divine God = Holy God.
Divine Word = Holy God.The divine God makes his word divine and not the other way around.
They both are divine.
The AKJV of the bible uses divine to speak of certain of God's characteristics and nothing else that I could find last night.
In my conversation with Jammin I am trying to discover why objects of God are called gods in Koine Greek.
KSo Satan the god of this world his a divine god, and his a holy god,
According to your logic ,
This is not supported by scriptures
T,No! My logic is before the fall earth and heaven were a divine creation. After the fall some parts of it were credited with being divine but nothing corrupt is truly divine.
As soon a Satan fell he was no longer a divine creation.
K
Do you not understand that Satan was already corrupt in his heart before Adam and Eve were created
Eve was Adam week part ,and so chose her for the down fall of men,
K
How can a divine word be equal to Holy God
Any scriptures How can divine God be equal to holy God
All the sons of God are gods and have free will and so has men why would God Jehovah be called to be holy this is one of his qualities ,nothing more I thinkQuote (kerwin @ Nov. 11 2013,15:36) Quote (jammin @ Nov. 11 2013,08:28) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 10 2013,15:03) Quote (jammin @ Nov. 10 2013,09:17) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 09 2013,12:13) Jammin, Stop sounding like a fool. This is a forum, a place where opinions are given and tested for truth.
I told you my answer. Stop delaying and tell me if you believe God is divine as you already stated you believe his word is.
im still waiting for your answer. what version in john 1.1 says that the GOD is like his word?
Jammin,I already answer that both God and his word are divine and you seem to deny one or both of them are. You have not made it clear which one or perhaps both you don't believe are divine. I waiting for your opinion.
cant you understand that im not asking for your opinion? how many times should i tell you this? the version said the Word was GOd, the Word was divine but not GOD IS LIKE HIS WORD.you said GOD is like his word. now i am asking you what version can you read that in john 1.1?
can you give me one or not?
Jammin,We are waiting on your answer. While you are thinking of it enlarge your vocabulary by looking up the word opinion and tell me what definition you are using and why.
opinion also means belief.
dont you know that?anyway, where can you read in john 1.1 that GOD is like his word?
can you give me version or not?
Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 11 2013,12:13) K Do you not understand that Satan was already corrupt in his heart before Adam and Eve were created
Eve was Adam week part ,and so chose her for the down fall of men,
T,I have heard that said but I know of no Scripture to dispute it except that it is written in Ezekiel 28.
Quote You were in Eden,
the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
carnelian, chrysolite and emerald,
topaz, onyx and jasper,
lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl.I know even less to support it.
Quote (jammin @ Nov. 17 2013,06:12) Still no answer kerwin?
Journey,I have nothing that I have not answered for you. You have not answered and stated whether or not you believe God is divine and his word is divine.
Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 11 2013,12:21) K How can a divine word be equal to Holy God
Any scriptures How can divine God be equal to holy God
All the sons of God are gods and have free will and so has men why would God Jehovah be called to be holy this is one of his qualities ,nothing more I think
T,The word is like God in being divine. I have heard people say both are divine but I am indulging in theory as to why the Koine Greek language calls things of God God. All that is necessary to know is that they do.
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 17 2013,10:07) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 11 2013,12:21) K How can a divine word be equal to Holy God
Any scriptures How can divine God be equal to holy God
All the sons of God are gods and have free will and so has men why would God Jehovah be called to be holy this is one of his qualities ,nothing more I think
T,The word is like God in being divine. I have heard people say both are divine but I am indulging in theory as to why the Koine Greek language calls things of God God. All that is necessary to know is that they do.
KFirst words are part of a language ,to express thought ,they could be used for good and bad actions,to help or destroy ,foolish or wisdom,meaningless or with power if the come from God or from a person with power ,
But in no language ever it is said that ,we can touch HIM,or SEE HIM, and become FLESH, and HEAR HIM ,all that about a single word from a language ,you should think,
You have to understand that if it would be words it would be called “IT”
And not HIM, and sins you can not explain why it is so, I see in scriptures that the word THE”WORD” is the name that the apostle John gives to Jesus ,so is in Revelation 19:13 we know that Christ as many names ,People really don't like talking about this, which is highly weird, given that the very first chance ANYONE had who could put an indefinite article in John 1:1, they did! They did this at a time when koine Greek was still spoken! They did this with a language based on the Greek alphabet.
Greek, Latin, those languages back then–no indefinite article.
The sahidic dialect of the Coptic language had a definite article, and when translating John 1:1, those early Christians put the indefinite article [“a”] in that verse. This shows how those early Christians (before all the councils) believed it should be translated.
This is highly significant.
And while it may not mean that it should be translated “a god” it does suggest it shouldn't be translated as just “God.” (It seems the coptic language may differ a little from English in that it could mean “a god” or just as easily it could mean “godlike” or “divine.”)After studying John 1:1 for years on this board, it really seems like this:
If you believe in the trinity, it is acceptable to translate it with a trinitarian slant.
If you do t believe in the trinity, it could be translated another way.
It could be translated either way depending on bias. So I sort of stepped out of the John 1:1 debate 2 years ago. It comes down to bias. Yet, I do find it interesting that the earliest people who had the option of writing “a god” did do so. It seems either their bias was towards “a god” or it seems they, knowing koine Greek, understood what we don't, or, maybe it was an error. They did make a few errors. But not as many as some suggest.
Still, it's definitely interesting enough to be worthy if discussion.
T,
The bible does not use only what we of this time would consider everyday speech. It mixes poetry with everyday speech, though not the poetry of this day or culture.
Walt Witman, a 19th Century poet, testifies about its style.
Baylor University Press
Baylor University Press published John in the Company of Poets which reveals how God published poems, specifically the one beginning at John 1, through John's writings.Here are some examples of poetic examples of personifications.
In Scripture we see personification in such verses as Hebrews 11:3 where God's rhema is credited with preferring the aions when God is actually the being who did so, even though he used his rhema as his tool.
Hebrews 11:3
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)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.
He does it again in Isaiah in seeming to foretell what John testifies in John 1:1 -.
Isaiah 45:23
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)23 I have sworn by myself,
the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return,
That unto me every knee shall bow,
every tongue shall swear.The word performed the actions of leaving God's mouth and of returning to God.
In Revelations we are told that Jesus was called by the name of the word that has gone out of God's mouth but which has not yet returned to him as all things are not yet accomplished even at that future time. We are not told when Jesus was first called by the name of word. I see no reason to presume he was called by the name of the word when it went out of God's mouth. Even though Jesus is now at our Father's side, the rhema of the word has not yet accomplished its goal of framing an aion where “every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.”
David,
Quote People really don't like talking about this, which is highly weird, given that the very first chance ANYONE had who could put an indefinite article in John 1:1, they did! They did this at a time when koine Greek was still spoken! They did this with a language based on the Greek alphabet. Pure speculation. We do not even no which language or languages the individual books of the New Testament were written in, much less if a particular manuscript of Coptic is the first chance that an indefinite article can be inserted in. We do know that there were mere men who wrote manuscripts that were altered from true. I am not even sure all Coptic manuscripts agree. As it sits I have better tools for dealing with Koine Greek and English than coptic though even they fall short of being the perfect number of tools or quality of the tools.
1800 years ago, it was translated into Coptic, which does have the indefinite article in it's language (unlike Greek, Latin, syriac, aramaic, and most every language that existed for a millenium). And the translators, who lived at a time when koine Greek was still spoken and at a time when they definitely understood it, tranlsated john 1:1c with “a god.”
The VERY EARLIEST TRANSLATION OF THE JOHN 1:1 where the translators came up against the choice of “God” or “a god” chose ……………….THAT'S RIGHT………”a god.”
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 18 2013,02:50) David, Quote People really don't like talking about this, which is highly weird, given that the very first chance ANYONE had who could put an indefinite article in John 1:1, they did! They did this at a time when koine Greek was still spoken! They did this with a language based on the Greek alphabet. Pure speculation. We do not even no which language or languages the individual books of the New Testament were written in, much less if a particular manuscript of Coptic is the first chance that an indefinite article can be inserted in. We do know that there were mere men who wrote manuscripts that were altered from true. I am not even sure all Coptic manuscripts agree. As it sits I have better tools for dealing with Koine Greek and English than coptic though even they fall short of being the perfect number of tools or quality of the tools.
Which part of my statement was “pure speculation”?That it was the first language where a choice (of god or “a god”) had to be made?
Ok, fine, ITS THE FIRST MOMENT THAT WE KNOW OF where translators had to choose to either insert the indefinite article or not insert it.
If you know of any earlier languages that had an indefinite article, where they translated the bible, please state it.
So, how is it pure speculation?
Quote (david @ Nov. 18 2013,02:26) People really don't like talking about this, which is highly weird, given that the very first chance ANYONE had who could put an indefinite article in John 1:1, they did! They did this at a time when koine Greek was still spoken! They did this with a language based on the Greek alphabet. Greek, Latin, those languages back then–no indefinite article.
The sahidic dialect of the Coptic language had a definite article, and when translating John 1:1, those early Christians put the indefinite article [“a”] in that verse. This shows how those early Christians (before all the councils) believed it should be translated.
This is highly significant.
And while it may not mean that it should be translated “a god” it does suggest it shouldn't be translated as just “God.” (It seems the coptic language may differ a little from English in that it could mean “a god” or just as easily it could mean “godlike” or “divine.”)After studying John 1:1 for years on this board, it really seems like this:
If you believe in the trinity, it is acceptable to translate it with a trinitarian slant.
If you do t believe in the trinity, it could be translated another way.
It could be translated either way depending on bias. So I sort of stepped out of the John 1:1 debate 2 years ago. It comes down to bias. Yet, I do find it interesting that the earliest people who had the option of writing “a god” did do so. It seems either their bias was towards “a god” or it seems they, knowing koine Greek, understood what we don't, or, maybe it was an error. They did make a few errors. But not as many as some suggest.
Still, it's definitely interesting enough to be worthy if discussion.
Grammatically, it could go either way. The way it's translated will be based on how you understand the rest of scripture.“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the
Word was God.” You could translate, so far as the Greek goes: “the
Word was a God”; but it seems obvious that this is so much against
the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong. I am
quite sure myself that the following is the correct translation.–William Barclay, to Mr. Burnett.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 07 2013,09:25) Quote (942767 @ Nov. 01 2013,10:57) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 29 2013,09:48) Quote (942767 @ Oct. 28 2013,09:58) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 28 2013,04:09) 
Okay Marty. But did you notice that EVERYTHING said about “the Word” in John 1 is also said in scripture about “Jesus”? Because that is what I thought you would see from my post.Marty, consider the last words of 1:14……. “full of grace and truth”. Now consider the exact moment in John 1 where John stops calling this person “the Word” and starts calling him “Jesus”. (Follow the words “grace” and “truth”):
16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace……..
At this point, “the Word” is still the subject of the teaching, and the name “Jesus” has not yet been written. So at this point, we know that grace came to us through “the Word”.
DO YOU AGREE SO FAR? YES or NO?
Now watch:
17 ……grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Do you agree that verse 16 says grace came from “the Word”? YES or NO?
And do you agree that verse 17 says grace came from “Jesus Christ”? YES or NO?
Now look back to verse 14: We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Verse 14 is written about the one that had so far only been identified as “the Word”. Do you agree? And this “Word” came FROM the Father, full of grace and truth. Do you agree?
1. Is the Word actually the Father Himself? Or did the Word come FROM the Father? Which one?
2. Are you able to see that “grace and truth” came from the Word? And are you able to see that “grace and truth” came from Jesus Christ?
Hi Mike:Jesus was born into this world a man child and the scriptures state:
I agree 100% that Jesus was born into this world as a “man child” (by which strange language I assume you mean “human child”).So we both agree on that, and therefore it never needs to be brought up again in one of our discussions, right? (Because it is a diversion, and not any kind of ANSWER to all the points I made in the above post.)
So let's go more slowly:
John 1:14
The Wordbecame flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father,full of grace and truth.Forget all the other words for a minute, and focus only on the big ones. Can you and I agree that “the Word” came to us “full of grace and truth”?
No, Mike, it does not work that way with me, but you want to erase some of the scripture or add a little “a” here or a “who” there in order to make the scriptures state what you want them to say.Love in Christ,
Marty
Alright Marty,Then DON'T erase the words in between if you don't want to.
The question still remains:
Does John 1:14 tell us that THE WORD made his dwelling among us and was full of grace and truth? YES or NO?
No, Mike, it does not state that.Love in Christ,
MartyMarty
Jn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Jn 1:15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
Jn 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.who is it that John talks about
(both Johns )Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 17 2013,15:02) Quote (jammin @ Nov. 17 2013,06:12) Still no answer kerwin?
Journey,I have nothing that I have not answered for you. You have not answered and stated whether or not you believe God is divine and his word is divine.
and what version is that?what version that says GOD IS LIKE HIS WORD?Quote (jammin @ Nov. 18 2013,06:43) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 17 2013,15:02) Quote (jammin @ Nov. 17 2013,06:12) Still no answer kerwin?
Journey,I have nothing that I have not answered for you. You have not answered and stated whether or not you believe God is divine and his word is divine.
and what version is that?what version that says GOD IS LIKE HIS WORD?
Jammin,Right now the conversation is stalled until you choose to either not respond or to answer the questions I asked.
Quote (david @ Nov. 18 2013,00:49) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 18 2013,02:50) David, Quote People really don't like talking about this, which is highly weird, given that the very first chance ANYONE had who could put an indefinite article in John 1:1, they did! They did this at a time when koine Greek was still spoken! They did this with a language based on the Greek alphabet. Pure speculation. We do not even no which language or languages the individual books of the New Testament were written in, much less if a particular manuscript of Coptic is the first chance that an indefinite article can be inserted in. We do know that there were mere men who wrote manuscripts that were altered from true. I am not even sure all Coptic manuscripts agree. As it sits I have better tools for dealing with Koine Greek and English than coptic though even they fall short of being the perfect number of tools or quality of the tools.
Which part of my statement was “pure speculation”?That it was the first language where a choice (of god or “a god”) had to be made?
Ok, fine, ITS THE FIRST MOMENT THAT WE KNOW OF where translators had to choose to either insert the indefinite article or not insert it.
If you know of any earlier languages that had an indefinite article, where they translated the bible, please state it.
So, how is it pure speculation?
David,That is better since it is like a Forth Century manuscript. There may be earlier version but they are versions that may have only ever has one copy.
I looked into Coptic, of which there are three language types, I can remember which was one was used but I do know that the indefinite may or may not become an English indefinite. What you have in both Greek and Coptic is more like the word is with the theos and the word is theos or the word is the theos and the word is a theos.
If you look at Trinitaian argument against the common translation of John 1:1 then the word cannot literally be God because the Trinitarian translation of the word theos is either “the Godhead” or “the Father” and Trinitarians do not believe the word is either “the Godhead” or “the Father”. Those Trinitarians who accept this argument are no opposed to “a god” and view it as support of their Christology.
Note: the Trinitarians have other definitions but none of which they would be relevant to John 1:1.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
