- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 4 days, 22 hours ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 18 2013,22:19) I don't know but I do know that it is unsound to use the word “all” unless you know “all” languages used during that age.
Kerwin,Unless you actually know of another language of that time period that DID use an indefinite article, and into which the NT was translated – then why bust David's chops?
He is making the claim that we've both read in many sources. So unless you know that he, and those sources, are wrong about it, hush.
Here, let me lawyer up for David:
Kerwin, according to the currently known and accepted research into the matter, the Coptic language is the first language into which the NT was translated – that made use of an indefinite article.
Is that better for you? Can you prove that there was another “indefinite article language” during or before that time? If not, shhhhhh………..
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 19 2013,19:28) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 18 2013,17:28) Pierre,
You ought to study the Targums to find out what the Jews thought of as “the Word of the LORD.” The 'Word' meant something significant to the OT Israelites and they equated the “Word of the LORD” with the LORD when He appeared or spoke to humans.
Kathi,There are SO MANY times that kind of language is used in the OT. Here's one of them:
Esther 3:15 NET ©
The messengers scurried forth with the king’s order.The bolded words are actually, “with the word of the king”.
Should we, being intelligent people, believe that these messengers were carrying the literal words of the king in a box or something? Should we believe the word of the king was a living person, who went along with the messengers?
If not, then why should we believe “the word of YHWH” means anything other than “the word of the king” in the above verse?
Too many people adding too much crap into the scriptures.
Mike, The word is not a message or an order of God. Messages don't exist in a form of God and empty themselves and become flesh, taking the form of a bondservant.Good, Kathi.
Let's go further. I don't know if you've seen me mention the King of Abyssinia before. This ancient king had a spokesman who played the “go-between” when people came to talk to the king about various issues. The people would ask the go-between a question for the king, and the go-between would then relate that question to the king. The king would then give his answer to the go-between, and the go-between would then convey the king's answer to the people who asked the question. The king did not speak to anyone directly.
Are you with me so far? Okay. Well, the go-between had the title Kal Hatze – which means “The Word of the King”.
So take my example of Esther 3:15 from the last post – and pretend that King Xerxes also had a go-between who had the title “The Word of the King”.
From the context of Esther 3, does the Hebrew phrase “the word of the king” refer to that SPOKESMAN? Or does it refer simply to the decree that the king sent out to all the provinces?
Are you seeing my point? Just because the phrase “the word of YHWH/God” refers to a SPOKESMAN a couple of times does not mean it would make good sense for us to assume it refers to a PERSON every time the phrase is used.
Do you agree with this?
Here's an example, Kathi:
2 Chronicles 35:6 KJV
6 So kill the passover, and sanctify yourselves, and prepare your brethren, that they may do according to the word of the LORD by the hand of Moses.Did Moses actually carry this PERSON (the word of YHWH) in his hand?
Or does “word of YHWH” simply refer to the commands YHWH had given them through Moses?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 20 2013,06:17) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 18 2013,15:24) Jammin, I already did as you requested and you have failed to prove that the clause “the word is God” does not mean the word and God share the characteristic of being divine.
Kerwin,What if it said, “and the Word was Abraham Lincoln”?
Would you believe that the Word actually WAS Abraham Lincoln – as was clearly stated? Or would you pretend that the words, and the Word WAS Abraham Lincoln” only meant that the word “wore a top hat like Abraham Lincoln”?
Because that's what you're doing here. You're PRETENDING that “x WAS y” really means “x WAS LIKE y”, right? As if the word “WAS” really means “WAS LIKE”, or “SHARED ATTRIBUTES WITH”, right?
Perhaps you could show an example where someone is said to BE a particular entity, but it really means that they are merely LIKE that other entity.
Jammin,This is a conversation with Jammin because of his lack of communication skills. I actually discovered something after I started the conversation with him but he just doesn't advance the conversation to where I feel it is a good time to cover it. I do cover it with Pierre.
The hypothesis I was working on is that saying the word is God is similar to saying that God is love with the difference being that instead of meaning God is the attribute of the word, it means God and the word share the same attribute; that of being divine. I get the divine from the fact that Koine Greek calls things that belong to God, God and the translation that is rendered the “the word is divine”
What I discovered due to inspiration from God using conversation with Pierre is that all that is useless conversation since it adds nothing to the conversation but satisfying my own curiosity about Koine Greek.
The bottom line is that experts already agree that one meaning of theos is:
Quote refers to the things of God
his counsels, interests, things due to himwhatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
The why it means this is not necessary to know and so is academic.
Jammin is at a point when he has not answered the question whether both God and his word are both divine which is what I am waiting for him to do. He even seemed to deny that they are both divine at one point. I think it was a reaction and not something he thought through so I am waiting for his answer to my question to see what he really meant.
I covered some of this in my conversation with him already.
Note: theos
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 20 2013,06:38) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 18 2013,22:19) I don't know but I do know that it is unsound to use the word “all” unless you know “all” languages used during that age.
Kerwin,Unless you actually know of another language of that time period that DID use an indefinite article, and into which the NT was translated – then why bust David's chops?
He is making the claim that we've both read in many sources. So unless you know that he, and those sources, are wrong about it, hush.
Here, let me lawyer up for David:
Kerwin, according to the currently known and accepted research into the matter, the Coptic language is the first language into which the NT was translated – that made use of an indefinite article.
Is that better for you? Can you prove that there was another “indefinite article language” during or before that time? If not, shhhhhh………..
Mike,Logical structure is good in discussions and not extraneous. The bible was probably translated in the native language of the people that believed the word and most likely would have started a demand for such manuscripts. 4th Century is 3 centuries after the happenings. Every language spoken by the people on that day of Pentecost, the day of tongues, most likely has a copy in their own language as copies of the newly written book of John spread.
In Coptic, unlike Koine Greek, is a language that uses an indefinite article and the translators of the forth Century manuscript choose to translate the word was [an indefinite article] god instead of the word is God. Like the Koine Greek they did use a definite article before God in the clause the word was with God.
mikeboll64,Nov. wrote:[/quote]
Quote Did Moses actually carry this PERSON (the word of YHWH) in his hand? Mike,
IS GOD A BEING LIKE US? DEFINITELY NOT!
IS GOD A DISCERNABLE BEING LIKE US? DEFINITELY NOT!
AND THE LIST GOES ON!
SO WHAT IS THE REASON THAT YOU ARE COMPARING GOD WITH US?
ALSO THROUGHOUT THE BIBLE THE WORD WORD IS USED HUNDREDS OF TIMES, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT IS ALWAYS A REFERENCE TO THE WORD WHICH WAS MADE FLESH, JESUS CHRIST!
GOD IS A SPIRIT, AND ALL HIS ATTRIBUTES ARE SPIRITS!
AND IF HE WANTS TO BE VISIBLE HE COULD DO SO IN EVERY SENSE LIKE US, AND IN THE SAME TIME HE WOULD MAINTAIN HIS SPIRITUAL STATE!LIKE HE DID WHEN HE WENT TO ADAM AND ATE FOOD!
JESUS HIMSELF CONFIRMED AND SAID:
MY WORDS ARE SPIRIT AND LIFE!
OUR WORDS ARE NEITHER SPIRITS, NOR LIFE!
GOD THE FATHER IS LOVE ITSELF!
THE SON IS WISDOM ITSELF!
THE HOLY SPIRIT IS POWER ITSELF!
AND THEY ARE ALL BEINGS, AND IN THE SAME TIME ONE GOD ALMIGHTY!
SO:
THE WORD IS GOD HIMSELF BUT ALL WITHIN THE SON'S SPIRIT. GOD'S ABODE, THE ONLY MEDIATOR CREATOR TRIUNE GOD !
NOW READ:
Hebrews 4:12For the word of God is living and effectual, HAPPY NOW?
THE WORD IS A LIVING AND EEFECTUAL!
READ MORE!
and more piercing than any two edged sword; and reaching unto the division of the soul and the spirit, of the joints also and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13Neither is there any creature invisible in his sight: but all things are naked and open to his eyes, to whom our speech is.OK? THE WORD DOES ALL THAT WE DO WITH OUR BODY
SO YES MIKE, THE WORD IS A BEING ITSELF, EVEN MORE
HE IS THE MOST POWERFUL BEING! AND HE IS IN CONTROL OF ALL THE ENTIRE CREATION!
HE IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD,AND JESUS CHRIST
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 18 2013,06:25) Marty 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 )
Hi Pierre:It is not the Word that dwelt among us in that scripture. The Word or Logos of God was made flesh or a human being, and it was him that dwelt among us, and it was at his ministry that we beheld him as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth.
I also will post the following scriptures which may help in understanding John 1:
Quote
Eph 3:9And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
Eph 3:10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Eph 3:11
According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
Quote
Eph 1:3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
Eph 1:4
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Eph 1:5
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:6
To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Eph 1:7
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Eph 1:9
Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
Eph 1:10
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
Eph 1:11
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (carmel @ Nov. 21 2013,01:34) mikeboll64,Nov. wrote:[/quote]
Quote Did Moses actually carry this PERSON (the word of YHWH) in his hand? Mike,
IS GOD A BEING LIKE US? DEFINITELY NOT!
IS GOD A DISCERNABLE BEING LIKE US? DEFINITELY NOT!
AND THE LIST GOES ON!
SO WHAT IS THE REASON THAT YOU ARE COMPARING GOD WITH US?
ALSO THROUGHOUT THE BIBLE THE WORD WORD IS USED HUNDREDS OF TIMES, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT IS ALWAYS A REFERENCE TO THE WORD WHICH WAS MADE FLESH, JESUS CHRIST!
GOD IS A SPIRIT, AND ALL HIS ATTRIBUTES ARE SPIRITS!
AND IF HE WANTS TO BE VISIBLE HE COULD DO SO IN EVERY SENSE LIKE US, AND IN THE SAME TIME HE WOULD MAINTAIN HIS SPIRITUAL STATE!LIKE HE DID WHEN HE WENT TO ADAM AND ATE FOOD!
JESUS HIMSELF CONFIRMED AND SAID:
MY WORDS ARE SPIRIT AND LIFE!
OUR WORDS ARE NEITHER SPIRITS, NOR LIFE!
GOD THE FATHER IS LOVE ITSELF!
THE SON IS WISDOM ITSELF!
THE HOLY SPIRIT IS POWER ITSELF!
AND THEY ARE ALL BEINGS, AND IN THE SAME TIME ONE GOD ALMIGHTY!
SO:
THE WORD IS GOD HIMSELF BUT ALL WITHIN THE SON'S SPIRIT. GOD'S ABODE, THE ONLY MEDIATOR CREATOR TRIUNE GOD !
NOW READ:
Hebrews 4:12For the word of God is living and effectual, HAPPY NOW?
THE WORD IS A LIVING AND EEFECTUAL!
READ MORE!
and more piercing than any two edged sword; and reaching unto the division of the soul and the spirit, of the joints also and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13Neither is there any creature invisible in his sight: but all things are naked and open to his eyes, to whom our speech is.OK? THE WORD DOES ALL THAT WE DO WITH OUR BODY
SO YES MIKE, THE WORD IS A BEING ITSELF, EVEN MORE
HE IS THE MOST POWERFUL BEING! AND HE IS IN CONTROL OF ALL THE ENTIRE CREATION!
HE IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD,AND JESUS CHRIST
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
charlesQuote IS GOD A BEING LIKE US? DEFINITELY NOT! IS GOD A DISCERNABLE BEING LIKE US? DEFINITELY NOT!
AND THE LIST GOES ON!
all those questions are totally irrelevant to know or to understand for the truth of God being understood
Quote (942767 @ Nov. 21 2013,02:05) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 18 2013,06:25) Marty 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 )
Hi Pierre:It is not the Word that dwelt among us in that scripture. The Word or Logos of God was made flesh or a human being, and it was him that dwelt among us, and it was at his ministry that we beheld him as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth.
I also will post the following scriptures which may help in understanding John 1:
Quote
Eph 3:9And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
Eph 3:10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Eph 3:11
According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
Quote
Eph 1:3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
Eph 1:4
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Eph 1:5
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:6
To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Eph 1:7
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Eph 1:9
Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
Eph 1:10
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
Eph 1:11
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Love in Christ,
Marty
Martyso THE WORD ” IS JESUS CHRIST ACCORDING TO ALL THOSE SCRIPTURES ;RIGHT
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 19 2013,23:06) The bible was probably translated in the native language of the people that believed the word……………..
So in other words, you have NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that there actually WERE other indefinite article languages that the NT was translated into during the first 300 years?But you IMAGINE that there might have been some?
Hmmm………….. Credible sources say Coptic was the first. And it is clear that you have no evidence to prove otherwise.
Your “guesses” don't count for anything, Kerwin. David was basing his claim on what is currently known to be fact in 2013.
Quote (carmel @ Nov. 20 2013,13:34) ALSO THROUGHOUT THE BIBLE THE WORD WORD IS USED HUNDREDS OF TIMES, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT IS ALWAYS A REFERENCE TO THE WORD WHICH WAS MADE FLESH, JESUS CHRIST!
My point exactly, Charles. That is what I was trying to tell Kathi.Quote (942767 @ Nov. 20 2013,14:05) Hi Pierre: It is not the Word that dwelt among us in that scripture. The Word or Logos of God was made flesh or a human being, and it was him that dwelt among us…………
In Marty's eagerness to ensure that the Word isn't Jesus, he must read 1:14 as follows:The Word became [in] flesh, and [the flesh person the Word came to be in] dwelled among us with the glory of God's only begotten.
Unfortunately for his imagined doctrine, none of those bracketed words are actually in John 1:14.
Pierre, we can only lead the horses to water. We can't force them to drink it.'
Marty, if 1:14 starts off identifying the subject as “The Word”, and then doesn't change subjects, but uses personal pronouns like “his” to keep referring to the same subject – then the whole verse is about “The Word”.
In fact, “The Word” continues to be the subject of John's teaching until verse 17 – where that same Word is identified as “Jesus Christ”.
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 20 2013,16:06) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 20 2013,06:38) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 18 2013,22:19) I don't know but I do know that it is unsound to use the word “all” unless you know “all” languages used during that age.
Kerwin,Unless you actually know of another language of that time period that DID use an indefinite article, and into which the NT was translated – then why bust David's chops?
He is making the claim that we've both read in many sources. So unless you know that he, and those sources, are wrong about it, hush.
Here, let me lawyer up for David:
Kerwin, according to the currently known and accepted research into the matter, the Coptic language is the first language into which the NT was translated – that made use of an indefinite article.
Is that better for you? Can you prove that there was another “indefinite article language” during or before that time? If not, shhhhhh………..
Mike,Logical structure is good in discussions and not extraneous. The bible was probably translated in the native language of the people that believed the word and most likely would have started a demand for such manuscripts. 4th Century is 3 centuries after the happenings. Every language spoken by the people on that day of Pentecost, the day of tongues, most likely has a copy in their own language as copies of the newly written book of John spread.
In Coptic, unlike Koine Greek, is a language that uses an indefinite article and the translators of the forth Century manuscript choose to translate the word was [an indefinite article] god instead of the word is God. Like the Koine Greek they did use a definite article before God in the clause the word was with God.
Hi kerwin.It almost feels like you are arguing against something we aren't saying or as if you don't seem to understand what is being said.
Ok, imagine there are many languages that used an indefinite article and that the NT was translated into before sahedic Coptic.
I don't know of any, and presumably neither do you. You seem to think they are plentiful. Well guess what? It wasn't for another 1300 years after Coptic that again, we came to a language where translation demanded a choice: English.
So let's not pretend as if there are tons of languages back then that used indefinite articles. If you know of others besides Coptic back then, please state them and we can examine it.
But as it stands, the first language known to have to make the choice in John 1:1 was Coptic. And they used the indefinite article. (Now whether that meant exactly what the I define article means in English, that's another conversation.
But pretending that it's not significant that the first language that had the choice choice to use an I define article, isn't interesting, is highly bizarre.
And it's not just that it was the first language. It was a language BASED ON THE GREEK ALPHABET, and translated at a time WHEN KOINE GREEK WAS TILL SPOKEN.
So assuming it's not a scribal error, which has a low probability, it's definitely significant….UNTIL FURTHER INFORMATION COMES TO LIGHT.
Sorry, got off on a tangent. Imagine there were other languages that used e indefinite article. Neither of us seem to know of any, but imagine they did exist. Until we find them, who cares.
You seem to want to use non-existent evidence that most likely doesn't exist to prove something. Until we find that non-existent evidence, let's go with what we have.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 21 2013,07:59) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 19 2013,23:06) The bible was probably translated in the native language of the people that believed the word……………..
So in other words, you have NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that there actually WERE other indefinite article languages that the NT was translated into during the first 300 years?But you IMAGINE that there might have been some?
Hmmm………….. Credible sources say Coptic was the first. And it is clear that you have no evidence to prove otherwise.
Your “guesses” don't count for anything, Kerwin. David was basing his claim on what is currently known to be fact in 2013.
Exactly.It would be like someone using scripture to prove the trinity and me saying:
“Manuscripts probably exist that will come to light that will disprove the trinity, so your argument is invalid.”
It's weird thinking.
Quote A certain scholar has recently advanced the hypothesis that the indefinite article as used in John 1:1 on this Coptic language translation has a “qualitative meaning” as if saying the word was a (one) theos. –kerwin
Was it WJ?
He's not really a scholar. 🙂
So, the father is “God” and the word is “a one god,” according to the scholar. Ok.
Mike
Quote Pierre, we can only lead the horses to water. We can't force them to drink it.' it seems they have all what it takes to have the truth,but in their mind and looking at the written words become frustrated that they have not seen this before(early studies) ,and feel betrayed ,
and so try by all means to stick to what they can not defend ,other than miss representing scriptures and so brake other scriptures ,but they forget it is not about US ,but about the truth of God and his Son Jesus Christ and their common GLORY ,I am still amazed what an little “a” article can create ;and yet contains so much truth in it
and yes we only can show them ;
Quote (david @ Nov. 21 2013,04:48) Quote A certain scholar has recently advanced the hypothesis that the indefinite article as used in John 1:1 on this Coptic language translation has a “qualitative meaning” as if saying the word was a (one) theos. –kerwin
Was it WJ?
He's not really a scholar. 🙂
So, the father is “God” and the word is “a one god,” according to the scholar. Ok.
David,I quoted the relevant part of Wikipedia that gave the scholars' name and a summary of their opinion. Their names are Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti .
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 20 2013,15:40) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 20 2013,06:17) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 18 2013,15:24) Jammin, I already did as you requested and you have failed to prove that the clause “the word is God” does not mean the word and God share the characteristic of being divine.
Kerwin,What if it said, “and the Word was Abraham Lincoln”?
Would you believe that the Word actually WAS Abraham Lincoln – as was clearly stated? Or would you pretend that the words, and the Word WAS Abraham Lincoln” only meant that the word “wore a top hat like Abraham Lincoln”?
Because that's what you're doing here. You're PRETENDING that “x WAS y” really means “x WAS LIKE y”, right? As if the word “WAS” really means “WAS LIKE”, or “SHARED ATTRIBUTES WITH”, right?
Perhaps you could show an example where someone is said to BE a particular entity, but it really means that they are merely LIKE that other entity.
Jammin,This is a conversation with Jammin because of his lack of communication skills. I actually discovered something after I started the conversation with him but he just doesn't advance the conversation to where I feel it is a good time to cover it. I do cover it with Pierre.
The hypothesis I was working on is that saying the word is God is similar to saying that God is love with the difference being that instead of meaning God is the attribute of the word, it means God and the word share the same attribute; that of being divine. I get the divine from the fact that Koine Greek calls things that belong to God, God and the translation that is rendered the “the word is divine”
What I discovered due to inspiration from God using conversation with Pierre is that all that is useless conversation since it adds nothing to the conversation but satisfying my own curiosity about Koine Greek.
The bottom line is that experts already agree that one meaning of theos is:
Quote refers to the things of God
his counsels, interests, things due to himwhatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
The why it means this is not necessary to know and so is academic.
Jammin is at a point when he has not answered the question whether both God and his word are both divine which is what I am waiting for him to do. He even seemed to deny that they are both divine at one point. I think it was a reaction and not something he thought through so I am waiting for his answer to my question to see what he really meant.
I covered some of this in my conversation with him already.
Note: theos
im still waiting for the version kerwin.
im not asking for your explanationkerwin,
ill repeat what i said. the version said the Word was God.
the version also said the Word was divine BUT NO VERSION SAYS GOD IS LIKE HIS WORD IN JOHN1.1you said GOD is like his word. now im asking you where can you find that in john 1.1.
we are now at page 1047 but i still get no answer from you boy
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
