- This topic has 25,907 replies, 115 voices, and was last updated 2 days, 21 hours ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 25 2013,16:55) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 24 2013,18:28) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 24 2013,16:43) Kathi, Isn't it you who thinks “the word of God” is often a being? Aren't those “beings” most likely angels?
In fact, you believe Jesus is sometimes the “angel of YHWH” who is mentioned in the OT, right? Well, an angel OF Jehovah is not actually Jehovah Himself – whether that angel is Jesus or Gabriel.
Mike,
When the 'Word of Jehovah' appears and speaks and acts in some manner in the OT, it is likely the only begotten God who was with God in the beginning.John 1:1 identifies the Word as God who was with God. It does not identify the Word as the angel who was with God. The God who was with God certainly spoke the message of the God who He was with but God was His identity and being a messenger was just one of His purposes.
Okay,Now take everything YOU just wrote, and understand these things:
1. Angels were called gods in scripture. So the fact that the word was a god who was with THE god doesn't eliminate that god from being an angel of Jehovah, right?
2. Whether or not the Word is called “angel” in John 1:1, you attribute things of the OT to Jesus that were said to be done by “the angel of YHWH”, right? And like I said, an angel OF Jehovah is not actually Jehovah Himself – whether that angel be Jesus, Gabriel, Michael, or any other.
3. You acknowledge that the god in John 1:1 was a messenger of God. Does it make sense to you that God Almighty is a messenger of God Almighty? Who is greater? The one who sends the messenger? Or the messenger himself?
Because if one of these gods is greater than the other, they both can't be the MOST HIGH god. They both can't be the ALMIGHTY god.
Mike,
You confuse something He inherently is with something He does. Like a mailman. A mailman delivers messages, that is something he does. Human is something he inherently is.God is something Jesus inherently is. Delivering messages is something He does.
You downplay what Jesus inherently was and is but magnify some things that He does. You seem to identify Him more with what He does rather than who He is.
John 1:1 identifies what the Word is…God.
If it said the Word was a messenger, then that would be identifying what the Word does not what the Word is.See the difference?
Nothing is inherently a messenger as if that is a species of some sort.
I believe that the Father and the Son inherently are God. The gods of the nations apart from them are not inherently god but that is what they do not what they are. There is a big difference.
You and your son are inherently human. Being human is not what you do, it is who you are inherently.
When angels appeared as humans, they were not inherently human but instead inherently angelic beings and taking a human appearance was something they did not something they were.
Whatever you are inherently, you always are inherently.
Being a messenger for someone does not change what you are inherently. Two persons can be the same inherently and one deliver a message for another or even serve the other. It does not make one more supreme inherently just because someone else delivers his message for him or serves him.
A slave is the same inherently as his master…both are human.
God the Son is the same inherently as God the Father…both are god.
Wakeup,
Jesus and the Father are both inherently God.You and your son (if you have one) are both inherently human.
So when you say 'God and Jesus' it can be confusing because Jesus is god, the Father is god…both are inherently god. All other gods are not inherently god but acting as god in some manner.
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 25 2013,17:17) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 26 2013,00:11) Wakeup,
The unbelieving Jews didn't call the Two Powers of Heaven a heresy until the Second Power was identified as Jesus during the Christian era. That in itself gives the idea more credibility as possible since they rejected Jesus as their Messiah and showed their lack of truth. Read above post to tigger2.
LU,Where did you hear that claim?
http://www.twopowersinheaven.com/Quote Twenty-five years ago, rabbinical scholar Alan Segal produced what is still the major work on the idea of two powers in heaven in Jewish thought. Segal argued that the two powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century C.E. He carefully traced the roots of the teaching back into the Second Temple era (ca. 200 B.C.E.). Segal was able to establish that the idea’s antecedents were in the Hebrew Bible, specifically passages like Dan 7:9ff., Exo 23:20-23, and Exo 15:3. However, he was unable to discern any coherent religious framework from which these passages and others were conceptually derived. Persian dualism was unacceptable as an explanation since neither of the two powers in heaven were evil. Segal speculated that the divine warrior imagery of the broader ancient near east likely had some relationship. In my dissertation (UW-Madison, 2004) I argued that Segal’s instincts were correct. My own work bridges the gap between his book and the Hebrew Bible understood in its Canaanite religious context. I suggest that the “original model” for the two powers idea was the role of the vice-regent of the divine council. The paradigm of a high sovereign God (El) who rules heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed god (Baal) became part of Israelite religion, albeit with some modification. For the orthodox Israelite, Yahweh was both sovereign and vice regent—occupying both “slots” as it were at the head of the divine council. The binitarian portrayal of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible was motivated by this belief. The ancient Israelite knew two Yahwehs—one invisible, a spirit, the other visible, often in human form. The two Yahwehs at times appear together in the text, at times being distinguished, at other times not.
Early Judaism understood this portrayal and its rationale. There was no sense of a violation of monotheism since either figure was indeed Yahweh. There was no second distinct god running the affairs of the cosmos. During the Second Temple period, Jewish theologians and writers speculated on an identity for the second Yahweh. Guesses ranged from divinized humans from the stories of the Hebrew Bible to exalted angels. These speculations were not considered unorthodox. That acceptance changed when certain Jews, the early Christians, connected Jesus with this orthodox Jewish idea. This explains why these Jews, the first converts to following Jesus the Christ, could simultaneously worship the God of Israel and Jesus, and yet refuse to acknowledge any other god. Jesus was the incarnate second Yahweh. In response, as Segal’s work demonstrated, Judaism pronounced the two powers teaching a heresy sometime in the second century A.D.
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 26 2013,21:09) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 25 2013,17:17) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 26 2013,00:11) Wakeup,
The unbelieving Jews didn't call the Two Powers of Heaven a heresy until the Second Power was identified as Jesus during the Christian era. That in itself gives the idea more credibility as possible since they rejected Jesus as their Messiah and showed their lack of truth. Read above post to tigger2.
LU,Where did you hear that claim?
http://www.twopowersinheaven.com/Quote Twenty-five years ago, rabbinical scholar Alan Segal produced what is still the major work on the idea of two powers in heaven in Jewish thought. Segal argued that the two powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century C.E. He carefully traced the roots of the teaching back into the Second Temple era (ca. 200 B.C.E.). Segal was able to establish that the idea’s antecedents were in the Hebrew Bible, specifically passages like Dan 7:9ff., Exo 23:20-23, and Exo 15:3. However, he was unable to discern any coherent religious framework from which these passages and others were conceptually derived. Persian dualism was unacceptable as an explanation since neither of the two powers in heaven were evil. Segal speculated that the divine warrior imagery of the broader ancient near east likely had some relationship. In my dissertation (UW-Madison, 2004) I argued that Segal’s instincts were correct. My own work bridges the gap between his book and the Hebrew Bible understood in its Canaanite religious context. I suggest that the “original model” for the two powers idea was the role of the vice-regent of the divine council. The paradigm of a high sovereign God (El) who rules heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed god (Baal) became part of Israelite religion, albeit with some modification. For the orthodox Israelite, Yahweh was both sovereign and vice regent—occupying both “slots” as it were at the head of the divine council. The binitarian portrayal of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible was motivated by this belief. The ancient Israelite knew two Yahwehs—one invisible, a spirit, the other visible, often in human form. The two Yahwehs at times appear together in the text, at times being distinguished, at other times not.
Early Judaism understood this portrayal and its rationale. There was no sense of a violation of monotheism since either figure was indeed Yahweh. There was no second distinct god running the affairs of the cosmos. During the Second Temple period, Jewish theologians and writers speculated on an identity for the second Yahweh. Guesses ranged from divinized humans from the stories of the Hebrew Bible to exalted angels. These speculations were not considered unorthodox. That acceptance changed when certain Jews, the early Christians, connected Jesus with this orthodox Jewish idea. This explains why these Jews, the first converts to following Jesus the Christ, could simultaneously worship the God of Israel and Jesus, and yet refuse to acknowledge any other god. Jesus was the incarnate second Yahweh. In response, as Segal’s work demonstrated, Judaism pronounced the two powers teaching a heresy sometime in the second century A.D.
LU,Alan Segal sounds like the one that made the argument. Your source seems to have added to it but strangely seem to believe it is a teaching the evolved from earlier teachings.
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 27 2013,01:49) Wakeup,
Jesus and the Father are both inherently God.You and your son (if you have one) are both inherently human.
So when you say 'God and Jesus' it can be confusing because Jesus is god, the Father is god…both are inherently god. All other gods are not inherently god but acting as god in some manner.
Lightenup.Jesus is God because he is worshipped by angels and men.
But he is still not Jehovah His father.
He is still God's Word.This is where the confusion lies.
The *Word* was made flesh;not *Jehovah God*.
Jehovah God gave *His Son*; not *himself*.Unless you can proof otherwise.
wakeup.
Wakeup,
I believe that Jehovah is two powers, one is the Father and one is the Son. Both are called Jehovah together and separately and together they act in complete cooperation and interdependency.
Jehovah the Father sent Jehovah the Son. Jehovah the Father gave Jehovah the Son. Jehovah the Father is not Jehovah the Son.Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 26 2013,13:02) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 26 2013,21:09) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 25 2013,17:17) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 26 2013,00:11) Wakeup,
The unbelieving Jews didn't call the Two Powers of Heaven a heresy until the Second Power was identified as Jesus during the Christian era. That in itself gives the idea more credibility as possible since they rejected Jesus as their Messiah and showed their lack of truth. Read above post to tigger2.
LU,Where did you hear that claim?
http://www.twopowersinheaven.com/Quote Twenty-five years ago, rabbinical scholar Alan Segal produced what is still the major work on the idea of two powers in heaven in Jewish thought. Segal argued that the two powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century C.E. He carefully traced the roots of the teaching back into the Second Temple era (ca. 200 B.C.E.). Segal was able to establish that the idea’s antecedents were in the Hebrew Bible, specifically passages like Dan 7:9ff., Exo 23:20-23, and Exo 15:3. However, he was unable to discern any coherent religious framework from which these passages and others were conceptually derived. Persian dualism was unacceptable as an explanation since neither of the two powers in heaven were evil. Segal speculated that the divine warrior imagery of the broader ancient near east likely had some relationship. In my dissertation (UW-Madison, 2004) I argued that Segal’s instincts were correct. My own work bridges the gap between his book and the Hebrew Bible understood in its Canaanite religious context. I suggest that the “original model” for the two powers idea was the role of the vice-regent of the divine council. The paradigm of a high sovereign God (El) who rules heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed god (Baal) became part of Israelite religion, albeit with some modification. For the orthodox Israelite, Yahweh was both sovereign and vice regent—occupying both “slots” as it were at the head of the divine council. The binitarian portrayal of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible was motivated by this belief. The ancient Israelite knew two Yahwehs—one invisible, a spirit, the other visible, often in human form. The two Yahwehs at times appear together in the text, at times being distinguished, at other times not.
Early Judaism understood this portrayal and its rationale. There was no sense of a violation of monotheism since either figure was indeed Yahweh. There was no second distinct god running the affairs of the cosmos. During the Second Temple period, Jewish theologians and writers speculated on an identity for the second Yahweh. Guesses ranged from divinized humans from the stories of the Hebrew Bible to exalted angels. These speculations were not considered unorthodox. That acceptance changed when certain Jews, the early Christians, connected Jesus with this orthodox Jewish idea. This explains why these Jews, the first converts to following Jesus the Christ, could simultaneously worship the God of Israel and Jesus, and yet refuse to acknowledge any other god. Jesus was the incarnate second Yahweh. In response, as Segal’s work demonstrated, Judaism pronounced the two powers teaching a heresy sometime in the second century A.D.
LU,Alan Segal sounds like the one that made the argument. Your source seems to have added to it but strangely seem to believe it is a teaching the evolved from earlier teachings.
If the Jews understood two powers in heaven as Jehovah in the OT but discredited it later when the Christians were claiming that one of the two was Jesus, would it make any difference to you?Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 26 2013,08:43) Mike,
You confuse something He inherently is with something He does…………
Kathi,Your whole post relies on believing that the word “God” describes a SPECIES – of which there are only two members.
I agree that Jesus is inherently a “spirit being” like his and our one and only God. But I don't believe he is inherently “God” – as if the word “God” describes a multi-membered species, like the word “human” does.
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 26 2013,08:49) Wakeup,
Jesus and the Father are both inherently God.You and your son (if you have one) are both inherently human.
See what I mean, Kathi? Your claim relies on “god” being a SPECIES, like “human” is a SPECIES.That claim opens up a whole can of worms, that might take a while to discuss.
But to start it off, let's say “god” is the name of a “species” – just for argument's sake.
What, in SCRIPTURE, would distinguish, say, Satan or Michael from being a part of this “species” known as “god”?
Are those two called “false gods”, or “so-called gods” in any scripture? No. They are just called “el” or “elohim” – EXACTLY like Jehovah and Jesus are called “el” or “elohim”.
So why aren't those two also members of this “species” known as “god”?
Also Kathi,
You didn't address one of my questions. I wanted to know if “the Word of YHWH” was ever said in the targums to be WITH “YHWH”.
In other words, did they ALWAYS change “YHWH” to “the Word of YHWH” – to the point that “YHWH Himself” is not even mentioned at all? Or are there scriptures where they clearly outline the fact that “YHWH” and “the Word of YHWH” worked together on something, or were with each other, or something that would make us understand that there were two?
Please give a targum example of this, if there is one.
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 27 2013,02:25) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 26 2013,13:02) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 26 2013,21:09) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 25 2013,17:17) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 26 2013,00:11) Wakeup,
The unbelieving Jews didn't call the Two Powers of Heaven a heresy until the Second Power was identified as Jesus during the Christian era. That in itself gives the idea more credibility as possible since they rejected Jesus as their Messiah and showed their lack of truth. Read above post to tigger2.
LU,Where did you hear that claim?
http://www.twopowersinheaven.com/Quote Twenty-five years ago, rabbinical scholar Alan Segal produced what is still the major work on the idea of two powers in heaven in Jewish thought. Segal argued that the two powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century C.E. He carefully traced the roots of the teaching back into the Second Temple era (ca. 200 B.C.E.). Segal was able to establish that the idea’s antecedents were in the Hebrew Bible, specifically passages like Dan 7:9ff., Exo 23:20-23, and Exo 15:3. However, he was unable to discern any coherent religious framework from which these passages and others were conceptually derived. Persian dualism was unacceptable as an explanation since neither of the two powers in heaven were evil. Segal speculated that the divine warrior imagery of the broader ancient near east likely had some relationship. In my dissertation (UW-Madison, 2004) I argued that Segal’s instincts were correct. My own work bridges the gap between his book and the Hebrew Bible understood in its Canaanite religious context. I suggest that the “original model” for the two powers idea was the role of the vice-regent of the divine council. The paradigm of a high sovereign God (El) who rules heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed god (Baal) became part of Israelite religion, albeit with some modification. For the orthodox Israelite, Yahweh was both sovereign and vice regent—occupying both “slots” as it were at the head of the divine council. The binitarian portrayal of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible was motivated by this belief. The ancient Israelite knew two Yahwehs—one invisible, a spirit, the other visible, often in human form. The two Yahwehs at times appear together in the text, at times being distinguished, at other times not.
Early Judaism understood this portrayal and its rationale. There was no sense of a violation of monotheism since either figure was indeed Yahweh. There was no second distinct god running the affairs of the cosmos. During the Second Temple period, Jewish theologians and writers speculated on an identity for the second Yahweh. Guesses ranged from divinized humans from the stories of the Hebrew Bible to exalted angels. These speculations were not considered unorthodox. That acceptance changed when certain Jews, the early Christians, connected Jesus with this orthodox Jewish idea. This explains why these Jews, the first converts to following Jesus the Christ, could simultaneously worship the God of Israel and Jesus, and yet refuse to acknowledge any other god. Jesus was the incarnate second Yahweh. In response, as Segal’s work demonstrated, Judaism pronounced the two powers teaching a heresy sometime in the second century A.D.
LU,Alan Segal sounds like the one that made the argument. Your source seems to have added to it but strangely seem to believe it is a teaching the evolved from earlier teachings.
If the Jews understood two powers in heaven as Jehovah in the OT but discredited it later when the Christians were claiming that one of the two was Jesus, would it make any difference to you?
LU,I have never seen where the Jews believed in two powers. They believe the word is the mediator between Jehovah and his creations and they personalize it. That is the closest I know to getting to what Alan Segal concluded. I am not sure he is a Jew though I heard that he was a theologian and who to me seems to believe in religious diversity.
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 27 2013,07:22) Wakeup,
I believe that Jehovah is two powers, one is the Father and one is the Son. Both are called Jehovah together and separately and together they act in complete cooperation and interdependency.
Jehovah the Father sent Jehovah the Son. Jehovah the Father gave Jehovah the Son. Jehovah the Father is not Jehovah the Son.
Lightenup.Quote Jehovah the Father sent Jehovah the Son. Jehovah the Father gave Jehovah the Son. Jehovah the Father is not Jehovah the Son That sounds like speaking in tongues.
Can you show us scriptures saying Jesus is also Jehovah his Father? If not;then its all made up,and contradictory to the scriptures.wakeup.
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 26 2013,14:03) Quote (jammin @ Nov. 26 2013,06:55) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 25 2013,16:43) Quote (jammin @ Nov. 25 2013,07:08) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 24 2013,15:25) Quote (jammin @ Nov. 24 2013,10:21) Study hard kerwin
Jammin,I have chosen to stop clinging to the things of this world and seek and his righteousness instead.
if that is true then you should know the difference between the image of GOD is the WORD and the image of GOD is his word.you said the image of GOD is his word but the ancient laws said the image of GOD is THE WORD.
if you know how to read, you should know that they are not the same.
Jammin,Those teaching of the divine word is a First Century doctrine about God's word. The capitalization is a subjective choice and means nothing. You are grasping at straws.
It does not care as the word “theos” can among other things either mean God or something of gods and God's word is of him. the word is with the god and the word is divine. Translators choose to drop the word “the” and to capitalize those words they deem need to be.
Here is an entry from the Jewish encyclopedia where they choose to capitalize the word “word”.
Quote Personification of the Word. Note: Memra (word)
did you understand what i said?ok i want you to choose one
you said the image of GOD IS HIS WORD>
my question is, what did the ancient laws say?
1. the image of GOD is his word?
2. the image of GOD IS THE WORD?
Jammin,Prove to me
* That capitalizing the word “word” makes a difference in what the word “word” means.
* That the individual who capitalized it agrees with your definition.
* That the man who wrote the word that was translated to “word” agrees with your definition.In short you are creating a false controversy.
did you get my question?my question is, what did the ancient laws say?
1. the image of GOD is his word?
2. the image of GOD is the Word?
look at the difference of the sentence/ number 1 says his word. 2 says the Word.
you said his word. but i want you to choose one from the above question
kerwin,
if the word is just the same as the Word, then why did the translators translated it as Word and not word?
use your common sense boy.Quote (jammin @ Nov. 27 2013,23:57) kerwin, if the word is just the same as the Word, then why did the translators translated it as Word and not word?
use your common sense boy.
Jammin……..The original Wording was all in uppercase lettering so your idea of translators translating in upper case and lower case lettering , only started in 900 AD nearly 1000 years after the “ORIGINAL” scriptures were written . Kerwin is right the word written in John 1:1 just means word, no different then your words except it was with God and expressed God himself . There is ONLY ONE GOD as Jesus clearly said, Jesus is not a God of any kind, He has a God and it is the same God as we have, or don't you remember were he said i am going to “MY” God and “YOUR” God , MY Father and YOUR Father, Jesus is no God Boy.peace and lvoe to you and yours………………………gene
Quote (jammin @ Nov. 27 2013,18:57) kerwin, if the word is just the same as the Word, then why did the translators translated it as Word and not word?
use your common sense boy.
Jammin,Who cares since has nothing to do with what the passage actually states.
Here is an example.
Quote Besides, it establishes, beyond all doubt, the point that our Lord and his inspired apostles recognized the duty of rendering the Word into the vulgar tongue of all people so that all men might, in their own speech, hear the wonderful things of the Lord Why did this author capitalize the word “Word”. It does not really care since even with small case the message is the same.
Note:Example source
kerwin,
bec it is no ordinary word. do you understand???
i have question but you are ignoring it
my question is, what did the ancient laws say?1. the image of GOD is his word?
2. the image of GOD is the Word?
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 28 2013,01:35) Quote (jammin @ Nov. 27 2013,23:57) kerwin, if the word is just the same as the Word, then why did the translators translated it as Word and not word?
use your common sense boy.
Jammin……..The original Wording was all in uppercase lettering so your idea of translators translating in upper case and lower case lettering , only started in 900 AD nearly 1000 years after the “ORIGINAL” scriptures were written . Kerwin is right the word written in John 1:1 just means word, not different then you words except it was with God and expressed God himself . There is ONLY ONE GOD as Jesus clearly said, Jesus is not a God of any kind, He has a God and it is the same God as we have, or don't you remember were he said i am going to “MY” God and “YOUR” God , MY Father and YOUR Father, Jesus is no God Boy.peace and lvoe to you and yours………………………gene
there is nothing wrong if jesus said that his father is his GOd.the apostles said that JEsus is God. john 20.28
phil 2.6also, the translators know what they are doing. you are not even a bible scholar to discuss these complicated things.
you dont understand the real meaning of the context of john 1.1 that is why you are just telling us that the word in john 1.1 is an ordinary word.john will never say that the Word was God if that word was just an ordinary word.
john tells us that Christ's title is the Word of God rev 19.13john 1.14 said the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. it is very obvious that Christ is the Word in john 1.1. it is a title of Christ and not an ordinary spoken word.
those who translated the word as word and not Word in john 1.1 dont know how to use the greek language.
let me post what daniel wallace said
We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article?
In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find.
To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός
“and the Word was the God”
(i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός
“and the Word was a god” (Arianism)καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“and the Word was God” (Orthodoxy).Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Daniel B. Wallace
Quote (jammin @ Nov. 28 2013,07:40) kerwin, bec it is no ordinary word. do you understand???
i have question but you are ignoring it
my question is, what did the ancient laws say?1. the image of GOD is his word?
2. the image of GOD is the Word?
Jammin,So your argument is that God's word is not ordinary word and should be capitalized and yet the common edition of the AV(Authorized King James Version) does not do that in all cases.
Here is an example when they did not.
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.
In John 1:1 they do.
The ancient laws was originally written in Koine Greek and therefore do neither. Both are sound and valid translations of what the words say but I do believe you are correct that the word “word” is capitalized to show the importance of God's word.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
